Bluey's Dad
-
Posts
2,821 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Bluey's Dad
-
-
6 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:
That is the total number of foxtel subscribers .... the number who sign up because of the AFL package would be far fewer.
Total membership of all clubs is a tad under 1 million but that is often 2-3 persons per household. My figure of 1 million is reasonable but even at say 1.5 million the amounts are around the same. Remember under the internet package you are getting nothing but the AFL.... no movies.. no Game of Thrones etc etc
As to advertising who would pay for a service with ads especially a lot of ads. Foxtel advertising revenue would not be that great. In many cases it's just promos for other shows. I agree banner advertising might get you a few dollars
You're probably right about the AFL signups. Unfortunately we have no figures to work with and we're forced to make assumptions.
I'm also coming from the assumption that the AFL package is the only worthwhile thing on Foxtel's offering - which is true for me but unlikely to be true for lots of other people. There's just so much garbage on Foxtel, I don't see the point and frankly I resent being forced to pay for content I don't need.
If there's some crap on Netflix, I don't really care at $18 per month. I'm getting value. There is no value in Foxtel for me because the only content I want is so limited. This is what I feel is unfair.
Actually I've just gone to Foxtel's website for the first time in ages, they have some special for 12 months at $39 per month. Starting to get reasonable. Rough maths says $40 per month, 4 MFC games a month, $10 per game. I think I can handle that.
I've got some examining to do now.
-
58 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:
Foxtel use AFL as a loss leader to sell their subscriptions.
The sports package premium itself would go nowhere near what they pay for the rights.
So that begs the question. In an internet world selling just the sports package what would we mugs pay?
Hard to say to the last dollar but in simple terms the rights are now worth $418M per year. Let's assume there are 1 million people prepared to pay for an AFL subscription. At that fee we would need to each pay $418 per year plus a share of production costs.
As you can see if you only took foxtel for the six months of the AFL season you are getting line ball on what we would need to pay under an AFL internet model. Where I think we all have a very legitimate beef with Foxtel is that it is selling old school technology in the sense that its premium HD model only goes to one TV set etc. Foxtel Go is a much better product but it lacks HD and a lot of the other bells and whistles that we have come to expect.
For the sake of my argument I have ignored what the FTA network contributes to the rights deal as increasingly they will desert the field as the rights prices increase.
Good point on the viability, but I think you're very light on the number of people who'd sign up.
According to this:
Foxtel had 5.3 million subscribers in 2016.
$418 million / 5.3 million = $78.87 each per annum.
Of course that's assuming every single Foxtel subscriber switches to the new theoretical internet alternative. But it also assumes zero takeup of non-fox customers to the new system. I would certainly do so at that price, as would many others I think.
The truth is probably somewhere between your 1 million and my 5.3 million guestimates. We also assumed they make zero dollars on advertising/sponsorship and that the assumed subscription cost must cover the entire $418 million. I reckon they'd generate some pretty good advertising dollars on just banner adds within the app before/after the game or between quarters (not even between goals).
-
1
-
-
I would happily pay a small fee, on par with what the AFL app charges, to be able to watch Melbourne games live on my TV.
But TV rights are apparently different to streaming rights, even though in my home there is no difference between an internet streaming device and my TV.
My TV is an internet enabled device and should be treated as such by the relevant stakeholders. I do not watch free to air and will not pay extortionate 'package' rates to foxtel for content I will not watch to view 2 hours a week of content I do watch (1 Melbourne game per week).
They're forcing an out-dated business model down the public's throat and frankly it makes me angry. I am a 32 year old male white collar worker with a family. I sit in a highly valued demographic for advertisers because of my disposable income and age. Their advertisers can't reach me because they're using this idiotic agreement that says internet streaming should be restricted to a 7 inch diagonal screen. In my house all screens are streaming devices.
I am literally sitting here saying I am willing to pay for the AFL's content. Real dollars. Right now. But I want to watch it in HD on my TV screen, not on my piddly little tablet/phone.
Let's have a little perspective here AFL. I pay $18 per month for a Netlix subscription, which provides 4 family members with countless hours of entertainment every week. Lets say, conservatively, 1 hour per day per person. 28 hours of TV per week for $18 a month.
All I'm asking is 2 hours a week, for 1 person (1 MFC game per week). I'd even pay the same rate as I pay Netflix - $18 per month.
