Fox and Seven will have their own commentators for games they are simulcasting.
If Mitch Fifield wanted to, he could suggest that Cricket Australia should allow SBS or ABC to simulcast BBL and ODIs in the absence of 7 being willing to screen them.
This could be something they could play on during the next federal election campaign - ensuring access to sports on the anti-siphoning list.
Back in 2005, SBS covered the Ashes Series in England after other networks failed to obtain the rights
And the other networks are still regretting that, as that will go down as one of if not the best Ashes ever! And SBS coverage was spot on!
So is it clear yet whether Seven are producing their games or not? Iād think theyād push CA to do so. Awks otherwise and weird.
Seems wasteful to have more than one set of cameras filming, surely.
According to the papers they are sharing production and will have different commentary teams. Sounds like similar terms to the way NRL coverage is simulcasted, using 9 cameras but Fox graphics.
Very interestingā¦
Bill Lawry and Dennis Cometti could join the coverage.
Really?
I assumed itād be almost identical to Seven-Fox AFL.
Seven produce their matches, Fox produce only their exclusive matches. But Fox simulcast all of Sevenās anyway.
The difference being that Fox will have their own commentators for Sevenās productions (or wonāt they)? Whereas with the AFL, Fox have to take Sevenās commentary/graphics with simulcast, likewise for Seven having to take Foxās commentary/graphics for simulcasts outside VIC.
Theyāve already said thereād be a host graphics free feed and Fox and Seven will do their own thing.
This is already done for cricket for some overseas broadcasters - BT Sport for example had their own commentary and graphics for the Ashes, rather than using Nineās - so it would just be the same but Fox and Seven would both be producing one for Australia.
I still donāt get that if ten offered $960m for all rights on free to air why they wouldnāt take it given the value theyād get rather than the $40m extra from fox to have limited exposure. The business case does not stack up.
Ten would have every right to feel cheated on how cricket Australia conducted the deal. Seems very unprofessional.
Totally agree with you!! Seems someone at CA got sucked into Murdochās demands. Remember we have all said, Foxtel needed cricket, cricket didnāt need fox.
This also has a bit of we will get cricket (Murdoch) to just cause maximum pain for Ten(cbs) after they won that! Typical Murdoch play book!
So sad.
Thereās talk today of Steve Smith joining Fox Sports coverage during the next summer, both in the commentary box and on any new magazine shows. Would be a big coup if so!
He had a deal with them, although he was scrubbed out of their promos (replaced by Tim Paine) after the whole ball tampering incident. Very well spoken, did well on his appearance on Back Page over summer.
Such was the case when WIN spat the dummy and nearly lost their affiliation with Nine and they were required to still show it (tho it never happened)
I read in todayās Sunday Herald sun that āSeven want Adam Gilchrist, Ricky Ponting and Shane Warneā.
Same article also mentioned Tim Worner had spoken to Dennis Cometti, heād already tried to lure him back to the AFL. I think this is doubtful. Also odd theyād mention him over Bruce McAvaney.
Same article also mentioned Delany said āweāre not ruling anybody outā and that Steve Crawley (Fox Sports head) will essentially head it up, formerly Nine of course.
This article was from NRL journalist Phill Rothfield, who Iāve heard on 3AW radioās Sports Today program in the past, but donāt know much about him. Reliable? Seemed to have a hell of a lot of into/sources/leaks.
This is an even worse misunderstanding of anti-siphoning than the comment youāre replying to.
There would have been absolutely no requirement that Nine arrange for another broadcaster into regional areas had the affiliation agreement lapsed.
They talked about it, but thatās all it is - talk - at no point under any legislation that exists - would there have been a requirement for that, or for the ODIs and T20is now, to be broadcast on any FTA network.
Perhaps @Moe needs to re-read what is being said rather than claiming it is a misunderstanding of anti-siphoning. There is no obligation for any network to screen any product they may hold the rights to. A government can express disappointment in a decision on any matter, can express on such matters where something isnt available to the general public, but thatās all they can do unless legislation grants them powers to intervene.
Mitch Fifield has dismissed the idea of intervening or that there is a possible breach of anti-siphoning legislation by saying its between CA, Foxtel and 7.
One can hope that there is nothing in writing to prevent 7 from showing T20 internationals and ODIs beyond this year, otherwise it would have to be the worst TV rights deal in history.
The words he could suggest, means although no obligation for him to intervene exists, he could suggest an option - which in turn there is no obligation to fulfil such a suggestion. Perhaps I should have been more clearer so that @Moe could understand what is being said
Long-time News Corp hack who writes in accordance with the company mantra. Reliable? Usually is when itās about News.
At the risk of being called hyperbolic by Jeffmister, this is disgraceful from CA! But itās simple really, CA wanted Foxtel, Foxtel didnāt want the TEN Network. News Limited retribution. I really donāt care who got the Test matches but itās very unfair that TEN built up the Big Bash and then lost it. Disclosure, as I stated in a previous post I have Fox sports so can watch BB there. I try to keep my TV of 7 as much as possible!