Australian Cricket - New TV rights negotiations/deal

[howardj]

If the average Foxtel subscription is say around $90 per month, Fox would need an extra 656 250 subscriptions over the six-year period to cover the right's cost

Bearing in mind, in addition to the $630 million, they will have other expenses such as covering the matches, and also paying the commentators

 

[quincywagstaff]

Gerard Whateley would have to be short-odds to be the face of Foxtel's cricket coverage.

 

[GotSpin]

Things can't be too happy at Channel 10 now, considering the BBL was about the only thing making them money (hint: stop showing ****)

What were 10 thinking? How could they not be throwing all they could at it?

 

[Spark]

I think anything on the anti-siphoning list only has to be offered to FTA

If FTA channels don't take up the offer, Fox can show it exclusively

You'd suspect that they'd pick it up for one of the secondary channels if nothing else, like Seven does with the AFL in secondary markets

 

[Spikey]

FTA channels were clearly attempting to get the rights for ODIs so I'm not sure they could say "well we offered...". CA rejected their bids

 

[Burgey]

I'm actually pretty excited at the prospect of a new network covering the cricket. It may well be they end up stuffing it, but the prospect is there to bring in a different style of coverage and new commentators. Nine was complacent and the coverage was so stale. I'm hoping Seven picks up Punter and Gilly. Fleming I can take or leave. Symonds I'd prefer left out of it save for T20 stuff.

ODIs are still a massive cash cow for TV networks too. Minimum 100 ad spaces over 8 hours is big bikkies.

 

[social]

Piece of advice to anybody considering getting Foxtel to watch the cricket

1. Never pay list as it's always negotiable (e.g. free connection, transfer costs, etc)

2. If possible, bundle your subscription with phone, internet etc and go through Telstra

We have 4 boxes at home on the top package and the cost is not much more than we would pay for a couple of mobile phone plans

3. Have somebody shameless (like my wife) do the negotiating and follow up complaints as they throw in free months, discounts, etc all the time

 

[social]

Anyway, was sick of 9 so change as good as a holiday

 

[Victor Ian]

lol. You can double like a post when they post it twice

 

[Athlai]

If the average Foxtel subscription is say around $90 per month, Fox would need an extra 656 250 subscriptions over the six-year period to cover the right's cost

Bearing in mind, in addition to the $630 million, they will have other expenses such as covering the matches, and also paying the commentators

This isn't quite how it works. An American cable estimate has a $103 cable subscription having $18 of that going to sports channels. While I understand that theres a specific sports package that likely means $20-25 of a $29 sports package actually goes to "sports", it'd probably be divvied up even further between the rights packages and production costs of individual sports. So lets say.... cricket gets $10? extremely optimistically.

They're definitely using other revenue streams to make money from this. Cable TV is the worst IMO. Absolutely hate it. Blokes on here probably pay $90 a month to watch cricket so they get the pleasure of Foxtel using $80 of their money a month to produce content you personally don't give a **** about. Meanwhile they'll also advertise flagrantly during the cricket so they can afford to pay for that. It's the worst.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Listening to Stensholt on SEN being interviewed (admittedly by Andrew Maher who has a CH10 bias) but he said there was only a "matter of millions" between the winning bid and that of Channel 10.

If (and it's a big IF) Channel 10's was to put all cricket on Free To Air, then Cricket Australia's deal is a disgrace.

He also stated that Seven leaned on Cricket Australia, mentioning how they're the biggest network and can help further the reach of cricket, and this was part of the negotiations that helped convince CA. Not putting CA in any better of a light - is there really anyone who would have been watching BBL and didn't because they didn't realise it was on Channel 10?

Having called Channel 10 bottom-feeders, who have been the best broadcast team in Australia over the past four years, their treatment by CA has been pretty awful.

 

[howardj]

Fox has done well as they're only paying $5 million more per year more than Nine were plus they're getting the Big Bash

Granted, they don't have exclusivity for Tests and 43 games of the Big Bash

43 games is a lot of Big Bash content for Seven, and will make up - quantity wise - their lost tennis content

 

[Starfighter]

Listening to Stensholt on SEN being interviewed (admittedly by Andrew Maher who has a CH10 bias) but he said there was only a "matter of millions" between the winning bid and that of Channel 10.