The only way I can get this content is to pay Foxtel $50 a month. For one screen. For 2 hours a week, for content 1 person in the family will watch and a whole lot of crud mixed in. Or I can pay Telstra $100 ($12.50 per month for an 8 month season) to watch it on my goddamn phone.
These are not options. These are carefully curated business practices designed to make me pay more (Foxtel) for less (2 hours a week).
-
5
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, DemonAndrew said:
it's gawn
he's brilliant in the media and every broadcast wants a piece of him
"My favourite ruckman tackling my least favourite team mate" was gold
Would love him commentating if he wasn't playing for us. A lot more genuine flavour and humour than the forced, boisterous, ego-inflated, obnoxious faux banter that's forced down our throats on a regular basis. *Cough* BT *cough*
-
3
-
-
22 minutes ago, monoccular said:
If Bugg wants to become a regular he must markedly improve his disposal......
Is a zooper actually a thing / a product? I had thought that it was just some inane attempt at labelling something not so super. ie a goal from 40 metres, soon like something super.
Yeah Zooper Dooper is a kind of icy-pole.
Ridiculous that they sponsor the super-goal and so it has to be called a "zooper goal". I feel like it undermined the fact that we were watching a SPORT, not a paid-for product placement.
Or maybe that's exactly what it was.
TBH I felt the entire AFLX experience was over-commercialised. Zooper goals, circus acts, smoke machines, LED goal posts.
I think if you took away the superfluous gawdy crap and just played the game (seriously though, without most players going soft to avoid injury) it was actually OK. I actually enjoyed the game itself, when I could watch it and when the players were putting in the effort.
I would have preferred some actual analysis of the tactics than the crap they had on. It was a new game and I think it would have been nice to see some experts break down some of it in real time. I realise that without a pause between score and kick-in, it's difficult, but it could have been included in the half time break.
I also enjoyed watching sport without gambling ads and odds before every kick off. But then every 5 minutes they would do a split screen with the boundary ride. I could barely see the action whilst the interviews were going on. Astounding decision. If they MUST televise the interview during play, do a picture-in-picture thing with the field of play in the entire screen and the interview in the bottom right or left something, not obscuring the actual play.
-
1
-
-
Trump is an idiot.
Repealed Obama's law that would have made it harder for the mentally ill to buy guns.
Then he has the audacity to blame shooting on mental illness.
As for Obama's 'lack of action' on gun laws, the Democrats had control of Congress from 2009-2011. This was the window for action, and from memory that window was used to pass the ACA. After that, The GOP took control of Congress, making meaningful changes to gun control legislation extremely difficult. Even during that window in 2009-2011, the Democrats had fewer than 60 seats in the Senate - which is generally what is required to avoid a filibuster. So any significant gun control legislation would have stalled at this point anyway.
Sandy Hook happened in 2012. So America's greatest impetus for improving their gun control laws took place when the GOP controlled Congress - obviously nothing was going to pass.
Make no mistake here, the GOP is the biggest impediment to meaningful reform in the USA on gun control. The NRA has donated millions to them in order to keep gun laws where they are:
https://www.absentdata.com/blog/nra-politician-donations/
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, Stretch Johnson said:
I have complete confidence in the AFL
lol wtf is this?
I assume this is some sort of doctored photo right? The AFL didn't seriously promote their new brainfart as a literal circus?
-
1
-
-
14 hours ago, Ethan Tremblay said:
Sounds like the AFL are going to be doing a bit of reverse scalping. Standing outside the gates paying people to csome in.
I hear some regimes pay China to send supporters to sporting events.
Not that I would equate the AFL with North Korea. One is a totalitarian regime with a terrifying propaganda arm run by a madman, and the other is a totalitarian regime with a terrifying propaganda arm run by a FAT madman.
-
3
-
-
2 hours ago, nutbean said:
i was talking generically.
Hillary won't go to jail - not sure why Wrecker thinks she will. ( my comment on strong enough evidence - was more a reflection on the Whitewater saga going back some years)
I can absolutely see Trump being indicted for obstruction. I was always iffy about anyone in the administration being indicted for collusion. The administration and campaign wasn't functional enough to tie their own shoelaces let alone collude.
I think once Mueller finishes his investigation, we'll see that Page and Manafort at the very least colluded with the Russians.
