Well as much I hate Murdoch, Fox does a good job with footy. Seven not so much. Really interested to see what their app looks like and whether I can get it ad free. Kayo is decent but I can see it degrading and skipping and struggling and (as someone in IT) I wonder if they are actually working to improve the app or have moved to ‘break/fix’ mode because it’s ‘good enough’ for people to not complain too much.

This will drastically push up the salary cap in a couple years and this will have implications on our cap situation with so many players on long term deals. Some will soon say that it gives us a competitive advantage but I doubt it - I think the deals are tied to a percentage of the cap…

1 hour ago, bandicoot said:

America has 300m people and 32 nfl teams… that’s 1 team per 10m people. Australia has 1 team for every 1.5m… 

please tell me how 19 teams is sustainable? 

An extremely good question. Just a larger number of uncompetitive teams IMO.

19 minutes ago, rjay said:

I'm not sure what you are meaning here, but my take was that you couldn't syphon off major sports to a pay service. Streaming is a pay service...I have a feeling that people who can't afford even Kayo are going to be further shafted by this deal.

...no one is looking after the man on the street.

I'm essentially agreeing with you Rjay in that the laws are so outdated that it wouldn't have had as big of as impact when it came to negotiation.

The Anti-siphoning laws were originally geared around two parties, Free to air TV and Pay TV. ie. They were really for the Foxtels of the world. While streaming is a pay service these laws never had Telco companies or Facebook or Amazon in mind. And then you've got the subscription services that are owned by free to air networks buying exclusive rights and streaming behind a paywall! 

I'm with you we need to make sport that is part of the national identity accessable to all. However the whole thing is in dire need of a review, they've kicked the can diwn the road on this long enough and there are a heap more loopholes to exploit these days. 

Edited September 6, 20223 yr by layzie

48 minutes ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

Love it how the opening question during Q&A time for the biggest TV deal of all time was:

"What do you think the white powder was in Carey's bag?"

Icing sugar! 

16 minutes ago, roy11 said:

Hopefully we don't cop too many of those 15 Thursday Night games.

 

* from an attending POV, know it is good for the sponsors etc

Sadly more games I won’t be going to,  if you like day games then three game membership numbers will no doubt rise. There will probably only be 3 day games.

We got a heads up on Saturday of what was going to happen when Gil and Stokes were filmed seated together at Saturday’s Freo Bulldogs final. 

Edited September 6, 20223 yr by John Crow Batty

1 hour ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

Foxtel to have its own commentators and graphics for all games from 2025.

So you don't have to put up with the mistake riddled BT from that point onwards.

We need a hallelujah emoji

GAMES ONT 7 and 7PLUS

(2025-2029)

THURSDAY NIGHTS

(FIRST 75 ROUNDS)

FRIDAY NIGHTS

SATURDAY NIGHTS

(LAST EIGHT ROUNDS

SUNDAY AFTERNOONS

MARQUEE MATCHES

(DREAMTIME, ANZAC EVE

ANZAC DAY,

GOOD FRIDAY,

EASTER MONDAY

QUEEN'S BIRTHDAY.

PLUS AT LEAST

THREE ADDITIONAL MATCHES

SUCH AS THE SEASON OPENER

AND QUEEN'S BIRTHDAY EVE

 

ALL FINALS

GRAND FINAL

 

41 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

streaming was not included in the anti siphon legislation for the simple reason it wasn't thought of at the time.The rules relate only to cable networks.

The catch is that Labour said and the LNP quietly warned that if the broadcasters took advantage of streaming to avoid the "spirit"of the anti siphoning rules the legislation might be amended to include streaming

 

35 minutes ago, layzie said:

I'm essentially agreeing with you Rjay in that the laws are so outdated that it wouldn't have had as big of as impact when it came to negotiation.

The Anti-siphoning laws were originally geared around two parties, Free to air TV and Pay TV. ie. They were really for the Foxtels of the world. While streaming is a pay service these laws never had Telco companies or Facebook or Amazon in mind. And then you've got the subscription services that are owned by free to air networks buying exclusive rights and streaming behind a paywall! 

I'm with you we need to make sport that is part of the national identity accessable to all. However the whole thing is in dire need of a review, they've kicked the can diwn the road on this long enough and there are a heap more loopholes to exploit these days. 

