Now that is a real question. Is there a political bias in sport support? Does it merit a separate thread??
Politicians will follow any sport for which they get free tickets
"Ive just re-visited this and once again realised that C-Diddy is a genius - a drunk, Newcastle bred disgrace - but a genius." - Hard News, 11:39am 4th June 2009
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-16/frank-lowys-...
Pretty non commital about Wellington.
Needs to be more consistant (we are pretty consistant I thought), and needs to contribute more to Australia (money?)
Now that is a real question. Is there a political bias in sport support? Does it merit a separate thread??
Politicians will follow any sport for which they get free tickets
Popularity goes up with each win.
It's just posturing as part of negotiation IMO.
Absolutely. Problem is media not pointing that out or questioning it and instead building up a story without any research.
It's just posturing as part of negotiation IMO.
Absolutely. Problem is media not pointing that out or questioning it and instead building up a story without any research.
There are also some in the media who only like to report dramatic and contentious issues because they are better for the ratings. Why bother with mundane boring facts. It's more profitable to stir it up and create a bit of interest.
Actually to be fair, Daniel Richardson didn't do too bad a job in this article (back in Oct 2014):
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c...
Quoting Domey:
" 'The FFA are not linking a licence extension to our crouds. They've never said to us, 'you've got to get your crouds up'."
then later...
"the FFA pocketed every dollar from ticket sales from that fixture - when 32,792 saw the Phoenix beat Newcastle in extra time."
He also went to the FFA for comment on Nix's future:
" 'Commenting on the future of A-League clubs is not something FFA deems to be constructive' it read. "
Fudgeing FFA hurt us more by not commenting on that one. They perhaps could comment on the process and where negotiations are at with the broadcaster. Although I suspect Sky wouldn't be too interested in paying for a product that doesn't have a local team yet confirmed in it.
Daniel also directs the FFA's displeaure to Sky's door (not the Nix's):
"It's understood the FFA hold concerns around the fact Sky paid only $200,000 for the rights to screen the competition this year. In future, they want upwards of $1 million.
That would be a significant jump for Sky but not outlandish given they reportedly pay about $17 million a season for the rights to the NRL."
I would love to see a follow up article now from Danial, basically going over the same ground to see what the different parties say (in particular FFA and Sky).
If I was Sky I would certainly be saying, confirm the Nix's licence and we'll talk about broadcasting rights. Can't see much incentive for Sky if the local team is removed from the equation.
Good article by Patrick, puts together all the positive arguments quite succinctly.
http://footballcentral.com.au/phoenix-sparking-deb...
How much do Huawei pay? I find it hard to believe its more than the AIG or Adidas gives to the All Blacks.
Also I thought the top teir of the ITM cup was Profesional, domestic cricket is also largely profesional so the NZ market can sustain some profesional sports.
Good article by Patrick, puts together all the positive arguments quite succinctly.
http://footballcentral.com.au/phoenix-sparking-deb...
How much do Huawei pay? I find it hard to believe its more than the AIG or Adidas gives to the All Blacks.
Also I thought the top teir of the ITM cup was Profesional, domestic cricket is also largely profesional so the NZ market can sustain some profesional sports.
I also thought that was an excellent, cool-headed analysis by Patrick.
Calling out Cockerill and Harper as drum-beaters for their employer (Fox TV) upping the ante for SKY TV to cough up was right on the money, if you excuse the pun. A classic case of conflict of interest if there ever was one.
On the other hand, why is Veitch not taken to task for his brainless statement on poor ratings for the Nix? That played right into Harper's hands and made the point of a product not worth buying. Someone needs to send him a polite email (possibly someone from SKY TV).
Actually, getting outplayed quite a bit these days
Dude I know who works for FACE TV says: "We can broadcast their games, just deliver the video and a (non-bouncing) cheque for the airtime."
Good article by Patrick, puts together all the positive arguments quite succinctly.
http://footballcentral.com.au/phoenix-sparking-deb...
How much do Huawei pay? I find it hard to believe its more than the AIG or Adidas gives to the All Blacks.
Also I thought the top teir of the ITM cup was Profesional, domestic cricket is also largely profesional so the NZ market can sustain some profesional sports.
I also thought that was an excellent, cool-headed analysis by Patrick.
Calling out Cockerill and Harper as drum-beaters for their employer (Fox TV) upping the ante for SKY TV to cough up was right on the money, if you excuse the pun. A classic case of conflict of interest if there ever was one.
On the other hand, why is Veitch not taken to task for his brainless statement on poor ratings for the Nix? That played right into Harper's hands and made the point of a product not worth buying. Someone needs to send him a polite email (possibly someone from SKY TV).
Likely because he didn't do any research prior to the interview and felt like he needed to seem like he knew what he was talking about.
a.haak
What if we only get a 5 year licence extension? Would that hurt the FOX / SKY TV deal compared to a 10 year licence.
Mr Positive
I think we are a surer bet for 5 years than an-unknown quantity new club in Australia that may or may not live to see out 10 years.
"A bird in hand...", and all that.
Actually, getting outplayed quite a bit these days
What if we only get a 5 year licence extension? Would that hurt the FOX / SKY TV deal compared to a 10 year licence.
I still think we need to seperate the fates a little. As fans I think we mainly care about the fortunes of the team and club. If we get a 5 year licence because that is what FFA, OFC, AFC and FIFA exec are happy with then so be it. If we get 10 then great also. I think though that the FFA has learnt that the uncertainty of externals (OFC, AFC, etc) is not in their best interests so the longer term is the better. If the club have a melt down then they can always revoke the licence and cut off the nix rather than bail out / take over.
