I am sure that all of us have seen the ads on Ch 9 and Ch 10, which talk about the right to watch sport on free-to-air TV. In those ads, they quote a website: http://www.savemysport.com.au .
There is another opposing ad on Pay-TV, which talks about the fairness of showing some sport on Pay-TV, and how the free-to-air networks aren't showing sport as much as they could. That ad also quotes a website supporting the 'Pay-TV argument': http://www.fairgosport.com.au .
I have got a few questions about all this for anyone who might know.
1. What is the context to this? Is Federal parliament about to change the legislation protecting sport on free-to-air TV? Like, why is this any more of an issue today than it was 5 years ago? Why all the ads?? I certainly haven't heard anything - so if something has happened then I must have missed it.
2. Why on earth are the two websites almost identical?? (go and look at them if you don't believe me). They are set out in the exact same way, with the same graphics, format, headings etc. Why the hell is that? Why would two opposing parties design almost identical websites? It doesnt make any sense.
Does anyone know what's going on with this? It is really bugging me.
Save My Sport - What's the deal??
i would love for everything to be on free to air but in fairness to pay tv, channel 7 9 and 10 dont show everything, they have the rights but dont bother showing it at decent times if at all. it they want the rights then damn well show them at decent hours otherewise let pay tv show the games. selfish if you ask me!
-
jimmyc1985
- Champion of Essendon
- Posts: 5869
- Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 11:33 pm
- Location: Position A
I don't know what the deal is with the ads. But the irony or hypocrisy isn't lost on me; at the moment, Kerry Stokes and his cronies are litigating an absurdly complex (and bullshit) case against a host of media outlets because.....wait for it...... they conspired to put his pay TV network, C7, out of business. So it beggars belief that Channel Seven now run these ads with Sandy Roberts saying "save our sport". Good on ya Kerry, a few more Nylex's and barristers charging $25,000 per day and you'll be on your way.
-
The Man from Bomberland
- Champion of Essendon
- Posts: 10058
- Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:32 pm
- Location: Brisbane
Communications Minister Helen Coonan favours the 'use it or lose' it approach. It applies to free-to-air networks who have first use of broadcasting live sport but choose not to. On the weekend the first Rugby League Tri-Nations test kicked off 5:30pm Australian time and wasn't shown in Qld and NSW until 8:00pm. It was replayed into Melbourne at 11:45pm. This is what she is talking about.
Pay-TV wants the free-to-air networks stripped of the right of first preference to show live sport. When you consider some of the broadcasting decisions recently you can understand their point. This little 'save my sport' thing is a joke. While every effort should be made to ensure important events are shown on free-to-air, if the networks are going to broadcast at a ridiculous hour and inconvenience the consumer, there should be a serious rethink in terms of who gets to show what.
I'm all for Pay-TV being given more live sport. After all they'd at least show it and give it more respect than the commercial networks currently do.
Pay-TV wants the free-to-air networks stripped of the right of first preference to show live sport. When you consider some of the broadcasting decisions recently you can understand their point. This little 'save my sport' thing is a joke. While every effort should be made to ensure important events are shown on free-to-air, if the networks are going to broadcast at a ridiculous hour and inconvenience the consumer, there should be a serious rethink in terms of who gets to show what.
I'm all for Pay-TV being given more live sport. After all they'd at least show it and give it more respect than the commercial networks currently do.
Bombers till' I die
-
tonysoprano
- Club Captain
- Posts: 4639
- Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 6:31 pm
- Location: Perth
agree - and I love when the free to air commercial stations dont want something because they think it wont rate - and then it turns out to be the most thrilling sporting contest imaginable - like last years Ashes!Jazz_84 wrote:i would love for everything to be on free to air but in fairness to pay tv, channel 7 9 and 10 dont show everything, they have the rights but dont bother showing it at decent times if at all. it they want the rights then damn well show them at decent hours otherewise let pay tv show the games. selfish if you ask me!
The scary thing is, I think about $200 million has been spent on lawyers already. I'm with you, this is a joke..........jimmyc1985 wrote:I don't know what the deal is with the ads. But the irony or hypocrisy isn't lost on me; at the moment, Kerry Stokes and his cronies are litigating an absurdly complex (and bullshit) case against a host of media outlets because.....wait for it...... they conspired to put his pay TV network, C7, out of business. So it beggars belief that Channel Seven now run these ads with Sandy Roberts saying "save our sport". Good on ya Kerry, a few more Nylex's and barristers charging $25,000 per day and you'll be on your way.
