Sorry for double posting, but…
Fixed that for you.
But the fox cricket figures have been quite good. And the real question is have they got my subscribers in this deal? I would say that have. I joined Kayo because of it. And I know many other who have as well.
1 Like
Kayo is amazing, but it would be the dogs balls if it had Eurosport on it.
I like Seven’s BBL coverage when Ponting and Fleming are together.
4 Likes
When Fox/Seven got caught up in the hype of BBL and thought, how much money is this going to make us. Instead it’s screams of dispare and accountants working out how much has been lost.
Three days in a row of Murdoch Press slamming the deal, the deal they wanted, the deal in which people laughed at Nine when they said “it’s not worth what CA wants, it doesn’t make money like it use to”
Nine/ten must be sitting back laughing at the moment.
1 Like
and some people on here said TEN were idiots for giving it up.
CA got greedy, and as a result their Big Bash competition has gone back to the way it was in the beginning.
4 Likes
Who? I think more have said CA were idiots not going with 10.
7 Likes
Plenty of people said 10/CBS should have bid more and done whatever they could to get the rights to everything and it had to be exclusive etc.
5 Likes
10 didn’t give it up - they were outbidded. If they had won the rights, it would have been them in the firing line regarding the observations/criticisms made this Summer (though probably with less ferocity considering the biases of an increasing amount of MS members)
5 Likes
And if it were still on 10 the exact same thing that’s happening to 7/Fox would still be happening. The novelty has worn off and was always going to.
It wouldn’t be as noticeable though as 10 wouldn’t have the simulcast. So cricket beings down 100k wouldn’t be as bad as the figures 7 are seeing.
3 Likes
The figures have been on the slide for a while, just nothing as sharp as this year’s drop off.
I believe they probably extended the season too long for the bbl, instead of having such a long season, have in its place a tri series with NZ and Aust for ODI and/or T20s. Rather than standalone series ie one set in NZ and another set in Aust… The matches spread physically between NZ and Aust. And I think "making the final "will add some interest to the international short form of the game.
Test matches would remain standalone.
If their $950 million dollar bid was the winning bid, you would be right. However, if they had gotten the package 7 outbid them for - what Glennc said would likely be what happened
I’ve been wanting to say this for a while…
After looking at the ratings for the cricket, it just feels like…a balls up deal overall.
Seven’s coverage has been average, apart from a few good moments with a new innovative scoreboard during ad breaks, it just feels very formulaic and gives an impression that they’ve just given up. I know that Fox has rights to everything else but surely they could’ve produced coverage that could entice people to choose FTA over Fox.
Worst part of the deal was that no ODIs or T20s are on FTA. As a casual viewer used to be able to switch on the TV to see short form cricket being played. But now? I don’t even know it’s on until I saw the papers. How’s that for the treatment of Australia’s national sport?
Personally I feel like Seven should’ve walked away from negotiations when they heard Fox was definitely involved. They could save a ton of cash to produce better quality programs (such as new reality, drama), plus they’ve got the AFL (and Olympics) still which isn’t all bad for them. This way some people with network impartiality/fanboism might also be satisfied with Seven having no Summer sports.
Having said that, if let’s say Nine or 10 signed the deal with Fox I somehow doubt there would be as big of an outcry in comparison but that’s probably the general attitude of many these days. For me as a casual fan of cricket I think any network working with (or should I say for) Fox in degrading the national sport should bear the fury of the general Australian public, no matter if they’re the commercials or public broadcasters.
Oh well, 5 more years of this shit to go. Rant over.
2 Likes
Are we blaming Seven in isolation? Or are we blaming CA and the Fox simulcast alongside (also remembering what Network 10 allegedly offered - which seems hard to believe CA didn’t take it)? I think it’d be harsh to say “Seven’s coverage is total shit” without considering carefully all the contributing factors.
IMO (as I’ve said at least once previously), Seven’s Test coverage was good, refreshing. But BBL treated like an inferior off-shoot.
3 Likes
I found Seven’s test and T20 coverage insufferable. It almost seemed like (and this comparison might be lost on a few), NFL Network world feed broadcasts of American football vs the network coverage. It just felt flat the entire time, with a largely uninspiring commentary team.
Even when Channel Nine’s Coverage was getting more and more absurd over the years, there was always a certain mystique to it all but Seven’s just felt like a normal sports telecast. Wheeling out Bruce was a misstep too, even if his interviews were kind of interesting it just felt like a step from the past.
Fox’s coverage was very good for the most part although I felt it did slide in quality towards the end of the summer, in terms of commentary and analysis. Hopefully that was just a dull series v Sri Lanka and not a sign of things to come.
Coverage aside - of course the deal is a shocker. CA picked the worst summer in history to go behind a paywall. Having said that, it’s time we blame CA and not Fox/Seven, as some often do here.
4 Likes
thank god I wasn’t the only one
I much preferred Seven’s coverage over Fox’s. Everytime I watched Fox I was either put to sleep with how boring it was or just wanting to throw the TV out the window whenever Shane Warne spoke… or tried to predict the weather and got it wrong multiple times.
As for what Seven had, Nine or Ten wouldn’t have done any better. Fox Sports offered the money for all, no FTA would ever have matched that and Cricket Australia were only looking for the money. Fox Sports therefore owned the rights and wanted everybody to get subscriptions and watch them. The only thing spoiling their perfect plan was the anti-siphoning list and the public backlash - they could handle a small backlash but not a huge one. So, with all the rights they had everything, they just needed to provide the bare minimum so that the government wouldn’t have to get involved - hence negotiating with the FTA’s and Seven “won” but they weren’t going to get much from Fox Sports to assist and with the amount they paid they weren’t going to be able to do heaps to innovate without losing way more money but after the tennis deal they needed something.
1 Like
Hot take: The cost of the deal meant that Seven couldn’t spend any more money on an exciting coverage and just went with bare minimum. Still reckon they could’ve done something better without spending too much. Look how 10 handled BBL for many years.
Hotter take: Fox told them to do cheap coverage otherwise they won’t deal.
