Foxtel

[cochise]

Fox in the hole: NRL could go back to the future in TV merry-go-round
Roy Masters
By Roy Masters
May 6, 2020 — 11.22am



“May you live in interesting times,” is the English translation of a traditional Chinese curse and events in this COVID-19 troubled year have matched its ironic intent.

There have certainly been some unusual scenarios presented in the future televising of Australian sport, including a reported possible bid by Channel Nine for AFL which would presumably entice Channel Seven to bid .

OK, the networks did swap tennis and cricket last year but those deals resulted in an increase in broadcast rights for both sports, while the current negotiations with the two big winter football codes are all about lowering, or extending, broadcast fees.

Typically, these talks between Nine, publisher of this masthead, and the NRL are being played out in Sydney’s publicly aggressive manner, with similar dealings between Seven and the AFL played out in Melbourne's traditionally “appropriate” way.


Nine boss Hugh Marks told a meeting of analysts and investors on Tuesday afternoon that “it is not a given that NRL has to be part of our future”.

It was a statement which fits into the Chinese curse category. A peaceful three decades of Nine owning four of the top five programs nationally - rugby league’s three State of Origin matches, together with the NRL grand final - threatens to be upset by troubled times ahead.

Sure, streaming has killed off the so-called halo effect in free-to-air TV. The idea of paying overs for sport because viewers will stay with the network after the football, rather than switch to a rival channel, has been undermined by streaming services, such as Netflix and even Nine’s own product Stan.

The news Nine may walk away from NRL caused what one might call cautious joy over at Foxtel. Executives at the Rupert Murdoch-owned network concede that the traditional FTA model is under siege. However, they also see Nine’s threat, including the bid for AFL, as a negotiating ploy to lower the payment it will make to Peter V’landys’ ARLC for the remainder of this disrupted season.
Somewhat contradictorily, considering Marks’ threat, Nine would like to add another three years to the existing TV contract which concludes in 2022.

Still, Foxtel would be delighted to own all of the broadcasting of rugby league, rebranding the pay TV network NRL TV, making it a one-stop shop for the code.

Yes, but what about anti-siphoning laws? Doesn’t the federal government insist nationally interesting sports be available free to viewers?

Rugby league would once again be effectively owned by Rupert but would NRL clubs care if they were paid a motza?

Channel Ten would be interested in the two games a week the NRL is committed to show on FTA TV, the finals and Origin.

But Global Sport and Media’s Colin Smith has come up with a scenario far more lucrative for Foxtel and one Murdoch would blow his already overburdened budget to make happen.

“Foxtel could offer matches currently on the anti-siphoning list to Kayo,” said Smith of Foxtel’s streaming service, which has leaked thousands of subscribers since March when NRL and AFL competitions stopped.

“Subscribers wouldn’t pay anything. They would simply select the matches that are free and opt out of the other Foxtel matches and sports programs.

“Sure, they would have to have the Foxtel streaming service installed but it would be zero cost to them.

“It becomes an excellent marketing tool for Foxtel, with the aim viewers will eventually pay for the matches not on the anti-siphoning list, just as subscribers tailor their Foxtel packages to meet their budgets.”

Rugby league would once again be effectively owned by Rupert but would NRL clubs care if they were paid a motza?

V’landys has been historically close to News Corporation via his role as chief executive of Racing NSW, buying space for race fields in newspapers. A similar, smaller deal exists with The Sydney Morning Herald.

He has achieved deals with NRL clubs, players and state and federal governments to restart the season on May 28 but is yet to finalise agreements with Nine and Foxtel over how much they will pay for a shortened and crowdless year.

In these “interesting times” maybe V’landys will evoke another Chinese proverb, reminding Nine of the valuable vision about to sate the sports-deprived appetites of the viewing public from May 28: “One (TV) picture is worth ten thousand words

That would still be in breach of anti siphoning laws.

Even if they provide 2 free games a week on Kayo? Is the difference that it wouldn't be broadcast via a tv station?

>Under the Australian anti siphoning scheme, pay television licensees are unable to acquire rights to televise listed events on pay television until rights have first been acquired by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), the Special Broadcasting Service (SBS) or commercial free-to-air broadcasters who reach more than 50 per cent of the Australian population.

Kayo does not meet that definition.