But.... does anyone know what the context is at the moment? Is parliament about to change the antisyphoning legislation? Like, usually when there is a massive influx of advertising on a particular issue, there is a change to the law being considered / debated. But I don't think that is the case. So what is the deal?
And why are the websites the same? This is really irritating me for some reason....
And why are the websites the same? This is really irritating me for some reason....
If FTA TV can't or don't want to show it live then Pay TV should be able to show it. Why should people have to wait to watch things like Rugby League in Melb and AFL in NSW? Why can't FOXTEL show F1 races live if Ten are going to have it on delay?
I'm all for live sport on FTA but if there not going to show it live then they should lose it.
I'm all for live sport on FTA but if there not going to show it live then they should lose it.
-
dodgey
- Champion of Essendon
- Posts: 9615
- Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 8:07 am
- Location: In the Bar having a Punt
RUBBISH..... When Foxsports has the rights to something, they usually show it LIVE.beer-man wrote:At least on free to air you can watch the game at a silly hour......Its better than not at all.......
The Free-to-air stations simply pick and choose what they put up Live and what they shown on Delay dependant on RATINGS...
Take last Saturday for instance...Channel 7 has the rights to the Spring carnival. last week they showed the races Live from randwick, but because of the lack of ratings they DROP this weeks Caulfield Guineas telecast from the programming and replaced it with some repeat of some old Movie....Channel 9 has the rights to the RL tri-nations and decides to delay the coverage into Melbourne for over 6 hours. It didn't start until AFTER the coverage had begun on Foxtel which only got repeat rights and had to wait until 9 had shown it somewhere before being able to broadcast it anywhere.....And during the Footy season, Channel 10 TWICE were asked to show a game LIVE as there was a sell-out and DECLINED because it didn't fit in with their programs...
The legislation in my understanding gives Free to Air TV first dibbs at sporting events. It has also stopped the AFL in stepping in with the TV rights.
They are discussing this issue at an inquiry at the moment. A show it or lose issue is also being discussed I believe.
I don't think you'll ever not see AFL on free to air TV.
The legislation in my opinion needs to be changed.
Next season, under the AFL rights, 7 & 10 have to show all eight games of the round unless they sell some off the say Foxtel. Under their agreement with the AFL they have to be live or near live, which includes showing into NSW,Qld and ACT - non AFL markets.
My fear is that under the legislation 7 or 10 could delay telecasts in the northern states to late in the night if ratings are killing them.
Under their agreement with the AFL, 7 & 10 are going to have to be competing against each other, say Saturday nights, Sundays with the same product which is not great (for 7 &10). The supposed Monday Night Football games next year will have to be shown everywhere live or near live when normally they'd have other stuff on like Big Brother, Dancing with the Stars...stuff like that. If they start having sponsors and advertising companies jump ship because ratings are down, they're in a spot of bother.
7 (prime here) years ago, broke commitments to the ACT before with Friday Night Football when they moved our 8.30pm coverage to after midnight, which they claim is due to ratings. I don't trust them.
Being burnt before by Channel 7, what I say to the savemysport mob is this:-
1. Free to Air TV can not and will not show all of the sport they have the rights to. They are commercial channels, not sports channnels, they get profits from advertisers paying big $ to have the product advertised during high rating shows like Home And Away, Dancing with the Stars, Sunday night Movie, Big Brother etc.
2.What do you generally get when you pay nothing for it?
The Answer is NOTHING.
3. If 7 & 10 start losing lots of money and start delaying telecasts to the graveyard hours in the northern states, as a consumer who is paying nothing what say do you have if this decision is made? The answer is NONE.
4. When your paying nothing for the coverage of something like the AFL or the cricket etc, how much of that product will you get for free? The answer is AS MUCH AS THEY ARE PREPARED TO SHOW YOU, for free.
5. As the current rights stand, I as a consumer have lost the right to CHOOSE to pay for an AFL channel an guaranteed live coverage and unedited replays of all games, a choice that I had for the last five years. It has already been reported that if Foxtel get 3 games, they will be shown live on Fox3 and they'll replay all eight games. 7 & 10 aren't going to replay them are they? They'll be flat out showing them once! This legislation has now taken my right as a consumer away from me, unless Foxtel is allowed in to the equation. To me this is unfair.
For people who are against sport on Pay TV that is their opinion and they don't have to get it.