So, it looks like neither party has the political will to update the legislation.

The big end of town is in control of our pollies on both sides of the fence...who would of thought!

4 minutes ago, rjay said:

 

So, it looks like neither party has the political will to update the legislation.

The big end of town is in control of our pollies on both sides of the fence...who would of thought!

you'd think it would be simple to legislate

just FTA vs any PAID alternative

1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

so, an increase of 35% per year

curious to see that translates to club afl-paid revenues and cap sizes

dC how does that translate??

1 minute ago, DeeZone said:

dC how does that translate??

my text was meant to be a question....left off the "?" ......sorry

7 still have the worst coverage. Imagine the biggest selling point is a fat bloke with a moustache after the game not knowing any of the players name. My grandpa could do this for free. 

 

Any word on Watch AFL for us over here in Forren?

35 minutes ago, rjay said:

 

So, it looks like neither party has the political will to update the legislation.

The big end of town is in control of our pollies on both sides of the fence...who would of thought!

The anti siphoning rules belong to another era. We are one of the few countries in the world still to have them.

They were a sop to the powerful FTA networks of the time who could see their cash cows being cherry picked. (Think Kerry Packer)

Pre pay TV we had one or two live matches broadcast each week on FTA.

It was never Shangri La

One day Foxtel will explain why they pay almost 70% of the fee for the sporting dregs of the AFL. (I certainly can't make sense of it.)

5 minutes ago, waverleyheartbreak said:

Any word on Watch AFL for us over here in Forren?

It will stay but I assume it might move from Telstra to Foxtel unless Telstra is willing to do a sub deal.(Can't see them doing it given that they dropped the free coverage from their mobile plans).

Let's hope WatchAFL improves its broadcast quality and is a fully integrated app rather than an expensive casting service

The worst thing would be if a third party gets hold of the foreign rights

Edited September 6, 20223 yr by Diamond_Jim

On 6/1/2022 at 5:06 PM, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Maybe not. Depends on what the Government chooses to do with anti-siphoning laws and streaming services. From today's The Age:

https://www.theage.com.au/business/companies/seven-boss-wants-streaming-loophole-closed-as-us-giants-vie-for-afl-rights-20220601-p5aq6w.html

Now it’s on Thursday. 

So people get what they want and they have Saturday to read about on Sunday if they don’t want to pay.

47 minutes ago, Demonland said:

 

Lucky it’s the greatest game on earth!

Wonder who got the China rights given the $10M or thereabouts that Kochie's Shanghai dream cost us

1 hour ago, Demonland said:

 

Brilliant. 7 more years of BT.

1 hour ago, Demonland said:

 

How much of the $4.5 Billion is shared between the Clubs?

3 hours ago, Deeoldfart said:

How much of the $4.5 Billion is shared between the Clubs?

Well the new deal sees an increase in broadcast rights revenue of approximately 36% per year from 2025 through to 2031 (7 years added on to the 2 years left on the current deal)

$473Million up to $643Million (per year) That's quite a hefty increase ($170Million per year)

A windfall some would say ($4.5Billion ÷ 7 years = approximately $643Million per year)

Not sure it works exactly the same way in terms of increases but if a clubs dividend is $12Million per year now, a 36% increase would push that figure up to about $16.3Million per year.  But the dividends may not increase by 36% ... could be less but it could be more

Same deal for the salary cap if using the same sorts of numbers ($12Million to $16.3Million if it's a 36% increase)

Remembering that the players must share in a certain percentage of total revenues

As DJ mentions below, the AFL hands out the dividends to the clubs but the clubs pay the players salaries.  And the money distributed is quite a complex arrangement

Obviously, the AFL has a stream of other incomes so the club dividends & salary cap amounts would be based on the overall revenue (whatever that is)

And the salary cap might be set up for yearly increases

 

Edited September 6, 20222 yr by Macca

15 minutes ago, Deeoldfart said:

How much of the $4.5 Billion is shared between the Clubs?

It's not simple .

Players presently get 28% of gross AFL revenue including the media deal. This amount is actually paid by the club and is re-imbursed differently according to a club's own revenues

Any chance they can invest in some high frame rate HD cameras so we can get footy in 4k and have goal reviews where you can actually see frame by frame what is happening (like NFL reviews) and not just a blurry mish mash of pixels?