We already know Flynn was talking to Russians before the election, making promises he wasn't legally allowed to (promising to lift Obama's sanctions when Trump was elected). He's now co-operating with Mueller. Manafort and Papadopoulos also took deals.
I agree Trump himself probably didn't collude, and left that stuff to his campaign staff.
Also agreed Trump will probably end up getting done for obstruction of justice rather than collusion. He said on TV that he fired Comey because of the Russia investigation, but only a few days beforehand the White House released a statement saying the complete opposite. Since his campaign is the target of that investigation, he directly benefits by getting rid of Comey. It's obscene. His next target will be Rosenstein, as requesting the DAG to fire Mueller will [censored] off too many Republicans and lead to impeachment (or at least his own party demanding his resignation as with Nixon). If he gets rid of Rosenstein he can put someone else in place who'll restrict Mueller without having to fire him and deal with that fallout.
Trump himself said that he would not have appointed Jeff Sessions as AG if he knew Sessions would recuse himself from overseeing the Russian investigation (he has a conflict of interest). The appointment and supervision of the special investigator fell to Rosenstein in Sesson's stead and Trump is very unhappy with this. He thought appointing Sessions would avoid this sort of thing, but Sessions was smart enough to realise that he couldn't oversee a special investigator if he was a possible target.
I'm also pretty concerned that Trump chose not to place sanctions on the Russians for the election meddling, considering Congress passed that resolution something like 400 to 5 or whatever (can't remember the exact numbers). Even the Republicans want the Russians punished, but Trump flinched. The optics aren't good - Trump's campaign investigated for colluding with the Russians and then Trump decides not the punish them for the electoral manipulations.
Today's been pretty interesting so far. Nunes claimed Trump never met with George Papadopoulos, and then the internet finds a tweet Trump made during the campaign that shows them at the same table. Nunes is a piece of work - releasing a memo calling into question that FISA application but refusing to release the Democratic rebuttal memo. Partisan BS.
Hillary has absolutely nothing to do with this. This is all on Trump and his people. Maybe the only Hillary-related issue is that Trump promised to 'lock her up', but hasn't done it. I think he was shocked that being President doesn't actually give you direct control over law enforcement or the courts. I very much doubt he understands how the separation of powers in the US operates, which is why he's in this mess right now.
-
1
-
-
I feel like the worst of the 'unsportsman-like conduct' in AFL comes from the administration.
The more commercial AFL gets, the less 'sporting' it becomes. 'Sporting' suggests an ethical, I suppose 'gentlemanly' approach to a contest - at least in my mind. The AFL itself has become so conflicted that it's not consistent with this principle.
I think the players, on the field at least, are pretty good as a whole. The administration however is a different beast.
-
4
-
-
1 hour ago, binman said:
Oh yes, simply hilarious old chap. I nearly spat out my tepid earl grey when i saw that post!
How about we have a little wager old chap. I bet that scally wag ne'er do well, T Mac's younger brother, if not injured, plays the first ten game of the season in the firsts. If he does i get to choose you avatar for the remainder of the season. If he doesn't you can choose my avatar for the remainder of the season.
Now, given how you lowly you rate the young fella (and you are clearly are an expert judge in both humor and the ability of AFL footballers) this bet is seriously weighted in your favor. But i am prepared to take that risk old chap. Just for a little fun and a few giggles.
If you choose not to i can only assume you lack the courage of your convictions (unlikely given you a re MFC supporter o dome long standing) or you are, what do the young people say - a troll?
But no doubt you are a man of honor so if you do not accept my little wager i assume you will desist from making and further snide remarks or puerile critiques of T Mac's younger brother's ability of character.
Tally ho. Are we on?
Yay avatar bets!
I lost mine and have to wear this hat (Ethan made it for me).
Need more people to join the misery!
-
5
-
1
-
-
24 minutes ago, Ethan Tremblay said:
6% GDP growth under Trump compared to a maximum of 3% under Obama. Hispanic unemployment at an all time low.
Are you trolling? Jeez you know how to suck me back into this crap.
6% is a prediction made by Trump. Not an actual figure.
If your 3% under Obama stated above correct (I don't know if it is or not), then it is above the 30 year long-term average of 2.5%.
