this iam not suprised at. i have heard that bruce wasnt happy with how 10 ended up esp since its now owned by viacomcbs. and with bruce trying to buy prime would that still be an affliate of 7?? i hope he doesnt buy prime and i hope the federal paraliment dont bend the knee and allow this to happen. the win tv shitstain watermark isnt the best. having this on 2 stations yeah no thanks . the prime7 transparent watermark does me fine . and not the full colour in your face win tv watker marks. can you imagine what would happen if bruce did own prime
5 Likes
God I hope this isn’t true. If it is, I hope that 9 has negotiated to retain at least some of their brand identity and not let Bruce’s egomaniacal branding habits get in the way. But I’m not optimistic.
4 Likes
the only thing I would say 9 could do is sate that: win tv has to use the 9 brandings including keeping the watermark and bruce couldn’t put his old Crawford tv-shows on either 9 or the multichannel and I do hope this is true IF he does buy prime. if the fed govt does allow Gordon to own more then one network and he goes and mucks up prime esp since there regional Australia’s number 1 network prime wouldn’t be happy
1 Like
I presume if this happens that WIN will need to keep 10 for Northern NSW
4 Likes
i would assume this would revert back to the old affliation. which means that win would loose 10 in nsw and would then hand it back to sca
1 Like
If something had been “secured”, Nine or SCA would have to inform their shareholders with a statement to the ASX.
If anything maybe there’s a handshake/elbow tap agreement - but I’m sure any mumblings about a deal with WIN are seeking to extract more value from SCA - as is Nine’s goal. They don’t care whether they affiliate with SCA or WIN - they’ll take the highest bidder.
And no - WIN will never be allowed to buy Prime.
Move along, nothing to see here.
16 Likes
Just the classic case of self-generated chatter to get a better deal from SCA. Nothing to see.
11 Likes
That doesn’t make sense unless you are saying @camo is a Nine operative.
WIN has nothing to gain promoting Nine’s position on the bargaining table.
1 Like
of course, it doesn’t make sense what @Moe and @Affable are saying. I think people need to understand and not dismiss the idea that some people in here have sources that are in media itself. and clearly, @camo who has a source at a win or knows someone who is tivy to it. don’t dismiss this notion by any means. even I have heard that bruce isn’t happy with 10 and wants out
What they’re saying makes perfect sense, actually.
2 Likes
Agreed
The only potential question mark here is whether SCA wants to stay in television, and it’s clear the company doesn’t. Only problem is they’d need a buyer for their assets, and I can’t see any of the metro stations jumping on board with that in this economy.
1 Like
No one wants to be the Ten affiliate - they have the lowest ratings, and even worse regionally due to the demographics Ten target being skewed towards metro areas.
Southern Cross optimised their business for that, running an ultra low cost Ten affiliate, very little rebranding, bare minimum local content and more. WIN come into it with a high cost base, so they’ve learnt now how much more value a Nine affiliation has to them.
So, yes - it’s very likely that WIN are talking to Nine and making good offers to them to try and get that affiliation back. Likewise, there were those rumblings regarding whether SCA were booking multi-platform ad sales as sales for their radio station to reduce their television revenue, and thus reduce their revenue based affiliate fee share.
As I did there - you can make a very good case for there being an affiliation swap. As such, you can make a very believable post that it’s happening - because you are building a “rumour” on top of what is something that is in the realm of possibility, which makes it sound credible.
The problem is - as I said, a deal needs to be notified to shareholders. That it has not been, means there’s not a deal. It’s that simple. Publicly traded companies simply must make their shareholders aware of major changes like that.
A non-final deal is no deal at all. Just ask those at Ten about the done deal they had on Cricket rights…
13 Likes
Viacom isn’t throwing money around but maybe they see sense in owning the assets and not having to deal with regional affiliates flailing and not being stable, plus not having to deal with Win would be an advantage if they bought SCA TV assets
5 Likes
While there is allegedly some friction between SCA and Nine around affiliation fees, the door remains ajar for a swap back.
@Moe is right that any agreement would have to be reported to shareholders, but it wouldnt surprise me if Nine are close to reaching an agreement with either SCA or WIN
5 Likes
As Moe said, there is no deal until shareholders have been informed and a statement has been released.
Don’t forget, Win management are also on the record for saying they were completely blindsided by 9 in 2016 when 9 and SCA announced their affiliation deal at the last minute.
1 Like
I wouldn’t be surprised either. I wouldn’t be surprised if Gordon shops around SCA or WIN. Gordon sounds like the more money he can get the better type of person. and I think SCA would like to if they could offload to win tv . and take over the 10 afflication. reason: I am thining the local news. If SCA offloaded to win. they would perhaps have more money and win already has a local news service
That makes no sense. No one wants to be affiliated with Ten.
3 Likes
I guess the question must be asked - how realistic would a reversal of the affiliation switch be? To be honest, I can’t see it happening unless 9 buys WIN and 10 buys SCA’s television assets, if and when the relevant legislation changes. How desperate are WIN to get back with Nine? Are SCA willing to part with their television assets? I knew the 50% affiliation fee was way too much, and looks like it’s biting them in the backside.
1 Like
i agree, i was just shocked to hear this from people who work at WIN, inside the motherstation. I hope its not true at all