stadiumking wrote:hot_dogma wrote:JF_Bay22_SCG wrote:PS:- That Caroline Wilson, what a stunner she is, hey!
LOLOL
The only thing going for her is that she has big..............opinions!
And barracks for Richmond. Well when her dad was the Tigers president during their halcyon years of the 70's why wouldn't you.
My English teacher taught Caro English....freaky.
I was wondering how the hell to combine or re-combine the 2 disparate themes here of Caro and the TV rights. Then I check today's Age and guess what? Right on cue, the following TV rights article! Again, I've highligted some selected parts -
It's open season on AFL television rights
By
Caroline Wilson
October 16, 2005
The action shifts to the boardroom as the AFL declares an opening offer of $130 million.
FOUR days ago, the AFL threw down the gauntlet to Channels Seven and Ten, the renegade free-to-air networks that took the competition by surprise back in March when they joined forces to bid for the game's broadcast rights. It has been an unnerving and difficult time since then as far as the league's relationship with Seven and Ten has been concerned.
Angry at and disdainful of Seven — its broadcast partner over four decades — for taking it to court and costing the AFL millions of dollars in legal fees, AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou and his commission seem even angrier at Channel Ten for jumping ship to bid with Seven. Still, it is Seven and Ten with whom Demetriou must deal because between them those networks have paid the AFL $10 million for the privilege of receiving the league's first financial offer and — should it come to that — outbidding the competition for the right to televise the game until 2011.
On Wednesday, the two networks were told the AFL wanted close to $130 million for the free-to-air rights. It is now receiving about $57 million from Nine and Ten, although surely that $130 million figure must relate to eight games and not the five games each home-and-away round that Seven and Ten plan to divide. Interestingly though,
the league's first offer stipulated that the rights offered to Seven and Ten did not include any right to broadcast on pay television.
And the competition is not to be discounted. On paper, Channel Nine has lost money on its five-year AFL deal — Channel Ten has boasted a slightly better-than-break-even result — but the big picture shows that
Australian football has been good for Nine and the network remains determined to keep Channel Seven out of the football picture. Nine is delighted with its Friday nights and the AFL likes Channel Nine. The speculation is that Nine and Foxtel have unofficially put forward an offer of $120 million a year.
Foxtel is reportedly prepared to pay double the annual $30 million it signed on to at the start of 2002 for four matches each round.
But questions remain, including how Nine could program the remaining four games and whether it would on-sell one of those games to SBS or even to the ABC. There is also the issue of Friday night football in southern Queensland and regional New South Wales, the famous black hole that neither Nine nor the AFL has been able to fill and which remains the one glaring embarrassment of the last five-year deal. Having recently paid a record $40 million annually for the free-to-air components of the National Rugby League broadcast rights, surely Nine's strong relationship with the northern codes must remain a concern for the AFL.
Seven and Ten appear to hold more cards in terms of regional coverage and also offer better value to football fans who favour more free-to-air games.
But, of course, the Seven Network is suing the AFL and the AFL strongly resents that. Any resurrection of media relationships between Seven and the league would surely see an out-of-court settlement or some other deal between the two parties before a rights agreement is signed. The truth is that should Seven and Ten pull this off, it will be Channel Ten that has achieved it. After all, it is Ten that has been prepared to take a massive hit in Sydney over the past four years and which will do so again next season in its preparedness to broadcast AFL prime time on Saturday nights when so few Sydneysiders want to watch it. In Brisbane, Ten has proved even more committed for slightly better but still a relatively low ratings reward. Certainly, it has been rewarded with finals — and night finals at that — but neither Channel Seven nor Channel Nine would have been prepared to commit to broadcasting AFL into Sydney the way Ten has.
Demetriou is clearly in charge of the AFL's team this time around while David White, Channel Ten's director of sport, appears to be doing the running for the Seven and Ten group. White reportedly played a major role in bringing together the News Ltd consortium the last time around, winning all five years of AFL finals for Ten. He is currently negotiating a new formula one deal for his network. Between Demetriou and White, there will be more to this deal than meets the eye.There will be deals within deals with the full picture of what fans can expect from 2007 to 2011 yet to emerge. One scenario could see a six-year agreement, not five, which would allow Seven and Ten to evenly divide the grand final over that period.
But in the end — and despite what AFL chairman Ron Evans said back in March about the AFL being prepared to sacrifice financial reward for a better coverage for the game nationally —
it will be the highest bidder, and nothing else, who will win this lucrative prize. Already, the AFL's greatest fear has been abated. After angrily accusing Seven and Ten of colluding to bring down the price of the football rights, that scenario will clearly not eventuate.