They may be able to do it for this season - the loophole being that programs are removed from the list if the rights have not been bought 26 weeks before the event starts. At this stage no one has bought the rights to this season and there is only 3 weeks to kickoff.

They maybe able to if ch9 pulls out yes

 

[diedpretty]

Fox in the hole: NRL could go back to the future in TV merry-go-round
Roy Masters
By Roy Masters
May 6, 2020 — 11.22am



“May you live in interesting times,” is the English translation of a traditional Chinese curse and events in this COVID-19 troubled year have matched its ironic intent.

There have certainly been some unusual scenarios presented in the future televising of Australian sport, including a reported possible bid by Channel Nine for AFL which would presumably entice Channel Seven to bid .

OK, the networks did swap tennis and cricket last year but those deals resulted in an increase in broadcast rights for both sports, while the current negotiations with the two big winter football codes are all about lowering, or extending, broadcast fees.

Typically, these talks between Nine, publisher of this masthead, and the NRL are being played out in Sydney’s publicly aggressive manner, with similar dealings between Seven and the AFL played out in Melbourne's traditionally “appropriate” way.


Nine boss Hugh Marks told a meeting of analysts and investors on Tuesday afternoon that “it is not a given that NRL has to be part of our future”.

It was a statement which fits into the Chinese curse category. A peaceful three decades of Nine owning four of the top five programs nationally - rugby league’s three State of Origin matches, together with the NRL grand final - threatens to be upset by troubled times ahead.

Sure, streaming has killed off the so-called halo effect in free-to-air TV. The idea of paying overs for sport because viewers will stay with the network after the football, rather than switch to a rival channel, has been undermined by streaming services, such as Netflix and even Nine’s own product Stan.

The news Nine may walk away from NRL caused what one might call cautious joy over at Foxtel. Executives at the Rupert Murdoch-owned network concede that the traditional FTA model is under siege. However, they also see Nine’s threat, including the bid for AFL, as a negotiating ploy to lower the payment it will make to Peter V’landys’ ARLC for the remainder of this disrupted season.
Somewhat contradictorily, considering Marks’ threat, Nine would like to add another three years to the existing TV contract which concludes in 2022.

Still, Foxtel would be delighted to own all of the broadcasting of rugby league, rebranding the pay TV network NRL TV, making it a one-stop shop for the code.

Yes, but what about anti-siphoning laws? Doesn’t the federal government insist nationally interesting sports be available free to viewers?

Rugby league would once again be effectively owned by Rupert but would NRL clubs care if they were paid a motza?

Channel Ten would be interested in the two games a week the NRL is committed to show on FTA TV, the finals and Origin.

But Global Sport and Media’s Colin Smith has come up with a scenario far more lucrative for Foxtel and one Murdoch would blow his already overburdened budget to make happen.

“Foxtel could offer matches currently on the anti-siphoning list to Kayo,” said Smith of Foxtel’s streaming service, which has leaked thousands of subscribers since March when NRL and AFL competitions stopped.

“Subscribers wouldn’t pay anything. They would simply select the matches that are free and opt out of the other Foxtel matches and sports programs.

“Sure, they would have to have the Foxtel streaming service installed but it would be zero cost to them.

“It becomes an excellent marketing tool for Foxtel, with the aim viewers will eventually pay for the matches not on the anti-siphoning list, just as subscribers tailor their Foxtel packages to meet their budgets.”

Rugby league would once again be effectively owned by Rupert but would NRL clubs care if they were paid a motza?

V’landys has been historically close to News Corporation via his role as chief executive of Racing NSW, buying space for race fields in newspapers. A similar, smaller deal exists with The Sydney Morning Herald.

He has achieved deals with NRL clubs, players and state and federal governments to restart the season on May 28 but is yet to finalise agreements with Nine and Foxtel over how much they will pay for a shortened and crowdless year.

In these “interesting times” maybe V’landys will evoke another Chinese proverb, reminding Nine of the valuable vision about to sate the sports-deprived appetites of the viewing public from May 28: “One (TV) picture is worth ten thousand words

That would still be in breach of anti siphoning laws.

Even if they provide 2 free games a week on Kayo? Is the difference that it wouldn't be broadcast via a tv station?

