Foxtel

Foxtel was struggling to survive before COVID-19 but the lack of sport is speeding up its demise
By Andrew Robertson
Posted 4 hours ago, updated31 minutes ago

Composite of Australian pay television providers Foxtel and Austar logos
Foxtel has about 2.9 million unique subscribers and this has hardly changed since Kayo and Foxtel Now were launched.(AAP)
Under siege from much cheaper rivals and with lenders unwilling to support it, pay TV operator Foxtel is increasingly looking like a threatened species.

Key points:
Foxtel has slashed at least 250 jobs and now COVID-19 is adding to its pressures
Subscriber growth has stalled and the pay TV service is carrying more than $2 billion in debt
Industry experts say its fate depends on how long News Corp is willing to keep bailing out its debts
Subscriber growth has stalled, losses are mounting and it’s carrying more than $2 billion in debt.

Cox Media founder, Peter Cox, told ABC News Foxtel’s revenues had been in decline for the past five to 10 years.

“But now of course, it’s being threatened with extinction,” he said.

As its fortunes decline, Foxtel has slashed at least 250 jobs, and now COVID-19 is adding to its woes.

Thanks to the pandemic, Foxtel’s biggest drawcard, sport, is gone.

With the AFL, NRL and other leading sports all shuttered, there’s nothing to show.

“They always had a problem in the summer, because they didn’t have good sports coverage in the summer,” Mr Cox said.

“Now, not to have good sports coverage in the winter is an absolute killer for them.”

Also hurting Foxtel is its pricing structure.

In the next few weeks, the company will unveil a new, much cheaper offering, called Binge, to compete effectively with the new players stealing its turf.

Foxtel is too expensive

Foxtel prices compared with other streaming services are just too expensive.

Netflix prices start at $9.99 a month.

There are now 12 million Australians that have access to Netflix, which is more than double the 5 million who have access to Foxtel.

Netflix has been in Australia five years, Foxtel 25 years.

Stan is a cent more than Netflix at $10 a month.

Amazon Prime costs $6.99 a month and Apple TV $7.99 a month.

By comparison, Foxtel’s cheapest streaming package is Kayo Sports at $25 a month.

Entertainment app, Foxtel Now, also starts at $25 a month, while the cheapest cable package is $49 a month.

Long-time media and telco analyst Paul Budde believes it’s a potentially terminal issue for Foxtel.

He says within three years, Foxtel will have to completely change its business model.

“[It could] become like another Netflix, or, you know, another model that they may think of, otherwise I don’t think they will survive for much longer,” Mr Budde said.

But becoming like Netflix presents its own challenges for Foxtel, for revenue, which is being cannibalised by its own Kayo Sports and Foxtel Now.

Foxtel has about 2.9 million unique subscribers and this has hardly changed since Kayo and Foxtel Now were launched.

However, together the two streaming services have around 700,000 customers while cable subscriptions have fallen by that amount.

The problem for Foxtel is that Kayo and Foxtel Now customers pay around half the cost of a cable subscription, while Foxtel continues to pay the full cost of program content, such as sport.

“The Kayo product, and this was pre-COVID, was a good product launch,” says the chief executive of media consultancy Venture Insights, Nigel Pugh.

“We had concerns that it would ultimately lead to cannibalisation, but there’s no doubt about it that they had to do it to remain competitive.”

Coronavirus limits discretionary spending

Adding to Foxtel’s dilemma is the devastation COVID-19 is causing to the economy and the impact it will have on discretionary spending, such as on pay TV.

“Foxtel is expensive as a subscription service, so you will see more and more people copping out of Foxtel because they are not using it, or sport is no longer there, which is what they wanted it for,” Mr Budde said.

And if that isn’t enough, there are other external threats looming on the horizon as the pay TV industry continues to evolve.

“There’s still the potential for HBO to launch its own HBO max service, as Disney had,” Mr Pugh said.

“There’s also the potential for the sporting organisations themselves to offer their content direct to consumers.”

Mr Pugh believes it would be particularly hard for Foxtel to survive that, if it happens.

Line chart showing Australia’s current Covid-19 growth factor of 0.88 as of April 28 2020
Find out more
The biggest immediate threat comes from Foxtel’s majority shareholder, News Corporation, which owns 65 per cent. Telstra owns the other 35 per cent.

The two owners recently kicked in nearly $900 million to keep Foxtel afloat, with $700 million coming from News Corp.

So, what may decide Foxtel’s ultimate fate is how long Rupert Murdoch is willing to keep bailing it out.

A decision Mr Cox says will come in the next two years.

“They have to make the decision,” he said.

“Do they cut and run and lose the billion dollars plus they’ve got invested in the business, or do they stay in there and keep on putting hundreds of millions in there, if not another billion dollars for its survival?”

