Yes this was in the press release. Seven had purchased the rights to all international cricket in Australia, and then onsold the pay and host broadcaster rights to tests to Fox. They also onsold the pay rights to Fox for the men’s ODIs and T20Is and chose not to broadcast them themselves.
2 Likes
Seven have the rights, as you say. But they are not hoarding them.
Seven may well have paid nothing for the One Day International and T20 rights, but we don’t know what if anything they paid … but we do know that Foxtel bought those rights.
2 Likes
no Foxtel has the pay TV rights not the FTA rights which Seven have and again are hoarding them which is against the rules but again this government is not going to go after Seven of News Corp about it as they say its basically a loophole.
Lets say that if Seven were to on-sell the rights it could only be to another FTA channel and only then if the other FTA do not want them then they could offer it to pay TV as a complimentary broadcast service.
As far as we all know Seven have not offered any other FTA network to opportunity to buy these ODI’s, hence the term “hoarding”.
1 Like
Shareholders in Seven West Media and Seven Group Holdings should be asking why the cricket rights that were talked up by the then Seven West CEO in April 2018 as a profitable deal is now a loss maker and a strain on Seven West.
4 Likes
if this is true, then it is not a
What I am saying is that while Seven Studios already made shows for other networks (A Place to Call Home for Foxtel and Back to the Rafters for Amazon) under SWM’s ownership, once it is sold it is no different to other production companies like Screentime, Fremantle and Hoodlum. If Seven Studios stays in SWM ownership but (say) relaunched in a new name, it can produce shows for ABC, Nine, 10 and SBS as well, providing extra income for SWM.
that must of been some good Colombian stuff he consumed just prior to saying such stupidity.
Everyone could see that the Cricket TV rights deal was bad for business.
What makes it worse for Seven is that BBL is not under any anti-siphoning restriction and as such when Seven gave away “Saturday nights” to Crap Sports they basicaly sold all their collective souls down a river as the advertisers said GET FUCKED , the killer is the ODI, buying them and then not showing them again not being able to make money on those ad break spots.
Again one word: IDIOTS.
2 Likes
Seven needs to be getting away from the sole source of income being selling advertising on declining FTA. It’s down 8-10% year on year
They need alternate income and revenue
They need to be in the streaming business
They need to be in the digital business
They need to be in the OTT news channel business
And they need to be in the production business. Making shows for 7, 9, 10, abc, Foxtel. NZ, Amazon. Apple. Netflix.
Selling the studio business seems to be a backwards step - meaning they are cutting a income source and relying more and more on ad revenue for a declinhnh business
Look at Disney +. Peacock. All access CBS. The fox : Disney merger. Everyone is trying to sources New income streams and TV is dying (content is not)
What is seven doing? Selling everything that is not broadcast TV. Putting all their eggs I a declining basket- not smart
7 Likes
Only if the minister declares it - the anti-hoarding provisions operate independently of the anti-siphioning list
Their claim was that it was “more for less” - I doubt they predicted that the impact of the ball tampering incident would be as long lasting either
1 Like
Seven seems to be forgetting that it is still getting income from sales of MKR, House Rules and Home and Away to overseas broadcasters.
The studio sale also means Seven will no longer hold copyright to these shows. Can you imagine Seven not holding the entire archive of Home and Away?
Like I said it’s not likely that the current government will go after Seven on this issue as they have said it themselves that the loophole exists and they are not going to close it down, it’s how Nine and Seven can on sell FTA games of AFL and NRL to Pay TV without having to sell them first to a different FTA service
News Corp knows this loophole as they basically write the rules to have this opened up them.
1 Like
Until the Broadcasting Reforms in 2017, this was specifically dealt with by way of varying the Anti-siphoning list
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2017C00946
Australian Rules Football
4.1 Each match in the Australian Football League Premiership competition, including the Finals Series, except for:
(a) all matches to be played as part of the 2017 Australian Football League Premiership competition, including the Finals Series but excluding the Grand Final.Rugby League Football
5.1 Each match in the National Rugby League Premiership competition, including the Finals Series, except for:
(a) all matches to be played as part of the 2017 National Rugby League Premiership competition, including the Finals Series but excluding the Grand Final.
3 Likes
But it can do that now. No name change required.
1 Like
The end of the article pretty much sums up one of the dominant themes of the commercial TV landscape over the past decade - financial troubles. Nine & 10 both went through tough periods last decade and now it’s Seven’s turn at the start of a new one to go through a similar period
1 Like
Seven Group mopping up the rest of Seven West for peanuts is a possibility I guess, but then Seven Group would have to take on the debt.
Seven and 10 have now gone through tough periods twice (first time was in the 1990s when they both went into receivership).
2 Likes
[citation needed] there Mumbrella
Well he did get Supercars the rotten excuse me current TV rights deal which has nearly destroyed the sport.