EOYT 2016 - Possibles, probables and general banter

[Tomikin]

And on that note if you sign up to foxtel play, and then cancel before the end of the 2 weeks period and sign up again with a different email address, you get another 2 weeks free..

Found this out when Foxtel wouldnt let me pay them and told me I had to sign up again.. it was 1 month free back then..

 

[Scrubber2050]

And on that note if you sign up to foxtel play, and then cancel before the end of the 2 weeks period and sign up again with a different email address, you get another 2 weeks free..

Found this out when Foxtel wouldnt let me pay them and told me I had to sign up again.. it was 1 month free back then..

cheater !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Tomikin]

cheater !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I was pissed off they wouldnt let me pay over the phone i reactivated once online and they take 3 days to process it missed the Brumbies.. So tjey get what they deserve

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[Dalai Ninja]

From the Department of Communications and the Arts




Looking at that it doesn't seem to matter that beIN has the rights - it's the operator (Foxtel) that is bound by the laws.

So it would appear that Ten and beIN couldn't come to terms in time - and I wonder when the rights were decided?

I think the operator in this case is beIN. beIN isn't bound by Australian law and so had no requirement to negotiate to provide access to 10, and almost certainly wouldn't be able to do so under its contract with Foxtel. Foxtel merely provides access to beIN as part of its package, and so we get to see it on beIN, despite the anti-siphoning laws.

 

[TOCC]

beIN sports is an Australian registered company's and is bound by Australian law

Anti-siphoning legislation is written in a way with has allowed this to happen, the rights could have just as easily been picked up by Optus or Fox Sports without a FTA network

 

[Strewthcobber]

I think the operator in this case is beIN. beIN isn't bound by Australian law and so had no requirement to negotiate to provide access to 10, and almost certainly wouldn't be able to do so under its contract with Foxtel. Foxtel merely provides access to beIN as part of its package, and so we get to see it on beIN, despite the anti-siphoning laws.

beIN SPORTS Australia Pty Limited
ACN 086 130 805

 

[Tomikin]

side note, I signed up for beIN online streaming.. and it is shit !! I should just use sportlemon

 

[KOB1987]

User Actions
Following​

​

Iain Payten‏@iainpayten​

Update on Wallabies Spring Tour TV situation: Foxtel confirmed to me yday that negotiations are ongoing for Fra & England games to be shown.

 

[Braveheart81]

I'm pretty confident there will be a broadcaster in Australia for those two games.

At the end of the day it's not in the interests of the RFU and FFR to not have the game available in Australia at all. It forces people to seek illegal means of watching and damages interest in the game here.

Considering they each have a test match to sell to Australian broadcasters roughly 2 out of every 4 years, there's no point spoiling that future opportunity for the sake of not getting exactly the amount they want this year.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Surely it's in the interest's of the rights holder to ensure the game is shown this year as well.

If it's not shown it only sets a precedent, and reduces profile and decreases demand for future years.

 

[TOCC]

Surely it's in the interest's of the rights holder to ensure the game is shown this year as well.

If it's not shown it only sets a precedent, and reduces profile and decreases demand for future years.

And this is why I refute this argument that the ARU be completely exonerated in this discussion.. the broadcast of the Wallabies matches is entirely relevant to the ARU, they should be the conduit between broadcasters and the RFU/FFR.. they need to be pressing the claim and making sure that the RFU/FFR offer the rights at a reasonable able price.. there is leverage between the governing bodies, id say it's time the ARU use some of it

 

[TOCC]

If the rights aren't sold, it damages the code..

If the RFU are asking for a $1million and the FTA networks are only offering $200k, then it serves them no benefit to not sell them.. that's forgone income for no added expense, Broadcasters may have held out for better prices, but surely something has to give

 

[Brumby Runner]

^^^^^^ TOCC, do you think it's feasible that the host nation would agree to such a low offer from FTA when they know that other broadcasters, Fox and BeIn sports for two are still in the wings and probably have a history of offering more than FTA?

 

[Train Without a Station]

BR they can't sell exclusive rights to either due to anti siphoning legislation.

It's not a good situation, but what can they do? They have no power at either end.

There's no feasible way to negotiate that the rights have to be sold because unless a price is determined it can't be agreed in a contract.

The issue I believe as that the rights are actually not sold by the host union.

From what I know, they are sold by the party that purchased the broadcast rights from the host union, which places the the ARU in a position of less influence again.

 

[Strewthcobber]

The issue I believe as that the rights are actually not sold by the host union.

From what I know, they are sold by the party that purchased the broadcast rights from the host union, which places the the ARU in a position of less influence again.

exactly right TWAS.

The worldwide rights have been sold to a third party by the host unions (Pitch International). The aus media companies then negotiate with that company for the Australian broadcast rights.

 

[Brumby Runner]

But are they (Pitch International) also bound by the anti-siphoning arrangements when negotiating the on sale of games to Aus broadcasters? I understand that is so. Had one Aus FTA broadcaster put in an acceptable bid, wouldn't that be an exclusive arrangement if that was what the FTA broadcaster wanted? Or would it only be exclusive if that was what the original seller was insisting on?

Getting murkier and murkier the more I read posts about the whole matter.

 

[Train Without a Station]

to sell to Aus broadcasters I'd imagine Pitch would be bound, otherwise you'd just do this for all events as a way around the legislation.

I believe that FTA could purchase exclusive rights, but not Foxtel.

Considering that FTA purchase would not diminish Fox's interest as basically all Fox customers watch their superior telecast, I don't imagine Pitch would benefit from a sole sale when they could sell the same thing, to the same place, twice.

 

[Strewthcobber]

But are they (Pitch International) also bound by the anti-siphoning arrangements when negotiating the on sale of games to Aus broadcasters? I understand that is so. Had one Aus FTA broadcaster put in an acceptable bid, wouldn't that be an exclusive arrangement if that was what the FTA broadcaster wanted? Or would it only be exclusive if that was what the original seller was insisting on?

Getting murkier and murkier the more I read posts about the whole matter.

It's not the seller that's bound by the legislation, it's the broadcaster.

The anti-siphoning is part of their licence

 

[Rucks and Mauls]

Funny, the ARU keep telling us how important the Wallabies are to the financial success of the code....yet....it's 2016 and we can't watch a Grand Slam test match on FTA TV. For the dollars spent on salaries at ARU HQ surely they could have done more. They do have a media department after all!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Brumby Runner]

So how would that work? Pitch International could pitch it to all potential broadcasters at the outset I suppose, but Pay TV wouldn't be able to bid until after the 12 week period prior to the game has expired to see if any of the FTA broadcasters pick it up?

If an FTA organisation takes up the coverage, I suppose it is then up to them to consider offering to share it with Fox or someone similar, or to keep it exclusively.

If not picked up by FTA, what would stop one of the Pay platforms bidding on an exclusive basis if that is what they want and are able to offer an amount that PI found to their liking? Isn't that what has happened in the case of all the eoyt tests, where BeIN Sports has won the exclusive right to televise the Celtic games after none of the FTA broadcasters wanted it?

In effect, if the Pay platform wins the right after none of the FTA orgs have exercised their prior right, then the anti-siphoning legislation no longer has any effect.

All very complicated. I'd be more content I think if the anti-siphoning legislation just didn't exist in the first place. At least in terms of overseas rugby, the FTA channels have fairly clearly indicated they are not interested, and it would be much simpler all round if the rights could be auctioned to all interested parties at the outset.