>Under the Australian anti siphoning scheme, pay television licensees are unable to acquire rights to televise listed events on pay television until rights have first been acquired by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), the Special Broadcasting Service (SBS) or commercial free-to-air broadcasters who reach more than 50 per cent of the Australian population.

Kayo does not meet that definition.

They may be able to do it for this season - the loophole being that programs are removed from the list if the rights have not been bought 26 weeks before the event starts. At this stage no one has bought the rights to this season and there is only 3 weeks to kickoff.

Although the argument to this is the rights for 2020 have already been purchased. I could see lawyers making a few bucks on whether a new contract for the remainder of this season would be classed as anew event or not.

 

[cochise]

Fox in the hole: NRL could go back to the future in TV merry-go-round
Roy Masters
By Roy Masters
May 6, 2020 — 11.22am



“May you live in interesting times,” is the English translation of a traditional Chinese curse and events in this COVID-19 troubled year have matched its ironic intent.

There have certainly been some unusual scenarios presented in the future televising of Australian sport, including a reported possible bid by Channel Nine for AFL which would presumably entice Channel Seven to bid .

OK, the networks did swap tennis and cricket last year but those deals resulted in an increase in broadcast rights for both sports, while the current negotiations with the two big winter football codes are all about lowering, or extending, broadcast fees.

Typically, these talks between Nine, publisher of this masthead, and the NRL are being played out in Sydney’s publicly aggressive manner, with similar dealings between Seven and the AFL played out in Melbourne's traditionally “appropriate” way.


Nine boss Hugh Marks told a meeting of analysts and investors on Tuesday afternoon that “it is not a given that NRL has to be part of our future”.

It was a statement which fits into the Chinese curse category. A peaceful three decades of Nine owning four of the top five programs nationally - rugby league’s three State of Origin matches, together with the NRL grand final - threatens to be upset by troubled times ahead.

Sure, streaming has killed off the so-called halo effect in free-to-air TV. The idea of paying overs for sport because viewers will stay with the network after the football, rather than switch to a rival channel, has been undermined by streaming services, such as Netflix and even Nine’s own product Stan.

The news Nine may walk away from NRL caused what one might call cautious joy over at Foxtel. Executives at the Rupert Murdoch-owned network concede that the traditional FTA model is under siege. However, they also see Nine’s threat, including the bid for AFL, as a negotiating ploy to lower the payment it will make to Peter V’landys’ ARLC for the remainder of this disrupted season.
Somewhat contradictorily, considering Marks’ threat, Nine would like to add another three years to the existing TV contract which concludes in 2022.

Still, Foxtel would be delighted to own all of the broadcasting of rugby league, rebranding the pay TV network NRL TV, making it a one-stop shop for the code.

Yes, but what about anti-siphoning laws? Doesn’t the federal government insist nationally interesting sports be available free to viewers?

Rugby league would once again be effectively owned by Rupert but would NRL clubs care if they were paid a motza?

Channel Ten would be interested in the two games a week the NRL is committed to show on FTA TV, the finals and Origin.

But Global Sport and Media’s Colin Smith has come up with a scenario far more lucrative for Foxtel and one Murdoch would blow his already overburdened budget to make happen.

“Foxtel could offer matches currently on the anti-siphoning list to Kayo,” said Smith of Foxtel’s streaming service, which has leaked thousands of subscribers since March when NRL and AFL competitions stopped.

“Subscribers wouldn’t pay anything. They would simply select the matches that are free and opt out of the other Foxtel matches and sports programs.

“Sure, they would have to have the Foxtel streaming service installed but it would be zero cost to them.

“It becomes an excellent marketing tool for Foxtel, with the aim viewers will eventually pay for the matches not on the anti-siphoning list, just as subscribers tailor their Foxtel packages to meet their budgets.”

Rugby league would once again be effectively owned by Rupert but would NRL clubs care if they were paid a motza?

V’landys has been historically close to News Corporation via his role as chief executive of Racing NSW, buying space for race fields in newspapers. A similar, smaller deal exists with The Sydney Morning Herald.

He has achieved deals with NRL clubs, players and state and federal governments to restart the season on May 28 but is yet to finalise agreements with Nine and Foxtel over how much they will pay for a shortened and crowdless year.