In the meantime, Foxtel is sweating on the NRL leading the sporting world back onto the field, and viewers back to their screens.

Suck an egg Murdoch

You tried to own rugby league and failed and now your Foxtel us about to disappear from Australian homes

Absolutely love it

Murdoch bought 100% of fox sports a couple of years ago I think. It’s the only asset that Foxtel owned that was worth anything. Telstra and Murdoch jointly own Foxtel.

Telstra owns the online rights for the NRL and kayo gets around it somehow. That’s the space to watch if you like looking at what’s happening in the world of media.

Regrettably journalism will suffer with the cuts across all media groups, all we have now is “personalities” like Fitzsimmons, buzz wielded etc (and equivalents outside sports). This is the real shame.

foxtel will be sweet unless NRL moves to its own service. Free to air is a joke guys. Foxtel will end up doing deals with Netflix and disney etc
Dont agree with super league concept and hated murdoch for it but killing foxtel now is not a great idea and wont change the past

@the_third said in Foxtel:

Murdoch bought 100% of fox sports a couple of years ago I think. It’s the only asset that Foxtel owned that was worth anything. Telstra and Murdoch jointly own Foxtel.

Telstra owns the online rights for the NRL and kayo gets around it somehow. That’s the space to watch if you like looking at what’s happening in the world of media.

Regrettably journalism will suffer with the cuts across all media groups, all we have now is “personalities” like Fitzsimmons, buzz wielded etc (and equivalents outside sports). This is the real shame.

@Snake said in Foxtel:

@the_third said in Foxtel:

Murdoch bought 100% of fox sports a couple of years ago I think. It’s the only asset that Foxtel owned that was worth anything. Telstra and Murdoch jointly own Foxtel.

Telstra owns the online rights for the NRL and kayo gets around it somehow. That’s the space to watch if you like looking at what’s happening in the world of media.

Regrettably journalism will suffer with the cuts across all media groups, all we have now is “personalities” like Fitzsimmons, buzz wielded etc (and equivalents outside sports). This is the real shame.

Who owns Kayo? Foxtel or Fox sports?

@gallagher said in Foxtel:

@Snake said in Foxtel:

@the_third said in Foxtel:

Murdoch bought 100% of fox sports a couple of years ago I think. It’s the only asset that Foxtel owned that was worth anything. Telstra and Murdoch jointly own Foxtel.

Telstra owns the online rights for the NRL and kayo gets around it somehow. That’s the space to watch if you like looking at what’s happening in the world of media.

Regrettably journalism will suffer with the cuts across all media groups, all we have now is “personalities” like Fitzsimmons, buzz wielded etc (and equivalents outside sports). This is the real shame.

Who owns Kayo? Foxtel or Fox sports

Foxtel owns kayo.

@the_third said in Foxtel:

@gallagher said in Foxtel:

@Snake said in Foxtel:

@the_third said in Foxtel:

Murdoch bought 100% of fox sports a couple of years ago I think. It’s the only asset that Foxtel owned that was worth anything. Telstra and Murdoch jointly own Foxtel.

Telstra owns the online rights for the NRL and kayo gets around it somehow. That’s the space to watch if you like looking at what’s happening in the world of media.

Regrettably journalism will suffer with the cuts across all media groups, all we have now is “personalities” like Fitzsimmons, buzz wielded etc (and equivalents outside sports). This is the real shame.

Who owns Kayo? Foxtel or Fox sports

Foxtel owns kayo.

Cheers. If Murdoch had to put in $700mill to keep it going you wouldn’t think they’d survive too much longer.

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

@gallagher said in Foxtel:

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.

@cochise said in Foxtel:

@gallagher said in Foxtel:

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?

@gallagher said in Foxtel:

@cochise said in Foxtel:

@gallagher said in Foxtel:

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?

Yes, I will find what they actually rule is but that would still be in breach.

@gallagher said in Foxtel:

@cochise said in Foxtel:

@gallagher said in Foxtel:

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.

I suggest anyone who currently has Foxtel to go here

https://www.foxtel.com.au/support/accounts-billing/cancel.html

If a long term customer do not take No for an answer…you may be surprised…

@Geo said in Foxtel:

I suggest anyone who currently has Foxtel to go here

https://www.foxtel.com.au/support/accounts-billing/cancel.html

If a long term customer do not take No for an answer…you may be surprised…

Thanks for the info champion Geo - I have decided to stay with my Foxtel plan BUT at a reduced price.
Only after asking.

Recent Topics

Support our community by clicking here and joining our Forum Support Scheme

Can’t log in or access your account?
Go to https://weststigersforum.com/reset to reset your password, otherwise send an email to contact@weststigersforum.com and we’ll get you back online.