Last year on July 29, a wise person wrote:
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?
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?
Today in the Herald Sun, Michael Warner (who really should have consulted the AGB, but instead consulted rent-a-quote footy oaf, Joffa):
Friday footy set to remain on delay as Channel 7 stands firm
FOOTY fans face another five years of delayed Friday night TV broadcasts.
As the AFL closes in on a new TV rights deal expected to top $1 billion, Channel 7 is refusing to give in to pressure to sacrifice top-rating Better Homes & Gardens and show footy live.
Also today in the Herald Sun, Mike Sheahan:
AFL needs to sweeten next TV deal if it wants to go live on Friday night
OF course the Seven network wants to preserve and extend the status quo.
Why would a network, any network, want to tamper in any way with an arrangement that guarantees fours hours of high-rating, prime-time television on Friday nights for the best part of 30 weeks?
No, if we are finally to get live football on Friday night every week, the AFL is going to have to concede a slice of the rights generated by the Friday night component.
Perhaps not surprising that the media coverage fails to point out that a lot of the impetus for showing live games is not coming from the fans, but from betting agencies who stand to make a killing. Just like cricket has been changed by Indians betting on Mo Balls, the Darwin-based bookies are gagging for live games in prime time, especially if they can get branding on the TV coverage for spot betting odds. That $50M shortfall mentioned by Sheahan could easily be made up by the agencies.
Posted by: m0nty | 02/24/2011 at 11:37 AM
My biggest gripe about delayed games comes, not surprisingly, on Friday night. That gripe in turn stems primarily from the start of the match.
I love to listen to the radio lead up for 6:00 to 7:30 on a combination of AW, SEN and 774, but when the game starts you can't flick on the TV to watch the match and you have an hour black out until the match starts, if you don't want to know the score.
Then there is the situation which probably bugs Seven, which is the half time turn off. I pretty much always check the score on the radio at half time to see how the match ended up. If it's a good match I will sometimes stick with the telly, but if it's a howler I watch something else or go to bed.
Sunday arvo is a fvcken liberty, but I'm often doing something so it doesn't bother me too often.
This morning on SEN Ten employee Andy Maher was conceding delayed telecasts on Saturday night, but kept stressing to Andy Gaze they were "occasionally delayed". Now, I guess Ten do do the odd live game, but it struck me that Radar was trying to give the impression Ten did the majority live and the minority on delay. Can someone do the numbers please.
Posted by: Tony | 02/24/2011 at 12:06 PM
OT.
This headline made me jump, until I read further ...
Demons put hand up for Fevola
Perth have not ruled out making an audacious bid to lure controversial full-forward Brendan Fevola. 06:53
Posted by: os | 02/24/2011 at 12:52 PM
Not just the Demons in Perth, but the Demons affiliate in Melbourne, too. Maybe Fev is putting out feelers to every team with an evil-evoking name.
Posted by: Tony | 02/24/2011 at 01:00 PM
Perhaps Radar was referring to the practice of stringing a game out by inserting more seconds of ads in between goals than actually ticked over during the live game.
Posted by: m0nty | 02/24/2011 at 02:06 PM
That's why the stations do not want to go live. If they pay a billion they will have to come up with the advertising revenue, which means they want better control of the ads. That's not possible in a low scoring live game. If they budget to have, say, eight ads a quarter, they are in the shit if they go live and only four goals are kicked. If they delay they can guarantee the eight ads.
Posted by: Tony | 02/24/2011 at 04:19 PM
surely for a billion bucks the tv could set up Total World Aussierules Tournament Series [TWATS] and run it themselves?
Posted by: Professor Rosseforp | 02/24/2011 at 04:39 PM
Ha ha, ho ho, it is to laugh:
No decision on Friday night live football, although Channel Seven has indicated it will consider live coverage whether or not stipulated by the league.
If the AFL don't etch in stone a clause which says the host broadcaster must show Friday night live then there is Buckley's chance of Seven showing more than a hand full of matches live on Friday night.
Seven will not show bulk live footy without a contractual obligation to do so.
Posted by: Tony | 02/25/2011 at 10:36 AM
Proving there's no idea that can't be borrowed from American football, here's something to consider. Why not push the actual start time on Friday nights back from 7.40pm to 8.40pm, or at least 8.10pm?
If the AFL can stand the howls of outrage that it's not family friendly, is there merit in such a move? Seven can then slot in BH&G at 7pm (or retain at 7.30pm for the later bouncedown) and the footy can go live.
Of course, won't make squat difference to us here in the west, who currently get the lazy 3 hour delay in season (stretching to 4 hours while DLS is still in vogue).
Posted by: Gareth | 02/26/2011 at 02:15 PM
Gaz, the original post contains a link to this article:
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.
The free-to-air commercial networks are lobbying the AFL for 3pm starts to Saturday and Sunday afternoon matches from 2012. This would let the networks move straight from the end of games into their 6pm news slots - lessening the chance of losing viewers to rival channels.
''The landscape has changed in the last couple of weeks because of the AFL position on TV-rights negotiations,'' said an unnamed top official from one club.
''All games that would have started at 2.10pm will now almost certainly start at 3pm.
''That's from 2012 onwards when the new rights are done.''
Interesting that the report is couched in the pejorative - "ANOTHER of football's longstanding traditions is likely to be broken". I would have thought most fans would rather telecasts were live. Still, that article refers to Saturday & Sunday afternoon, neither of which attract anywhere near the heat generated by the delayed Friday night telecasts.
Posted by: Tony | 02/27/2011 at 12:28 PM
Oh, and the extravagant delay into the West is one of the more self-indulgent and wanton crimes of broadcasting. Totally unsupportable. The only reason it exists is to help Nine pad their programming.
Posted by: Tony | 02/27/2011 at 06:43 PM
The free-to-air broadcasters constantly bleat about the need to keep sport free for everyone (via heavy advertising) and not into the hands of the evil pay TV conglomerates but then hold the sport to ransom in the process to get what they want. The sooner sport goes free for all the better I reckon. I was previously in the FTA camp but I'll change my vote if Friday night isn't live.
It should be the next national referendum. Something people actually care about.
Posted by: Adsy | 02/28/2011 at 10:39 PM
Just got a box set up to receive Aurora Satellite TV and with it Imparja TV and Seven Central..I'm hoping one of those will be showing it live..At the least I know they show the cricket live.
Posted by: Yobbo | 03/01/2011 at 01:05 AM
Games broadcast live 'against the gate' is a worry for mine... surely if more people stayed home, then the game loses punch and atmosphere.
Just imagine a big Friday night game at the G with only 3000 fans there... it would be like watching the Vics ODI games.
...perhaps I'm in a minority.
Oh yeah... there is no excuse for games outside the state being delayed.
Posted by: TKYC | 03/02/2011 at 04:54 PM