This is just a circular argument. I do not see the point in taking away a licence "because another consortium needs it". While a franchise like the Nix still puts bums on seats and delivers the goods, more or less, surely it makes sense for FFA to collect money from an additonal club for an additional licence. The only criterium I can see here is whether FFA makes money or not an on existing franchise, like Nix, CCM or WSW.
They can say that we need to meet steeper criteria than most because we do not make them enough money via TV rights. But that is not a reason to replace us, only not to have us at all. We are not the problem. The value of SKY broadcasting deal is the problem. Anything else is just jingoism and good old Aussie bullshark..Mr. Teo is talking through his hat, and is talking up a non-existing situation. We are not selling our licence because it is not ours to sell.
I find the TV rights thing so funny. A-League is shown here in the UK on BT Sport and the Nix is the only reason I subscribe. How much is Fox getting from BT?
Switching the Nix off is losing a potential viewership of up to 5 million people across NZ, Aus, UK and further afield. I'm sure those Nix fans I'm proud of seeing at the Aussie games wont be watching the other A League matches in Aus as I'm sure most of us here don't. Can Fox afford to lose Aussie based subscribers who are only interested in the Nix?