As I've said, with the AFL, I NO LONGER HAVE A CHOICE. No longer have a choice to guarantee myself that I see all eight games, that I will get live footy Saturday night, Sundays, The Monday Night games tabled for next season by paying for that right. It has been taken away from me and everyone else.
My message is that anyone who chooses not to get Pay TV for sport (including AFL) that's fine. But as for as AFL where I have lost my choice to pay for better coverage no one who is not prepared to pay for sport on TV better not whinge to me if say all eight games are not shown at a reasonable time or coverage is not up to their wishes.
They are discussing this issue at an inquiry at the moment. A show it or lose issue is also being discussed I believe.
I don't think you'll ever not see AFL on free to air TV.
The legislation in my opinion needs to be changed.
Next season, under the AFL rights, 7 & 10 have to show all eight games of the round unless they sell some off the say Foxtel. Under their agreement with the AFL they have to be live or near live, which includes showing into NSW,Qld and ACT - non AFL markets.
My fear is that under the legislation 7 or 10 could delay telecasts in the northern states to late in the night if ratings are killing them.
Under their agreement with the AFL, 7 & 10 are going to have to be competing against each other, say Saturday nights, Sundays with the same product which is not great (for 7 &10). The supposed Monday Night Football games next year will have to be shown everywhere live or near live when normally they'd have other stuff on like Big Brother, Dancing with the Stars...stuff like that. If they start having sponsors and advertising companies jump ship because ratings are down, they're in a spot of bother.
7 (prime here) years ago, broke commitments to the ACT before with Friday Night Football when they moved our 8.30pm coverage to after midnight, which they claim is due to ratings. I don't trust them.
Being burnt before by Channel 7, what I say to the savemysport mob is this:-
1. Free to Air TV can not and will not show all of the sport they have the rights to. They are commercial channels, not sports channnels, they get profits from advertisers paying big $ to have the product advertised during high rating shows like Home And Away, Dancing with the Stars, Sunday night Movie, Big Brother etc.
2.What do you generally get when you pay nothing for it?
The Answer is NOTHING.
3. If 7 & 10 start losing lots of money and start delaying telecasts to the graveyard hours in the northern states, as a consumer who is paying nothing what say do you have if this decision is made? The answer is NONE.
4. When your paying nothing for the coverage of something like the AFL or the cricket etc, how much of that product will you get for free? The answer is AS MUCH AS THEY ARE PREPARED TO SHOW YOU, for free.
5. As the current rights stand, I as a consumer have lost the right to CHOOSE to pay for an AFL channel an guaranteed live coverage and unedited replays of all games, a choice that I had for the last five years. It has already been reported that if Foxtel get 3 games, they will be shown live on Fox3 and they'll replay all eight games. 7 & 10 aren't going to replay them are they? They'll be flat out showing them once! This legislation has now taken my right as a consumer away from me, unless Foxtel is allowed in to the equation. To me this is unfair.
For people who are against sport on Pay TV that is their opinion and they don't have to get it.
As I've said, with the AFL, I NO LONGER HAVE A CHOICE. No longer have a choice to guarantee myself that I see all eight games, that I will get live footy Saturday night, Sundays, The Monday Night games tabled for next season by paying for that right. It has been taken away from me and everyone else.
My message is that anyone who chooses not to get Pay TV for sport (including AFL) that's fine. But as for as AFL where I have lost my choice to pay for better coverage no one who is not prepared to pay for sport on TV better not whinge to me if say all eight games are not shown at a reasonable time or coverage is not up to their wishes.
Most excellent Bombercol.bombercol wrote:The legislation in my understanding gives Free to Air TV first dibbs at sporting events. It has also stopped the AFL in stepping in with the TV rights.
They are discussing this issue at an inquiry at the moment. A show it or lose issue is also being discussed I believe.
I don't think you'll ever not see AFL on free to air TV.
The legislation in my opinion needs to be changed.
Next season, under the AFL rights, 7 & 10 have to show all eight games of the round unless they sell some off the say Foxtel. Under their agreement with the AFL they have to be live or near live, which includes showing into NSW,Qld and ACT - non AFL markets.
My fear is that under the legislation 7 or 10 could delay telecasts in the northern states to late in the night if ratings are killing them.
Under their agreement with the AFL, 7 & 10 are going to have to be competing against each other, say Saturday nights, Sundays with the same product which is not great (for 7 &10). The supposed Monday Night Football games next year will have to be shown everywhere live or near live when normally they'd have other stuff on like Big Brother, Dancing with the Stars...stuff like that. If they start having sponsors and advertising companies jump ship because ratings are down, they're in a spot of bother.