If (and it's a big IF) Channel 10's was to put all cricket on Free To Air, then Cricket Australia's deal is a disgrace.

He also stated that Seven leaned on Cricket Australia, mentioning how they're the biggest network and can help further the reach of cricket, and this was part of the negotiations that helped convince CA. Not putting CA in any better of a light - is there really anyone who would have been watching BBL and didn't because they didn't realise it was on Channel 10?

Having called Channel 10 bottom-feeders, who have been the best broadcast team in Australia over the past four years, their treatment by CA has been pretty awful.

None of that would surprise me. The biggest bottom feeder is Peever.

 

[howardj]

This isn't quite how it works. An American cable estimate has a $103 cable subscription having $18 of that going to sports channels. While I understand that theres a specific sports package that likely means $20-25 of a $29 sports package actually goes to "sports", it'd probably be divvied up even further between the rights packages and production costs of individual sports. So lets say.... cricket gets $10? extremely optimistically.

They're definitely using other revenue streams to make money from this. Cable TV is the worst IMO. Absolutely hate it. Blokes on here probably pay $90 a month to watch cricket so they get the pleasure of Foxtel using $80 of their money a month to produce content you personally don't give a **** about. Meanwhile they'll also advertise flagrantly during the cricket so they can afford to pay for that. It's the worst.

Fair call mate, I also didn't take into account subscribers that they may now hang on to that were otherwise going to cancel.

 

[social]

Listening to Stensholt on SEN being interviewed (admittedly by Andrew Maher who has a CH10 bias) but he said there was only a "matter of millions" between the winning bid and that of Channel 10.

If (and it's a big IF) Channel 10's was to put all cricket on Free To Air, then Cricket Australia's deal is a disgrace.

He also stated that Seven leaned on Cricket Australia, mentioning how they're the biggest network and can help further the reach of cricket, and this was part of the negotiations that helped convince CA. Not putting CA in any better of a light - is there really anyone who would have been watching BBL and didn't because they didn't realise it was on Channel 10?

Having called Channel 10 bottom-feeders, who have been the best broadcast team in Australia over the past four years, their treatment by CA has been pretty awful.

10s coverage was very good IMO

Only issue I had with it was that in QLD, night games overlapped with The ****ing Project and they started on one of Ten's digital channels

Unfortunately, Foxtel doesn't pick up that channel which meant that I had the inconvenience of changing the source on my tv #firstworldproblems

Anyway, further proof that CA really doesnt give a toss about grassroots

 

[Victor Ian]

I hate the idea of pay-TV. They make you buy all this shot you never watch and then still advertise. I don't care if they are advertising their other shows. It is still an advert. I think I'll be looking for a stream I can pay for where I only get what I want... Cricket.

 

[quincywagstaff]

Sure, Cricket Australia went after the money deal but that's par for the course with sporting rights these days. Even if it means a lower reach for some matches, the sporting organisation will take it.

But I don't have much sympathy for Channel 10 - it was a total no-brainer for them to go after the cricket rights in full. They were probably thinking that Channel 7 weren't going to go for the rights because they had the tennis so Ch 9 poaching them not only surprised CA but Ch 10 as well.

That 9/10 revised their offer significantly up in the latter stages and that was still below Ch 7/Foxtel offer just shows how badly they mishandled it. A massive wasted opportunity.

 

[quincywagstaff]

Some domestic one-day matches and the Sheffield Shield will appear on Foxtel as well as the PM XI match.

But it appears ODI/T20s are only going to be on Pay-TV from now on. That's a surprise, they still generally rated well.

 

[Borges]

They will be forced to make it very affordable to cricket fans; or they will lose out on advertising revenue. With advertising allowed, the fans always win.

 

[DriveClub]

If the average Foxtel subscription is say around $90 per month, Fox would need an extra 656 250 subscriptions over the six-year period to cover the right's cost

Bearing in mind, in addition to the $630 million, they will have other expenses such as covering the matches, and also paying the commentators

$90/month?? Are you kidding me? I got no money for that!