In these “interesting times” maybe V’landys will evoke another Chinese proverb, reminding Nine of the valuable vision about to sate the sports-deprived appetites of the viewing public from May 28: “One (TV) picture is worth ten thousand words

That would still be in breach of anti siphoning laws.

Even if they provide 2 free games a week on Kayo? Is the difference that it wouldn't be broadcast via a tv station?

>Under the Australian anti siphoning scheme, pay television licensees are unable to acquire rights to televise listed events on pay television until rights have first been acquired by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), the Special Broadcasting Service (SBS) or commercial free-to-air broadcasters who reach more than 50 per cent of the Australian population.

Kayo does not meet that definition.

They may be able to do it for this season - the loophole being that programs are removed from the list if the rights have not been bought 26 weeks before the event starts. At this stage no one has bought the rights to this season and there is only 3 weeks to kickoff.

Although the argument to this is the rights for 2020 have already been purchased. I could see lawyers making a few bucks on whether a new contract for the remainder of this season would be classed as anew event or not.

There is still a contract in place for this year.

 

[diedpretty]

Fox in the hole: NRL could go back to the future in TV merry-go-round
Roy Masters
By Roy Masters
May 6, 2020 — 11.22am



“May you live in interesting times,” is the English translation of a traditional Chinese curse and events in this COVID-19 troubled year have matched its ironic intent.

There have certainly been some unusual scenarios presented in the future televising of Australian sport, including a reported possible bid by Channel Nine for AFL which would presumably entice Channel Seven to bid .

OK, the networks did swap tennis and cricket last year but those deals resulted in an increase in broadcast rights for both sports, while the current negotiations with the two big winter football codes are all about lowering, or extending, broadcast fees.

Typically, these talks between Nine, publisher of this masthead, and the NRL are being played out in Sydney’s publicly aggressive manner, with similar dealings between Seven and the AFL played out in Melbourne's traditionally “appropriate” way.


Nine boss Hugh Marks told a meeting of analysts and investors on Tuesday afternoon that “it is not a given that NRL has to be part of our future”.

It was a statement which fits into the Chinese curse category. A peaceful three decades of Nine owning four of the top five programs nationally - rugby league’s three State of Origin matches, together with the NRL grand final - threatens to be upset by troubled times ahead.

Sure, streaming has killed off the so-called halo effect in free-to-air TV. The idea of paying overs for sport because viewers will stay with the network after the football, rather than switch to a rival channel, has been undermined by streaming services, such as Netflix and even Nine’s own product Stan.

The news Nine may walk away from NRL caused what one might call cautious joy over at Foxtel. Executives at the Rupert Murdoch-owned network concede that the traditional FTA model is under siege. However, they also see Nine’s threat, including the bid for AFL, as a negotiating ploy to lower the payment it will make to Peter V’landys’ ARLC for the remainder of this disrupted season.
Somewhat contradictorily, considering Marks’ threat, Nine would like to add another three years to the existing TV contract which concludes in 2022.

Still, Foxtel would be delighted to own all of the broadcasting of rugby league, rebranding the pay TV network NRL TV, making it a one-stop shop for the code.

Yes, but what about anti-siphoning laws? Doesn’t the federal government insist nationally interesting sports be available free to viewers?

Rugby league would once again be effectively owned by Rupert but would NRL clubs care if they were paid a motza?

Channel Ten would be interested in the two games a week the NRL is committed to show on FTA TV, the finals and Origin.

But Global Sport and Media’s Colin Smith has come up with a scenario far more lucrative for Foxtel and one Murdoch would blow his already overburdened budget to make happen.

“Foxtel could offer matches currently on the anti-siphoning list to Kayo,” said Smith of Foxtel’s streaming service, which has leaked thousands of subscribers since March when NRL and AFL competitions stopped.

“Subscribers wouldn’t pay anything. They would simply select the matches that are free and opt out of the other Foxtel matches and sports programs.

“Sure, they would have to have the Foxtel streaming service installed but it would be zero cost to them.

“It becomes an excellent marketing tool for Foxtel, with the aim viewers will eventually pay for the matches not on the anti-siphoning list, just as subscribers tailor their Foxtel packages to meet their budgets.”

Rugby league would once again be effectively owned by Rupert but would NRL clubs care if they were paid a motza?

