The new HD Sport Free to Air Channell

[midfielder]

Long term makes more media wanting sporting content which is good for football.

 

[goingtoadisco]

Recky, if you have an old tellie you might not get the HD channells...... so good excuse to just get a new tellie !.

 

[kepo]

Channel has one L

Thanks..

 

[Ranyen]

Foxtels rights to show the HAL expire next year or the year after, so maybe a contract will be signed with the new channel as soon as it expires.

We just got a plasma with a surround sound system, so I'm cheering, couldn't of come at a better time, with all the new xbox games out, now a spots channel!! Was thinking about getting pay-tv just for sports, mainly HAL. This way sounds much cheaper

 

[ponno]

It may be cheaper but the coverage will not be as good... Foxtel does a great job with the HAL ... free to air sport means more adds and less live coverage... i hate watching sport on free to air...

 

[dbryant]

I think the best solution would be something like this (taking into consideration that we'll have five games per round next year):

*Fox Sports gets to show four live
*"One" gets to show a Saturday or Sunday match - match of the round, as designated by FFA - live.
*Fox Sports gets to show the Saturday or Sunday match at 10:00pm same day, and retains replay rights of the "One" broadcast.
*Maybe even have "One" show a replay of one-to-four other matches on a Monday, when its commercial value for Fox Sports is low but still high for FFA/HAL, especially if it was a cracking game.

Provided we don't get the ads-at-throw-ins like Channel Seven delightfully provided us with at the 2008 Olympics football tournament, and they hire two quality commentators, and they use the same graphics format as Fox Sports (a-la how the NZ carrier now does for Wellington games), there should be no problem. Fox Sports still gets four live games and a same-day replay of the fifth, "One" gets Match of the Round in primetime, and FFA gets exposure through the live Match of the Round - theoretically being the best spectacle of the weekend - as well as possibly a replay or two on Monday.

Thoughts?

 

[ponno]

So long as the coverage was the same... My example being the rugby coverage on channel 7 compared with foxtel... the commentry is so bad on 7 and the ads just kill it....

 

[Bex]

Free to air would delay the broadcast whenever it suited them. Sure, its a dedicated sports channel, but you can bet that at some stage during the season there would be some AFL, NRL, cricket, tennis, motoracing fixture that would take precedence over football. At least with Foxsports we get EVERY game live REGARDLESS of what else is on.

 

[scottmac]

Having FTA football will always be a trade off. Quality for exposure. On one hand a lot more people will be seeing it. On the other the people who are already watching wont be happy with the coverage.

 

[curious]

Having FTA football will always be a trade off. Quality for exposure. On one hand a lot more people will be seeing it. On the other the people who are already watching wont be happy with the coverage.

You make good points there. Though the people that watch it now number a fraction of those that could be watching it on FTA.  Even if a goal of reaching %50/60/70 of NRL or AFL exposure, would increase the ratings/exposure of the aleague 10 fold. One match per week on fta can do that.

We don't want to forget that %70-75 of households have chosen not to pay a min of 40 odd dollars each month for the use of paytv & even less choose to pay a min of 55+ a month to watch sport & the advantage of not having adds in football games.
Paytv subscription increases have also slowed to a walk & the introduction of extra digital fta stations will leave it's own mark on potential paytv subscribers. Most people are willing to put up with a lot if it costs them nothing to do it.

If a contract stipulates conditions of a broadcast, the buyer has to maintain those conditions. It's up to the seller of that contract to stipulate the conditions they wish. Be it the FFA or Foxsports.
Anyone against fta broadcasting at least a single aleague game, has to also be willing to allow the continued result. The game being hidden away in a corner without the benefits of mulitplying it's exposure ten fold. Without both the potential growth in support through greatly increased exposure & the financial benefits of being in a competitive commercial broadcast rights market, it will remain the limited niche market commodity it is at present.

If as a passsionate viewer of football you don't like FTA, fair enough, but don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

 

[scottmac]

Having FTA football will always be a trade off. Quality for exposure. On one hand a lot more people will be seeing it. On the other the people who are already watching wont be happy with the coverage.

You make good points there. Though the people that watch it now number a fraction of those that could be watching it on FTA.  Even if a goal of reaching %50/60/70 of NRL or AFL exposure, would increase the ratings/exposure of the aleague 10 fold. One match per week on fta can do that.

We don't want to forget that %70-75 of households have chosen not to pay a min of 40 odd dollars each month for the use of paytv & even less choose to pay a min of 55+ a month to watch sport & the advantage of not having adds in football games.
Paytv subscription increases have also slowed to a walk & the introduction of extra digital fta stations will leave it's own mark on potential paytv subscribers. Most people are willing to put up with a lot if it costs them nothing to do it.

If a contract stipulates conditions of a broadcast, the buyer has to maintain those conditions. It's up to the seller of that contract to stipulate the conditions they wish. Be it the FFA or Foxsports.
Anyone against fta broadcasting at least a single aleague game, has to also be willing to allow the continued result. The game being hidden away in a corner without the benefits of mulitplying it's exposure ten fold. Without both the potential growth in support through greatly increased exposure & the financial benefits of being in a competitive commercial broadcast rights market, it will remain the limited niche market commodity it is at present.

If as a passsionate viewer of football you don't like FTA, fair enough, but don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

I don't like FTA in this case purely because of the way it has been up until this point. I am certianly of the opinion that football must have FTA representation for future growth in this country. I also agree that contract stipulations would be the most important part of any FTA deal and if the right deal is not struck could almost be detrimental to football's future in this country.
We all know that certian broadcasters in this country have agenda's that in some cases encompass the destruction of our game.
The biggest question is do these people see the infinite potential of the game in this country? Or do they see another oportunity to cut it down so as to forward their own limited ventures in other sports.

 

[curious]

Some of these people you speak of, which by the way are a minority of media commentators, have an allegiance to media companies & will follow the company line. If a fta station was to gain some telecast rights it's in their interest to promote whatever products they are selling to the public & commercial advertisers. Unlike previously when ch7 had the telecast rights to the nsl, the aleague has much more value & commercial potential. The NSL had neither. In fact it was picked up for a song, had a small support base & was worth very little in commercial value. Yes, it had delayed telecast at a late hour, but it's ratings value didn't deserve a much better time slot. (yes i know the timeslot was far too late) SBS likely would have given it better service, but at that time SBS didn't have to worry about commercial sponsorship.

The league will also gain more acceptance as a legitimate australian sports league with more exposure & negative commentators will go with the flow. Seen it happen years ago in NSW & Qld. The vindictive commentating in both states against the AFL previous to its inception & increased popularty in both states make any negative football articles look like childs play. Mind you, it had little coverage at all.

Be aware though. With increaased public exposure the positive & critical press/news comment will increase with it just like the other leagues in australia & football leagues oversees. So we have to learn to take the good with bad & not jump up & down screaming victimisation every time we read something we don't agree with.