7 (prime here) years ago, broke commitments to the ACT before with Friday Night Football when they moved our 8.30pm coverage to after midnight, which they claim is due to ratings. I don't trust them.
Being burnt before by Channel 7, what I say to the savemysport mob is this:-
1. Free to Air TV can not and will not show all of the sport they have the rights to. They are commercial channels, not sports channnels, they get profits from advertisers paying big $ to have the product advertised during high rating shows like Home And Away, Dancing with the Stars, Sunday night Movie, Big Brother etc.
2.What do you generally get when you pay nothing for it?
The Answer is NOTHING.
3. If 7 & 10 start losing lots of money and start delaying telecasts to the graveyard hours in the northern states, as a consumer who is paying nothing what say do you have if this decision is made? The answer is NONE.
4. When your paying nothing for the coverage of something like the AFL or the cricket etc, how much of that product will you get for free? The answer is AS MUCH AS THEY ARE PREPARED TO SHOW YOU, for free.
5. As the current rights stand, I as a consumer have lost the right to CHOOSE to pay for an AFL channel an guaranteed live coverage and unedited replays of all games, a choice that I had for the last five years. It has already been reported that if Foxtel get 3 games, they will be shown live on Fox3 and they'll replay all eight games. 7 & 10 aren't going to replay them are they? They'll be flat out showing them once! This legislation has now taken my right as a consumer away from me, unless Foxtel is allowed in to the equation. To me this is unfair.
For people who are against sport on Pay TV that is their opinion and they don't have to get it.
As I've said, with the AFL, I NO LONGER HAVE A CHOICE. No longer have a choice to guarantee myself that I see all eight games, that I will get live footy Saturday night, Sundays, The Monday Night games tabled for next season by paying for that right. It has been taken away from me and everyone else.
My message is that anyone who chooses not to get Pay TV for sport (including AFL) that's fine. But as for as AFL where I have lost my choice to pay for better coverage no one who is not prepared to pay for sport on TV better not whinge to me if say all eight games are not shown at a reasonable time or coverage is not up to their wishes.
I have chosen not to have Pay TV at my house since it was introduced and I have been quite happy with this. But, I agree about this being unfair for Pay TV people, since for the last five years you and every other Pay TV person has got the AFl channel and now it is gone. As someone said earlier about the F1s'. If Pay TV got them on for LIVE sport I would very much consider getting Pay TV because I for one am sick and tired of hearing how Channel 10 were going to show more races LIVE and yet they are delayed by an hour or more and this has peeved me right off.
](./images/smilies/eusa_wall.gif "Brick wall"){kind=small}
Go Pay TV get more LIVE sport.
When does Beer taste the best? When it's for FREE!!!
At the end of the day, I would rather the choice to watch a game for free late at night than lose my right to watch it at all. Pay TV is attempting to take over sporting rights (look at the USA, there is very little sport on free to air). They have a business interest to take as much sport as they can because it equals more subscribers for them.
Foxtel had a chance to take some rights to AFL football beyond next year, however, due to their ownership and being tied to nine, a business decision was made to let the rights lie. This is not the fault of any other free to air organisation other than channel 9. If you are upset about not being able to watch AFL live on pay TV why not let the owners know.......It is after all they who are playing business games and putting their customers last.
I fail to see how 7's decidion to cut the races due to poor ratings has any baring, the races are covered on Foxtel on Sky channel, they are live against the 7 broadcast and hence have no baring on the debate. I have no issue with pay TV showing programs at the same time, or even before theie free to air competitors. What I do have an issue with is pay TV taking the free to air rights and robbing people of sport, unless they are prepared to pay for it........oh and watch the same bloody ads as free to air tv.....
Foxtel had a chance to take some rights to AFL football beyond next year, however, due to their ownership and being tied to nine, a business decision was made to let the rights lie. This is not the fault of any other free to air organisation other than channel 9. If you are upset about not being able to watch AFL live on pay TV why not let the owners know.......It is after all they who are playing business games and putting their customers last.
I fail to see how 7's decidion to cut the races due to poor ratings has any baring, the races are covered on Foxtel on Sky channel, they are live against the 7 broadcast and hence have no baring on the debate. I have no issue with pay TV showing programs at the same time, or even before theie free to air competitors. What I do have an issue with is pay TV taking the free to air rights and robbing people of sport, unless they are prepared to pay for it........oh and watch the same bloody ads as free to air tv.....