V’landys has been historically close to News Corporation via his role as chief executive of Racing NSW, buying space for race fields in newspapers. A similar, smaller deal exists with The Sydney Morning Herald.

He has achieved deals with NRL clubs, players and state and federal governments to restart the season on May 28 but is yet to finalise agreements with Nine and Foxtel over how much they will pay for a shortened and crowdless year.

In these “interesting times” maybe V’landys will evoke another Chinese proverb, reminding Nine of the valuable vision about to sate the sports-deprived appetites of the viewing public from May 28: “One (TV) picture is worth ten thousand words

That would still be in breach of anti siphoning laws.

Even if they provide 2 free games a week on Kayo? Is the difference that it wouldn't be broadcast via a tv station?

>Under the Australian anti siphoning scheme, pay television licensees are unable to acquire rights to televise listed events on pay television until rights have first been acquired by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), the Special Broadcasting Service (SBS) or commercial free-to-air broadcasters who reach more than 50 per cent of the Australian population.

Kayo does not meet that definition.

They may be able to do it for this season - the loophole being that programs are removed from the list if the rights have not been bought 26 weeks before the event starts. At this stage no one has bought the rights to this season and there is only 3 weeks to kickoff.

They maybe able to if ch9 pulls out yes

Yes but as you said if ch9 do pull the plug Foxtel will own the only rights and wont have to siphon any FTA games. It would be a poor move on their part if they went down that track.

 

[cochise]

Fox in the hole: NRL could go back to the future in TV merry-go-round
Roy Masters
By Roy Masters
May 6, 2020 — 11.22am



“May you live in interesting times,” is the English translation of a traditional Chinese curse and events in this COVID-19 troubled year have matched its ironic intent.

There have certainly been some unusual scenarios presented in the future televising of Australian sport, including a reported possible bid by Channel Nine for AFL which would presumably entice Channel Seven to bid .

OK, the networks did swap tennis and cricket last year but those deals resulted in an increase in broadcast rights for both sports, while the current negotiations with the two big winter football codes are all about lowering, or extending, broadcast fees.

Typically, these talks between Nine, publisher of this masthead, and the NRL are being played out in Sydney’s publicly aggressive manner, with similar dealings between Seven and the AFL played out in Melbourne's traditionally “appropriate” way.


Nine boss Hugh Marks told a meeting of analysts and investors on Tuesday afternoon that “it is not a given that NRL has to be part of our future”.

It was a statement which fits into the Chinese curse category. A peaceful three decades of Nine owning four of the top five programs nationally - rugby league’s three State of Origin matches, together with the NRL grand final - threatens to be upset by troubled times ahead.

Sure, streaming has killed off the so-called halo effect in free-to-air TV. The idea of paying overs for sport because viewers will stay with the network after the football, rather than switch to a rival channel, has been undermined by streaming services, such as Netflix and even Nine’s own product Stan.

The news Nine may walk away from NRL caused what one might call cautious joy over at Foxtel. Executives at the Rupert Murdoch-owned network concede that the traditional FTA model is under siege. However, they also see Nine’s threat, including the bid for AFL, as a negotiating ploy to lower the payment it will make to Peter V’landys’ ARLC for the remainder of this disrupted season.
Somewhat contradictorily, considering Marks’ threat, Nine would like to add another three years to the existing TV contract which concludes in 2022.

Still, Foxtel would be delighted to own all of the broadcasting of rugby league, rebranding the pay TV network NRL TV, making it a one-stop shop for the code.

Yes, but what about anti-siphoning laws? Doesn’t the federal government insist nationally interesting sports be available free to viewers?

Rugby league would once again be effectively owned by Rupert but would NRL clubs care if they were paid a motza?

Channel Ten would be interested in the two games a week the NRL is committed to show on FTA TV, the finals and Origin.

But Global Sport and Media’s Colin Smith has come up with a scenario far more lucrative for Foxtel and one Murdoch would blow his already overburdened budget to make happen.

“Foxtel could offer matches currently on the anti-siphoning list to Kayo,” said Smith of Foxtel’s streaming service, which has leaked thousands of subscribers since March when NRL and AFL competitions stopped.

“Subscribers wouldn’t pay anything. They would simply select the matches that are free and opt out of the other Foxtel matches and sports programs.

“Sure, they would have to have the Foxtel streaming service installed but it would be zero cost to them.

