Cricket television rights 2018 (Foxtel/Seven)

Fox and Seven will have their own commentators for games they are simulcasting.

3 Likes

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!

2 Likes

So is it clear yet whether Seven are producing their games or not? Iā€™d think theyā€™d 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 itā€™d be almost identical to Seven-Fox AFL.

Seven produce their matches, Fox produce only their exclusive matches. But Fox simulcast all of Sevenā€™s anyway.

The difference being that Fox will have their own commentators for Sevenā€™s productions (or wonā€™t they)? Whereas with the AFL, Fox have to take Sevenā€™s commentary/graphics with simulcast, likewise for Seven having to take Foxā€™s commentary/graphics for simulcasts outside VIC.

Theyā€™ve already said thereā€™d 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 Nineā€™s - so it would just be the same but Fox and Seven would both be producing one for Australia.

4 Likes

I still donā€™t get that if ten offered $960m for all rights on free to air why they wouldnā€™t take it given the value theyā€™d 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.

12 Likes

Totally agree with you!! Seems someone at CA got sucked into Murdochā€™s demands. Remember we have all said, Foxtel needed cricket, cricket didnā€™t 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.

3 Likes

Thereā€™s 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!

1 Like

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 todayā€™s Sunday Herald sun that ā€œSeven want Adam Gilchrist, Ricky Ponting and Shane Warneā€.

Same article also mentioned Tim Worner had spoken to Dennis Cometti, heā€™d already tried to lure him back to the AFL. I think this is doubtful. Also odd theyā€™d mention him over Bruce McAvaney.

Same article also mentioned Delany said ā€œweā€™re 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 Iā€™ve heard on 3AW radioā€™s Sports Today program in the past, but donā€™t 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 youā€™re 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 thatā€™s 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 thatā€™s 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

1 Like

Long-time News Corp hack who writes in accordance with the company mantra. Reliable? Usually is when itā€™s about News.

1 Like

At the risk of being called hyperbolic by Jeffmister, this is disgraceful from CA! But itā€™s simple really, CA wanted Foxtel, Foxtel didnā€™t want the TEN Network. News Limited retribution. I really donā€™t care who got the Test matches but itā€™s 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!