Source: http://fortune.com/2017/12/07/trump-us-gdp-growth-rate-economy-6-percent/
Now given the man can't keep his own government running atm, I'm not going to trust his economic forecasts. If he achieves 6% then good on him. I'll be happy. My super fund balance will be very happy.
And before you go blaming the Democrats for the shutdown, Trump said in 2013 that government shutdowns are the responsibility of presidents:
Trump spoke to “Fox & Friends” in 2013 and was asked who would be fired during a government shutdown, as shown in a clip posted by "Morning Joe."
“Well, if you say who gets fired it always has to be the top,” Trump said. “I mean, problems start from the top and they have to get solved from the top and the president’s the leader. And he’s got to get everybody in a room and he’s got to lead.”
He said that further down in history, “when they talk about the government shutdown, they’re going to be talking about the president of the United States, who the president was at that time.”
“They’re not going to be talking about who was the head of the House, the head the Senate, who’s running things in Washington,” Trump said.
“So I really think the pressure is on the president,” he added.
Fact check on source: https://www.snopes.com/trump-criticize-obama-shutdown/
The man who campaigned on his ability to make deals could not make a deal to keep his government from shutting down, despite the GOP having a majority in both houses which makes the negotiation significantly easier than if one was in minority.
Some more good quotes on the snopes page as well, Trump unleashes on Obama's lack of leadership, blaming the 2013 shut down on his inability to negotiate. Trump fails as a President by the standard he set himself while criticising his predecessor.
-
7 minutes ago, Demons11 said:
Great news!!! As a Financial planner I will now look to use Zurich as my number 1 insurance provider.?
They just purchased OneCare insurance from ANZ Wealth.
Will be interesting times, I think the deal makes them Australia's largest insurer now, overtaking TAL.
-
1
-
-
-
2 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:
I accept that injuries can occur at any time and that the risk of injury is not a reason not to proceed with AFLX. But it's pointless for AFL's top line talent. That's why it should not proceed.
On the other hand, if the AFL truly believes there's an international market for a game that can be played on standard rectangular fields, then by all means, trial the concept. But use retired players or VFL players to prove the concept.
Yep, it's all because of the rectangular fields. I'm no expert, but surely there a bunch of cricket ovals dotted around the world? Surely England, India and NZ would be more viable international targets given they have the existing infrastructure to play AFL as it is and not requiring the expense of a concept trial.
I'm pretty unexcited by the concept TBH. Even if it does get some traction internationally, it'll still be an "AFL-lite" product. The real thing will always be better. The only reason the AFL seems to want to ship an inferior product is field size.
-
Would use any of those @Ethan Tremblay but the bet was with Wrecker.
Still awaiting his response.
-
Just checked, @Wrecker45 apparently.
Pick your subject and I will upload. I concede defeat.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Trisul said:
Which avatar should Choke select? Straw poll!
I forgot about this.
Who did I say gets to pick?
-
Just now, sue said:
Why or why do I read Demonland etc in the off-season? When you think about it, you'll only find bad news since nothing good can happen beyond x is back in full training and the usual training the house down statements.
We found out today that Jack Viney can benchpress 155 kg which was pretty cool.
It was a good day.
Until now.
-
4
-
-
Just now, Clintosaurus said:
There's a couple of photos of the four listed on Maxy's Insta.
Well there we go.
That's a pretty short [censored] list.
[censored].
-
Herald Sun:
EDIT:
Bali in September. Don't know who went on that trip
-
Search result on the now missing url gives the following preview.
Checked all the other Fairfax sites but all 404.
I'd say it's MFC, not a "Melbourne Team" since the result actually has an MFC logo in the thumbail (not shown below)
Melbourne player investigated for alleged sexual assault
The Age-25 minutes agoIn a statement, the Victoria Police said the complainant had not so far made a formal statement. The complainant was also advised that the investigation would need to be directed by police in the country where the offence is alleged to have occurred. The accused player has not been named but Melbourne ... -
3 minutes ago, bazza226 said:
404 error.
Brisbane times link also 404'd.
Ruh Roh.
-
Well those photos make me feel better.
Jack Viney for round 1!
-
2
-
Our Most Marketable Player
in Melbourne Demons
Posted
Why is it that hair seems to correlate with marketability anyhow?
It's like if you have different hair you're a 'cult figure' all of a sudden.