“It becomes an excellent marketing tool for Foxtel, with the aim viewers will eventually pay for the matches not on the anti-siphoning list, just as subscribers tailor their Foxtel packages to meet their budgets.”

Rugby league would once again be effectively owned by Rupert but would NRL clubs care if they were paid a motza?

V’landys has been historically close to News Corporation via his role as chief executive of Racing NSW, buying space for race fields in newspapers. A similar, smaller deal exists with The Sydney Morning Herald.

He has achieved deals with NRL clubs, players and state and federal governments to restart the season on May 28 but is yet to finalise agreements with Nine and Foxtel over how much they will pay for a shortened and crowdless year.

In these “interesting times” maybe V’landys will evoke another Chinese proverb, reminding Nine of the valuable vision about to sate the sports-deprived appetites of the viewing public from May 28: “One (TV) picture is worth ten thousand words

That would still be in breach of anti siphoning laws.

Even if they provide 2 free games a week on Kayo? Is the difference that it wouldn't be broadcast via a tv station?

>Under the Australian anti siphoning scheme, pay television licensees are unable to acquire rights to televise listed events on pay television until rights have first been acquired by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), the Special Broadcasting Service (SBS) or commercial free-to-air broadcasters who reach more than 50 per cent of the Australian population.

Kayo does not meet that definition.

They may be able to do it for this season - the loophole being that programs are removed from the list if the rights have not been bought 26 weeks before the event starts. At this stage no one has bought the rights to this season and there is only 3 weeks to kickoff.

They maybe able to if ch9 pulls out yes

Yes but as you said if ch9 do pull the plug Foxtel will own the only rights and wont have to siphon any FTA games. It would be a poor move on their part if they went down that track.

Agreed

 

[Jedi_Tiger]

Abc might get the rights to two games and SOO and GF for anti siphoning purposes

 

[Jedi_Tiger]

look at super rugby you need the FTA somewhere you cant just have pay tv it wont work it loses touch

 

[Snake]

Foxtel going nowhere have just partnered with HBO long term the death riders will need to get on another horse!

 

[gallagher]

Foxtel going nowhere have just partnered with HBO long term the death riders will need to get on another horse!

Ah well, Murdoch will die sooner or later.

 

[Aceshigh]

Yep Foxtel for me , to hell with channel 9 , they can play replays of Mafs for mine , i think they need NRL more than vice versa 👍

 

[cochise]

Yep Foxtel for me , to hell with channel 9 , they can play replays of Mafs for mine , i think they need NRL more than vice versa 👍

We 100% need a free to air broadcast partner.

 

[Tbone]

Hopefully SBS can get the rights, with commentary by Viktor and Sveta from Good Morning Moscow.

 

[Tim Sheens]


 

[Fade.To.Black]

Hopefully SBS can get the rights, with commentary by Viktor and Sveta from Good Morning Moscow.

🤣🤣.......and the hippy, hippy shake.
Very unattractive man😂

 

[Merlot]

how do u shut off record button,its thinking all by its self

 

[InBenjiWeTrust]


With ABC being so popular, it is a surprise that privatisation is not more popular! Their financing would increase enormously, to at least 2 billion.

 

[hobbo1]

how do u shut off record button,its thinking all by its self

It stops when the show you’re recording finishes 😂

Or in your case unplug it from the wall

IQ4 ?

 

[Merlot]

how do u shut off record button,its thinking all by its self

It stops when the show you’re recording finishes ?

Or in your case unplug it from the wall

IQ4 ?

tryd all that not working thanks,a 2 morrow problem?

 

[hobbo1]

how do u shut off record button,its thinking all by its self

It stops when the show you’re recording finishes ?

Or in your case unplug it from the wall

IQ4 ?

tryd all that not working thanks,a 2 morrow problem?

Just go into the menu / library/ scroll down to whatever your recording / press delete ( yellow button)

 

[Merlot]

how do u shut off record button,its thinking all by its self

It stops when the show you’re recording finishes ?

Or in your case unplug it from the wall

IQ4 ?

tryd all that not working thanks,a 2 morrow problem?

Just go into the menu / library/ scroll down to whatever your recording / press delete ( yellow button)

red light went off,...thats last drinks gentlemen, bud 's bud