T.V Rights coming up in a few years.

[waiting]

I had an idea and just want some ideas back on this.

Now we know that the television rights for the game will be coming up in a few years in time for the Gold Coast team.

What do you all reckon if instead of having this bidding war between 7, 9 & 10 , that all 3 got together, sat down and for the good of the game decided to share the rights(3 ways) instead of two.

I am just thinking laterally.

In these tough economic times , the way Melbourne clubs are being treated by Ian Collins(Dome) and the MCC(MCG). Clubs are losing money, not making much money out of the deals at these venues, etc.

This way , all three stations can alternate between Friday, Saturday's and Sunday games.(match of the rounds) for Sat/Sun.

More money can then come to the clubs , especially the ones struggling out of the above deals now with Gold Coast coming in.

Better coverage. More live games.

Prospering the game in country areas and ionvesting money for the development of the game, for umpires and for kids at school to grow the game and keep young kids interested in the code. All 3 codes can survive and the AFL has to realise it may never be NO 1. It should make sure all clubs survive in the current climate, better stadium deals and so forth. The game has never been stronger (looking at crowds) that they shouldnt lose focus of the people(the supporters) and not try to saturate the game.

I dont like the idea of games being played over 4 days. 3 days are enough. You need a day to relax, unwind, spend time with the family. The AFL is too worried about other codes like Soccer and Rugby that it is investing money into areas it doesnt need too. i.e second Sydney team.

Thoughts

 

[Tiger74]

This would reduce the price paid, and the AFL is after $1b next contract.

Companies are willing to pay a premium for exclusivity, because it forces consumers to use their product. If all networks have the footy, this reduces the likelihood of people watching on your network, the advertising pie is now cut 3 ways, reducing your revenues.

You idea makes sense from a supporter perspective, but this is all about $$$ now.

 

[TigerForce]

Stuff the greed, think for the people and stick together. Ch 7,9,10 and Foxtel have to show games when we have the 2 new teams playing. I doubt 3 stations could fit a total 9 games into 3 days every week.

 

[Tiger74]

Stuff the greed, think for the people and stick together. Ch 7,9,10 and Foxtel have to show games when we have the 2 new teams playing. I doubt 3 stations could fit a total 9 games into 3 days every week.

Remember at one stage 9 was going to show 4 by themselves (with the other 4 on Foxtel). Ratings and revenues will be driving all scheduling from now on.

 

[Massai]

The AFL may want a Billion, whether they get that is another matter all together. Remember, the television stations and Foxtel could all get together and make a much lower bid for the television rights citing economic issues.

What's the AFL going to do about that, if only $500 Million was offered all up by the best bid. Turn around and say too bad so sad, no television, I don't think so.

The AFL right now does not hold the whip hand on the issue of television rights given the current economic circumstances, the stations and Foxtel do and the AFL will just have to accept whatever they want to pay to show the games.

One thing though, the AFL, should in its collective wisdom set aside money from the new rights deal, for a new stadium to be built here in Melbourne, South Melbourne would be a good spot to put some considerable pressure on the MCG and Etihad to do better deals for the Melbourne Clubs.

After all, the Gold Coast is getting a pretty much brand new stadium (you can bet rights money will go towards this), its about time the Melbourne Clubs jumped up and down over this and got another stadium that is owned by the footy world here as well.

 

[Tiger74]

The AFL may want a Billion, whether they get that is another matter all together. Remember, the television stations and Foxtel could all get together and make a much lower bid for the television rights citing economic issues.

What's the AFL going to do about that, if only $500 Million was offered all up by the best bid. Turn around and say too bad so sad, no television, I don't think so.

I wouldn't be worried about the AFL, the ACCC is your problem here. If 7/9/10/Foxtel get together and agree to set their bids at certain levels to contain the price, this is collusion, and is illegal in Australia. A good example was the agreement of the airlines recently to maintain high airfreight charges by minimizing competition. Regulators in the USA, Australia, and elsewhere have been dropping massive fines on the airlines for their illegal activities in restricting competition.

 

[Redford]

I wouldn't be worried about the AFL, the ACCC is your problem here. If 7/9/10/Foxtel get together and agree to set their bids at certain levels to contain the price, this is collusion, and is illegal in Australia. A good example was the agreement of the airlines recently to maintain high airfreight charges by minimizing competition. Regulators in the USA, Australia, and elsewhere have been dropping massive fines on the airlines for their illegal activities in restricting competition.

Good post Warthog. Unusual for you.

Interview with Browne the other day would indicate that 9 may go harder this time around.

 

[B1 and B2]

If I was bidding for the TV rights I would demand a clause that I didn't have to show Richmond games.

B1

 

[TigerForce]

I wouldn't be worried about the AFL, the ACCC is your problem here. If 7/9/10/Foxtel get together and agree to set their bids at certain levels to contain the price, this is collusion, and is illegal in Australia. A good example was the agreement of the airlines recently to maintain high airfreight charges by minimizing competition. Regulators in the USA, Australia, and elsewhere have been dropping massive fines on the airlines for their illegal activities in restricting competition.

How is it collusion with all 4 stations working together? No-one's left out.

From what massai wrote, it seems more like Communism from Adolf Dimwitriou.

 

[davidrodan]

How is it collusion with all 4 stations working together? No-one's left out.

From what massai wrote, it seems more like Communism from Adolf.

SBS, ABC and 31

 

[TigerForce]

SBS, ABC and 31

I doubt they have any interest or ability in televising football nowadays.

ABC did it before in the olden days but just as replays.

 

[Baloo]

It is collusion. The same laws that Visy got done under.