If the FTA decide to show the games live, then fair enough. I love it how Channel 10 say that showing the game live will interfer with the scheduling. Well thats true, because none of us can affor to miss "on the boundary" or whatever the f*** it that is hosted by Christy Malthouse.
I personally hope that channel 7 go bankrupt while showing the next 5 years of the footy.
FTA get first crack, if they dont want them, then they should go to the Pay networks to show live.
I personally hope that channel 7 go bankrupt while showing the next 5 years of the footy.
FTA get first crack, if they dont want them, then they should go to the Pay networks to show live.
I don't think you will ever see Pay TV pinching all the rights on major events, you'll aways see them on free to air.beer-man wrote:
What I do have an issue with is pay TV taking the free to air rights and robbing people of sport, unless they are prepared to pay for it........oh and watch the same bloody ads as free to air tv.....
Pay TV would only provide what Free to Air won't or can't and provide a more extensive coverage in the event of AFL, NRL, Cricket etc for those who wish to pay to see more of their favourites than what free to air will provide them.
At present Free to Air only show a small % of live sport and the rest they bother to show is delayed.
You can only cast back to our reliable free to air networks when it comes to sport for the Ashes tour last year when Channel Nine who had the rights decided not to show the tour because they felt it would be too one sided, feeling movies and sitcoms would rate higher and if it wasn't for SBS paying to take it on then people would have had to pay to see it (which is just as unfair). This is just one of many instances where free to air channels hog the rights to sporting events and much remains unseen by the punters.
So if they don't show it properly or when people want to see they should lose it or give pay TV the opportunity to if people are prepared to pay.
I am a practising AFL (Essendon) addict and until the TV situation is sorted I'm shit scared that the coverage I'm going to get (here in Canberra) will be f*****. Especially as we have been spoilt rotten with Fox Footy for the past five years where I had the choice to pay for a dedicated AFL channel.
Amen to that.bombercol wrote:You can also video off Pay TV. I have many times when Essendon has played say on a Saturday or Sunday afternoon live on Fox and I've been out doing open homes, and the best thing is that you don't have to fast forward the ads after each goal.
I think if the FTA wont show a game live or on a short delay telecast, then FTA should then be allowed to show it. I also think that if this does occur, then the FTA can still show it at a ridiculous time if it wishes.
Some claims made by http://www.fairgosport.com.au.
Comm Games - Channel 9 covered 14% of all sports live
This might be true, but dont forget that Channel 9 (In Melbourne at least) covered events in the Commonwealth Games from 9am to 6pm. Give them credit where credits due, their coverage of sports was akin to any Olympic Summer Games.
2006 World Cup
The reason (and a very valid one at that) is that the last round of matches is played simultainously in each group (i.e. Australia were playing Croatia the same time that Brazil took on Japan). Each of these delayed games were replayed in full after it's live counterpart. It would have been impossible for SBS to show all games live.
Since 2004, no commercial network has provided any coverage of the French Open
This year's Final was shown on Channel 9. Furthermore, Fox Sports already coveres this Grand Slam.
State of Origin
Correct me if i am wrong, but the 2006 decider in Melbourne was televised live into Melbourne.
While pay television have got a very good point in the "use it or lose it" campaign, they are not the innocent good guys that they would make themselves out to be. I am not saying that they are deliberatly misleading the Australian public, but there are always two sides to a story.
Comm Games - Channel 9 covered 14% of all sports live
This might be true, but dont forget that Channel 9 (In Melbourne at least) covered events in the Commonwealth Games from 9am to 6pm. Give them credit where credits due, their coverage of sports was akin to any Olympic Summer Games.
2006 World Cup
The reason (and a very valid one at that) is that the last round of matches is played simultainously in each group (i.e. Australia were playing Croatia the same time that Brazil took on Japan). Each of these delayed games were replayed in full after it's live counterpart. It would have been impossible for SBS to show all games live.
Since 2004, no commercial network has provided any coverage of the French Open
This year's Final was shown on Channel 9. Furthermore, Fox Sports already coveres this Grand Slam.
State of Origin
Correct me if i am wrong, but the 2006 decider in Melbourne was televised live into Melbourne.
While pay television have got a very good point in the "use it or lose it" campaign, they are not the innocent good guys that they would make themselves out to be. I am not saying that they are deliberatly misleading the Australian public, but there are always two sides to a story.