fuck boys, give him the job already
5 Likes
I second this motion.
2 Likes
They should conduct a review into the tv rights. There was something dodgy going on there as well.
6 Likes
Wouldn’t be at all surprised if Ten have their legal team look into that report and subsequent developments.
Not sure if I agree with the double wicket rule… BUT you could introduce an extra ball if a wicket is taken or if a 4 or a 6 is scored off the last normal ball of an over
Thanks for your expert legal advice.
1 Like
I mean what would you seriously expect to happen at this stage?
Crying about it now and exploring legal options would be a classic bottom-feeder move.
3 Likes
Well in my line of work I’ve seen tender application fees - which can be substantial and usually non-refundable- and costs awarded back to unsuccessful tenders where the process was deemed to be unfair or the winning party had an advantage over other bidders which wasn’t disclosed to other parties.
Court rules new 7/Fox deal illegal. 10 wins rights in new round of negotiations. MediaSpy crashes.
Seven has rushed breathlessly to court over much less in the past.
CA would still want $1b and Ten wouldn’t even offer that even after Peever’s bottom-feeder comment.
For all of CA’s faults, they were right about Ten.
But if we are going to be critical about Ten, then if Ten are bottom feeders, one would assume CA felt SBS were lower than Ten and all the other networks, but yet in the past made no comments about SBS covering games when Nine were unable to do so, such as Australia v Bangladesh series in 2003, where the series was played in July-August and the Sunday test coverage was screened on SBS. Also note the bottom-feeder comment only came out during the negotiation process - why didn’t CA try and block Ten with the Big Bash in the first place?
Its quite clear that some of board members were doing favours for their mates at News Corp and 7 and I would be investigating whether there were favours in return or whether it came down to CA not wanting to do business with Ten. I am suspicious of the timing of David Peever’s resignation, just one week after being re-appointed
1 Like
Although unlikely in the 11th hour (as it is now), here is a possible scenario:
If Ten took legal action today and an injunction was issued preventing the broadcast on Seven and Fox,in the interim, I would assume that either CA would have to offer access through the CA platform OR Nine or SBS resources may be used to ensure there isnt viewer blackout. The injunction was successful in the interim, but contracts not set aside, I assume it would be a delay in the commencement of the new contract. If Nine did assume the rights this series under this arrangement, one would think that the fee would be on a pro-rata basis linked to the most recent agreement with BBL possibly screened on SBS or the CA platform
I suspect it’s beyond that, my thought is completely around money. But it would be good to see Seven directed to broadcast the ODI series.
I bet you’ll find hidden in the terms of bidding a clause that goes something along the lines of “Cricket Australia is not obliged or required to accept any offer”
@jb76 Peever should never have been reappointed prior to the report being released - questions quite rightly need to be asked whether the board consists of the right people to lead the sport.
I’m surprised the Government haven’t said more about it - part of the sports commissions remit is around governance in sport and this report raises questions to that
I have to agree with you 100%, it is possibly beyond that, but if Seven was included in the injunction, then anything is possible
Yeah look nothing will happen, my original point was that this dodgy Peever bloke was probably in cahoots with Fox and that’s why Ten were shut out of negotiations later on in the piece. Dwelling on the “bottom feeder” comment is irrelevant as that was feedback from the original bid not from the subsequent two larger bids ten made.
All this points to the lack of professionalism at CA board level and hence why they now have a sub standard tv rights deal.
There is no buzz for this upcoming ODI series and people couldn’t care less and certainly will not be driving any subscriptions at Fox.
Yep so glad Peever is going.
I did say its unlikely but i did suggest what could happen.
A funnier scenario - at least from a CA perspective would be if found to be “illegal” forcing CA to offer FREE access to all internationals played in Australia involving Australia but as you said @cmo nothing will happen.
I guess the only way something could happen is if it were found that voting officials received “payments for information” in relation to other bids during the negotiations for cricket rights