If the government threw away the list of sports that *had* to be shown free to air, you might get some large global players, like News Corp, coming in to offer a cable only service.

 

[Tiger74]

How is it collusion with all 4 stations working together? No-one's left out.

From what massai wrote, it seems more like Communism from Adolf Dimwitriou.

its collusion because the networks are working together against market forces to keep a price (in this case for tv rights) artificially lower than what would happen in a competitive market.

The ACCC does allow collusion in certain circumstances, but each case has to be reviewed and approved to confirm it will not distort the market. An example is when farmers wish to collectively negotiate with various dairies to buy their milk.

 

[Massai]

its collusion because the networks are working together against market forces to keep a price (in this case for tv rights) artificially lower than what would happen in a competitive market.

The ACCC does allow collusion in certain circumstances, but each case has to be reviewed and approved to confirm it will not distort the market. An example is when farmers wish to collectively negotiate with various dairies to buy their milk.

Can be hard to prove though. For the sake of argument, lets say 7 bid $100 Million, 9 Bid $250 Million and 10 Bid $400 Million. Foxtell Bids $100 Million for its rights. Even if all 3 stations got together so everyone could watch the footy on free to air, they could still just bid $400 Million, which was the highest bid made by Channel 10.

The AFL would be in a jam, they could go with the 10 Bid only plus whatever Foxtel bid for their rights, or they could go for all 3 stations plus Foxtel total $500 Million. Clearly they'd go for the all 3 stations plus Foxtel to get as many games on air preferably live, to maximise what they can offer AFL sponsors.

At the end of the day, the stations have screwed the AFL, the AFL's revenue would be well down, which in turn would mean player payments reduced and dare I say it the "national" explansion of the game may be delayed due to lack of funding particularly when you've got several current clubs including Port Adelaide (which I do not understand) struggling financially at present.

No this time around, I reckon the TV stations will get a better deal out of it and screw AD and his AFL mates right into the ground when they go about it too. The AFL only have themselves to blame.

 

[TigerForce]

its collusion because the networks are working together against market forces to keep a price (in this case for tv rights) artificially lower than what would happen in a competitive market.

The ACCC does allow collusion in certain circumstances, but each case has to be reviewed and approved to confirm it will not distort the market. An example is when farmers wish to collectively negotiate with various dairies to buy their milk.

Yeah well there should be no problem in this case as I can't see any particular market.

Ch 7,9,10 and Foxtel are and have always been the only stations able to provide football telecast. I doubt Ch 31, ABC or SBS would be big enough to enter the competition.

 

[Liverpool]

Ch 7,9,10 and Foxtel are and have always been the only stations able to provide football telecast. I doubt Ch 31, ABC or SBS would be big enough to enter the competition.

The SBS did the World Cup soccer and thats a massive event.

Didn't they also do the Ashes one time as well when Wimbledon was on? and they do the Tour de France?
They've done the Olympics...and of course they do the Champs.League soccer too.

Maybe an SBS/ESPN bid could scupper the collusion of the other multimedia outlets? :don't know

With Monday night footy a formality then the local media outlets here will bid big time knowing they will have the ratings winner on Monday nights for the majority of the year, which is a massive guaranteed return through advertising from their sponsors.
The AFL will get close to their $1-billion or whatever they are after.

 

[Tiger74]

Yeah well there should be no problem in this case as I can't see any particular market.

Ch 7,9,10 and Foxtel are and have always been the only stations able to provide football telecast. I doubt Ch 31, ABC or SBS would be big enough to enter the competition.

Thats the problem though. The issue with collusion is it involves the players who dominate a market working illegally together to force a price outcome that benefits them more than if competition was in place. If it was an open 4 party bid, thats one thing. But what was proposed was the four networks sitting together and agreeing to bid no more than certain levels against each other. This is what got Visy/Amcor into trouble.

 

[Tiger74]

Can be hard to prove though. For the sake of argument, lets say 7 bid $100 Million, 9 Bid $250 Million and 10 Bid $400 Million. Foxtell Bids $100 Million for its rights. Even if all 3 stations got together so everyone could watch the footy on free to air, they could still just bid $400 Million, which was the highest bid made by Channel 10.

The AFL would be in a jam, they could go with the 10 Bid only plus whatever Foxtel bid for their rights, or they could go for all 3 stations plus Foxtel total $500 Million. Clearly they'd go for the all 3 stations plus Foxtel to get as many games on air preferably live, to maximise what they can offer AFL sponsors.

Speak to BA/Qantas/United/Cathay, Visy/Amcor, and the global players of the vitamins industry. All were successfully nailed for collusion and/or cartel behaviour by the ACCC. Not saying it is impossible to not get caught (won't mention a few industries I could for legal reasons), but global regulators are getting better at detecting this kind of behavior.

 

[TigerMasochist]

The SBS did the World Cup soccer and thats a massive event.

Did SBS actually do the world cup or just broadcast an international feed with a few local expert comments people to do a bit of local pre game analysis. There's a huge difference.
The reason the AFL is so desperate to further expand into Qld. and NSW. is because they have virtually half the Australian viewing population between them.
This is where they can not only grow the game but grow the media markets and subsequent advertising dollars for the next twenty, forty or hundred years.

 

[YinnarTiger]

The ABC did a pretty fair job the year 7 would not come up with what the AFL wanted.

From memory the AFL gave it to them pretty cheaply, forcing 7 to up their bid the following year.

I'm in favor of all 9 games going to Fox Sports. For a fairly reasonable monthly fee I can watch 4 games a week live. 7 and 10 refuse to provide live coverage of the games they paid for.