Post history

History for el grapadura

FFA Governance

Back to topic

Current version

Posted May 24, 2019 09:49 · last edited May 24, 2019 09:50

el grapadura wrote:

el grapadura wrote:

What’s to stop the A League clubs breaking away from FFA and running the competition themselves. Plenty of precedence for that type of move in Aussie sport.

Where's the money gonna come from for that?

negotiate a television contract, same as now.

What's the incentive for Fox to break a deal with the FFA worth c. $350m, open themselves to legal action, and negotiate a new deal with a brand new group, whose very survival depends on Fox wanting to engage with them in the very first place? I'll tell you what it is - 0. 

Especially in the current environment where Fox have told the NLWG that the they cannot operate on the assumption that the next TV deal for the league will be better than the current one, and that it may not even be as good as the current one. I imagine that the Fox stance is making the negotiations around the new league structure even more difficult than they originally would have been.

You’re not totally correct here. I’m not saying it is an easy deal but without the clubs, FFA has no A League and Fox has nothing to televise. Fox is not the only broadcaster in town now either, that’s landscape has change (Spark being an example). The situation is not as cut and dry and you are stating. 

The FFA still has the Socceroos, and the World Cups and AFC Champs which will bring $$$ in. For Fox, there's a lot of other sport they can fill air time with for smaller production and broadcasting cost. As I've said, Fox have already said that the value of the A-league product has fallen dramatically for them, which has made a number of people across the ditch shark their pants.

And it's well and good saying there are others who cam take over from Fox - well, who are they? Why has no-one else in Australia even shown interest in pushing Fox out of the market? Because there is no-one else with enough clout to take on the production and rights costs, especially given the increasingly paltry return on the investment. 

Previous versions

2 versions
Unknown editor edited May 24, 2019 09:50
Napier Phoenix wrote:
el grapadura wrote:
Napier Phoenix wrote:
el grapadura wrote:
Napier Phoenix wrote:

What’s to stop the A League clubs breaking away from FFA and running the competition themselves. Plenty of precedence for that type of move in Aussie sport.

Where's the money gonna come from for that?

negotiate a television contract, same as now.

What's the incentive for Fox to break a deal with the FFA worth c. $350m, open themselves to legal action, and negotiate a new deal with a brand new group, whose very survival depends on Fox wanting to engage with them in the very first place? I'll tell you what it is - 0. 

Especially in the current environment where Fox have told the NLWG that the they cannot operate on the assumption that the next TV deal for the league will be better than the current one, and that it may not even be as good as the current one. I imagine that the Fox stance is making the negotiations around the new league structure even more difficult than they originally would have been.

You’re not totally correct here. I’m not saying it is an easy deal but without the clubs, FFA has no A League and Fox has nothing to televise. Fox is not the only broadcaster in town now either, that’s landscape has change (Spark being an example). The situation is not as cut and dry and you are stating. 

The FFA still has the Socceroos, and the World Cups and AFC Champs which will bring $$$ in. For Fox, there's a lot of other sport they can fill air time with for smaller production and broadcasting cost. As I've said, Fox have already said that the value of the A-league product has fallen dramatically for them, which has made a number of people across the Dutch shark their pants.

And it's well and good saying there are others who cam take over from Fox - well, who are they? Why has no-one else in Australia even shown interest in pushing Fox out of the market? Because there is no-one else with enough clout to take on the production and rights costs, especially given the increasingly paltry return on the investment. 

Unknown editor edited May 24, 2019 09:50
Napier Phoenix wrote:
el grapadura wrote:
Napier Phoenix wrote:
el grapadura wrote:
Napier Phoenix wrote:

What’s to stop the A League clubs breaking away from FFA and running the competition themselves. Plenty of precedence for that type of move in Aussie sport.

Where's the money gonna come from for that?

negotiate a television contract, same as now.

What's the incentive for Fox to break a deal with the FFA worth c. $350m, open themselves to legal action, and negotiate a new deal with a brand new group, whose very survival depends on Fox wanting to engage with them in the very first place? I'll tell you what it is - 0. 

Especially in the current environment where Fox have told the NLWG that the they cannot operate on the assumption that the next TV deal for the league will be better than the current one, and that it may not even be as good as the current one. I imagine that the Fox stance is making the negotiations around the new league structure even more difficult than they originally would have been.

You’re not totally correct here. I’m not saying it is an easy deal but without the clubs, FFA has no A League and Fox has nothing to televise. Fox is not the only broadcaster in town now either, that’s landscape has change (Spark being an example). The situation is not as cut and dry and you are stating. 

The FFA still has the Socceroos, and the World Cups and AFC Champs which will bring $$$ in. For Fox, there's a lot of other sport they can fill air time for less production and broadcasting. As I've said, Fox have already said that the value of the A-league product has fallen dramatically for them, which has made a number of people across the Dutch shark their pants.

And it's well and good saying there are others who cam take over from Fox - well, who are they? Why has no-one else in Australia even shown interest in pushing Fox out of the market? Because there is no-one else with enough clout to take on the production and rights costs, especially given the increasingly paltry return on the investment.