Broadcast options for Australian Rugby
- Thread starter WorkingClassRugger
- Start date
Bandar
Bob Loudon (25)
Why would I sign up to Stan for one sport when I can get all of them on Kayo.
I'm not signing up for two separate services just to get rugby.
One game a week on FTA, give me a break. This is garbage
Haha - Do you work at Fox???
Rob42
John Solomon (38)
Yes, I was whinging about the 9/Stan option a few posts ago, but I'm starting to really like it - there might actually be reasons for 9 to push this, rather than just warehouse it.
Possibly, though, I'm liking it just for the opportunity to tell Fox to get lost.
Rob42
John Solomon (38)
Why would I sign up to Stan for one sport when I can get all of them on Kayo.
I'm not signing up for two separate services just to get rugby.
One game a week on FTA, give me a break. This is garbage
Because Fox are running Super Rugby into the ground, and Stan has a much higher WAF.
Pfitzy
George Gregan (70)
I first got Foxtel years ago when it was basically ad-free and you got your timeslot uninterrupted. The kids channels were great for keeping the little bastards entertained in the days before iPads as well.
I left despite their protestations that "we think our basic package is great value for news/weather/etc" when I just wanted sport. I went back at a couple of RWC when the specials were on, then left again.
The ads - the fucking ADS! Jaysus if I'm paying you for the TV then you should NOT need ads.
Pfitzy
George Gregan (70)
Because other sports are shit. Baseball? Basketball? Tennis? Car racing? Fuck off - I've only got 2 eyeballs and limited time, so I want rugby.
And if I can buy Stan for $10 / month and get the stuff I want, rather than Kayo for $25, it is an easy decision.
sendit
Bob Loudon (25)
As much as I like the channel 9 proposal, the man has a point. If you’re a generic sports fan it’s not great value to add Stan for $10 a month, I know for most it’s a minimal amount but it will turn some people off
In my view the difference between the Nine and Foxtel offers needs to be weighed up solely against the perceived value of one Super Rugby game a week on FTA.
I think any expectation that there's going to be significantly more promotion of Super Rugby across Nine news is wishful thinking. They're not going to use the time to promote something with minimal viewers.
Foxtel ramped up the promotion when test rugby started because the viewer numbers are higher and it's easier to move the needle. The same expectation would be reasonable for Channel 9. We'd obviously lose whatever promotion we currently get from Channel 10.
If that one FTA game a week is going to cost us a couple of million it's probably worth it. If it's going to cost us $5m or more it's probably not.
There's also the risk that viewer numbers actually drop because you don't get a full conversion of fans across from Fox/Kayo to Stan and there's not enough current Stan subscribers who would watch Super Rugby to fill that gap.
I think any expectation that there's going to be significantly more promotion of Super Rugby across Nine news is wishful thinking. They're not going to use the time to promote something with minimal viewers.
Foxtel ramped up the promotion when test rugby started because the viewer numbers are higher and it's easier to move the needle. The same expectation would be reasonable for Channel 9. We'd obviously lose whatever promotion we currently get from Channel 10.
If that one FTA game a week is going to cost us a couple of million it's probably worth it. If it's going to cost us $5m or more it's probably not.
There's also the risk that viewer numbers actually drop because you don't get a full conversion of fans across from Fox/Kayo to Stan and there's not enough current Stan subscribers who would watch Super Rugby to fill that gap.
FTA isn't the silver bullet to fix all our problems, with the A-League as something of a cautionary tale. And small differences to $$ mean a lot at this point in time, given how broke we are.
However, the best argument for 9/Stan is 'it's time'. The partnership with Fox is ready to end, as has been expressed thousands of times in thousands of ways on this thread.
If they can get close enough to the Fox offer then it's definitely worth doing.
However, the best argument for 9/Stan is 'it's time'. The partnership with Fox is ready to end, as has been expressed thousands of times in thousands of ways on this thread.
If they can get close enough to the Fox offer then it's definitely worth doing.
Derpus
George Gregan (70)
A-League is not a cautionary tale in my view, primarily because it's fucking garbage. Legit garbage coated garbage with garbage stuffing. Watching the EPL and then watching the A-league is like watching a RWC final and then watching the hungover fat fluffybunnys roll around in the 4ths after a big night out.
Super Rugby is still at least as entertaining to watch as the European leagues and better than the Japanese.
Derpus
George Gregan (70)
I can't disagree more. Newscorp took an absolute hatchet to Rugby's reputation in Australia earlier this year. Moving to 9 gets us out of what is quite clearly a very fucked up relationship.
Plus - ditching Phil Kearns is worth 5 mil alone. Fuck that guy and his merry band of fluffybunnys.
On the first part, absolutely. They clearly took a very negative stance on rugby when the broadcast negotiations weren't going their way. Does that coverage disappear or does it get worse though if we leave Foxtel? What happened earlier in the year wouldn't be the driving force behind the move.
Last time Channel 9 had the rugby rights they had Ray Hadley commentating games who is hopeless and knows next to nothing about rugby. I'd be careful what you wish for there.
Likewise, when Channel 7 took the cricket rights from Channel 9 they hired plenty of people from that Channel 9 team including some of the universally worst and most disliked commentators so I wouldn't be banking on Phil Kearns disappearing with a new broadcaster coming on.
Pfitzy
George Gregan (70)
Yep, I'd drop Foxtel in a heartbeat if they didn't have the rugby.
Get Netflix instead for the movies, etc.
Add Stan/Optus/whatever for the rugby and still save money.
KevinO
John Hipwell (52)
Why would I sign up to Stan for one sport when I can get all of them on Kayo.
I'm not signing up for two separate services just to get rugby.
One game a week on FTA, give me a break. This is garbage
Kayo is rubbish, I refuse to pay fox anything.
I lost it when they stopped showing European cup games, I only had foxtel or Kayo for Rugby. I want to watch Super rugby, Pro 14 and European Cup. If you don't have European Cup and there was a year with no 6 Nations you are not getting my money.
Kearns is an ex-employee of Channel 9. Probably has a relationship with the sports department so may cross over.
It would be great if they went for a younger fresher vibe with Swain, Maloney, Ransome and maybe some younger ex players.
The Honey Badger
Jim Lenehan (48)
I can guarantee you that every single one of us who are captive to FOX for Rugby only will sign up to Stan.
And I fully expect Stan to come out with Stan Sport/Premium and it will be $15 a month. Happy to pay. There is no risk. The rugby supporters who pay now will pay for this service.
The big benefit is the casual viewers that will start watching the Super match of the round on FTA on Saturday night.
It depends if Stan gets anything else apart from Super Rugby AU though. Does it include Super Rugby Aotearoa or will that stay on Fox Sports? Will Fox keep Mitre 10 Cup games and whatever European rugby they currently have?
If we're literally talking about a 2 games per week comp and one of them is on FTA each week plenty of people might not bother with Stan just for that second game.
No doubt there will be some additional viewers from having a Super Rugby game on FTA. It's not going to be any sort of vast numbers though. It will be a relatively small subset of the couple of hundred thousand who tune in for a test match.
sendit
Bob Loudon (25)
Well yea, no shit, it’s better value in that respect
What I’m saying is for someone who is a multi sport fan, which is the majority of people, it’s an added cost