SHE'LL BE RIGHTS

Dan Silkstone reports that the AFL will look to move games to better suit TV schedules:

New TV deal spells later footy starts

ANOTHER of football's longstanding traditions is likely to be broken with a new TV-rights deal almost certain to consign 2.10pm match-starts to history.

This is not a surprise.

The AFL are, allegedly, looking to push the price for the TV rights from $750 million to $1 billion. Currently marquee games are on delay: Friday night, Saturday night and Sunday. Yet the AFL want an extra $250 million as well as have the TV stations alter their current programming to run the matches live. Does this not smack of cake and eat it, too?

Can the TV stations make up the extra dosh by moving from delayed to live broadcasts? Do the TV stations want the football enough to push the price out to $1 billion? Richard Hinds, in today's Green Guide, reports that the current ratings are soft:

When too much football is enough

On the surface, some of the recent ratings figures do not justify the AFL’s oft-stated belief it is entitled to an almost 33per cent increase on the current $760million rights deal with Seven, Ten and Foxtel. Not when its major rival, rugby league, is gaining similar aggregate figures in Sydney and Brisbane markets for a much smaller fee.

Not just that: do the TV stations run games on delay purely to fit into their schedules? Channel Seven go on about viewer loyalty of Better Homes & Gardens, but do they really care that much about the BH&G income stream? Could running big games on delay means they can better pad their coverage? Surely, they would want to avoid having viewers turn off the sound and listen to the radio. Yes, there is the delay, but technology such as the Delay-o-Tron allows viewers to synchronise the sound and picture.

Up until now, the AFL have been unwilling to force TV stations to cough up more money and run all matches live. Belatedly, after the last contract negotiations were complete, the punters realised that, yet again, Friday night live was somehow left out of the agreement. Instead we were informed that Friday night matches were supposedly covered by and article of faith, a "discretionary" agreement, whereby the AFL crossed their fingers and hoped that maybe the TV stations would do the right thing by the viewers and show a match live if the match warranted the live treatment. For an extra $250 million, is this likely to change?

Comments

[m0nty]

Hinds is becoming a shrill pro-NRL shill. In fact, a lot of Age columnists are sounding old and crotchety. I'm looking at you, Greg Baum. Also, note that Hinds is careful not to attack fellow Age columnists Walls and Lane, though they are the first targets for the commenters. Perhaps Hinds is just annoyed that Fox didn't call him up to be a host on AFL 360.

[Jonathan]

I think Hinds was going after the tv stations, rather than pushing the NRL, m0nty. Hinds justs likes someone to have a go at these days.

Looking at interstate matches, it doesn't seem Ten are that keen on the delay. Seven may be another matter.

[Bwca Brownie]

'PRIME Time' indeed. Far from the days when sport was TV programming filler.
The figures are criminal and one wonders exactly WHAT the AFL do with the money.
Pay lawyers? Ron Casey ran his Channel 7 purely for football**, but I'm sure even he is spinning in his grave.
**Sunnyside UP was on Saturday night at 8:30 merely to amuse between harness racing results. If Hey Hey It's Wednesday can revive, maybe that's another one.

[Tony]

I'm taking credit for Footy 360. A while back I said Before the Bounce would be great if they got rid of Danny Frawley, Jason Dunstall and kept Frank Walker from National Tiles... sorry Gerard Whateley from National Broadcaster, Damien Barrett and the other journos. And that's just what Fox have done. Hats off to me.

I like Richard Hinds, the NRL and reckon his article is spot on. He's a savvy AFL fan, too, despite being a Collingwood fan. Also, although he lives in Sydney and writes for the Herald, he is from Melbourne.

[Professor Rosseforp]

Not really related to this article except it is about Aussie rules. On the news the other day, I saw a showreel of the 10 best AFL goals ever. You realise by now I am no fan of the code, but if anyone saw it, did they have any comments?
From my point of view, they looked stock-standard AFL goals, with little to distinguish any of them, and all looking decidedly similar. Is this the view of an AFLignoramus?

[TKYCraig]

The rights issue, and scheduling/timing of games at the AFL is all about 'their core objective'. What's that you say? Looking after the average supporter? Sorry, you have mis-read them... badly.
It is all about maximising 'the brand'... you know, the DOLLAR.

To that effect, surely the best rights package would be to offer them as below (assuming no other scheduled days other than E).
A- Friday nights
B- Saturday afternoons
C- Saturday nights
D- Sunday afternoons
E- Days outside of the above (Thursday nights, Monday afternoons, Monday nights, Anzac Day)
F- Pre-season Cup (FWIW)
G- Finals

This then breaks-up the mix and allows all three commercial networks (and digital channels) and Foxtel the chance to broadcast (sorry televise... I dont consider Foxtel to be 'broad'casting).
I can hear the rubbing-of-hands and counting-of-notes at Fortress Docklands now!