So that just leaves FFA trying to get something out of NZF, Sky and Fox. They should take this up with those parties separately.
I think there is some argument to be had that NZF compensates AFC for having NZ nationals clarified as domestic players for the Nix and if they were to change their minds on this condition and phase it out then that would impact both Nix club and NZ national policy significantly. That is the power the FFA has. The question is how much money is that worth and how much can NZF afford. You don't really want to bleed any partner dry in a corporate deal - it will just fracture the relationship.
The next is Sky - I think we have covered this. Sky are paying a pittance at the moment but are unlikely to agree to any terms before a licence extension is agreed and afterwards - well, who knows. Any NZ broadcast partner will want the Nix future secure before agree a sweetened deal.
Fox - well, if they think a more insular product is within their interests then happy days to them! Sure they might want another Oz team that can pull in those bigger ratings but as Patrick outlined, at the expense of the Nix... crazy really? and it isn't exactly going to happen overnight finding another viable, financial stable Oz club.
Dude I know who works for FACE TV says: "We can broadcast their games, just deliver the video and a (non-bouncing) cheque for the airtime."
well thats helpful
What if we only get a 5 year licence extension? Would that hurt the FOX / SKY TV deal compared to a 10 year licence.
(----)
Fox - well, if they think a more insular product is within their interests then happy days to them! Sure they might want another Oz team that can pull in those bigger ratings but as Patrick outlined, at the expense of the Nix... crazy really? and it isn't exactly going to happen overnight finding another viable, financial stable Oz club.
I would say that was a real risk if we had like, 12-14-16 team HAL, and there were many other well-financed bids in Australia for a new licence slot; then maybe yes, they could say "we think these new high-powered local clubs trump any value Phoenix adds to HAL".
But while we have a current 10 only club league and Australian teams occasionally either fall over or need FFA money injection (which a NZ licensee never needed), then I would see us being excluded from the league in order to let in say Canberra or whoever as low chance.
But then, I am applying common sense here, and that is not always how things happen.
Also, I would discount what The Chairman (Frank Lowy) said recently about Nix' future. It may have been for the consumption of the AFC powerbrokers in the Middle East rather than a genuine statement of uncertainty. He may have his own PR agenda to consider and I would give him that discretion. The real FFA negotiations with Welnix are conducted well out of the media coverage until the deal is agreed on.
Actually, getting outplayed quite a bit these days
I would say that was a real risk if we had like, 12-14-16 team HAL...
I feel like we are arguing for the same point but that is one hell of an if!
What if we only get a 5 year licence extension? Would that hurt the FOX / SKY TV deal compared to a 10 year licence.
I still think we need to seperate the fates a little. As fans I think we mainly care about the fortunes of the team and club. If we get a 5 year licence because that is what FFA, OFC, AFC and FIFA exec are happy with then so be it. If we get 10 then great also. I think though that the FFA has learnt that the uncertainty of externals (OFC, AFC, etc) is not in their best interests so the longer term is the better. If the club have a melt down then they can always revoke the licence and cut off the nix rather than bail out / take over.
So that just leaves FFA trying to get something out of NZF, Sky and Fox. They should take this up with those parties separately.
I think there is some argument to be had that NZF compensates AFC for having NZ nationals clarified as domestic players for the Nix and if they were to change their minds on this condition and phase it out then that would impact both Nix club and NZ national policy significantly. That is the power the FFA has. The question is how much money is that worth and how much can NZF afford. You don't really want to bleed any partner dry in a corporate deal - it will just fracture the relationship.
The next is Sky - I think we have covered this. Sky are paying a pittance at the moment but are unlikely to agree to any terms before a licence extension is agreed and afterwards - well, who knows. Any NZ broadcast partner will want the Nix future secure before agree a
sweetened deal.
Fox - well, if they think a more insular product is within their interests then happy days to them! Sure they might want another Oz team that can pull in those bigger ratings but as Patrick outlined, at the expense of the Nix... crazy really? and it isn't exactly going to happen overnight finding another viable, financial stable Oz club.
Surely the licence deal and the TV deal are not related. Each being negotiated seperately.
Surely the licence deal and ghe TV deal are not related. Each being negotiated seperately.
A longer licence agreement means Welnix's pay cheaper rent for "The Cake Tin". Are there any other benefits then that over a 10 year then say 5 year deal which we probably may get.
Mr Positive
Well if there is a certainty of 10 years then Welnix and the council will be more inclined to invest into the club. Upgrade facilities at newtown park, etc.
It is understood FFA made its feelings known regarding Phoenix when it got together with the owners of the 10 A-League clubs during an at times fiery meeting in Sydney on Thursday.
In an indication of the importance of the meeting, FFA chairman Frank Lowy made one of his rare appearances as the two parties went through a raft of issues and procedural matters.
It has also emerged that Canberra is now a strong frontrunner to have a team in the A-League when the competition is expanded, most likely to 12 teams by 2017.
Clubs from Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Canberra and North Queensland are believed to be jockeying for a spot in the A-League as the head body looks to expand the competition beyond 10 teams and put itself in a position to negotiate an even bigger TV rights deal. The current broadcast rights are worth $160 million and expire at the end of the 2016-17 season. If Phoenix does not have their licence renewed, then FFA will have to find three new clubs if they want to go to a 12-team format.
Canberra made a good case for inclusion during the Asian Cup in January, when they hosted five games for a total attendance aggregate of 54,682 at an average of almost 11,000 a match — figures that caught the eye of the head body.
Phoenix have been under intense scrutiny for at least 18 months and FFA have made it known they are unhappy with what the Wellington-based club have brought to the competition in terms of dollars, TV ratings and croud figures.
It is believed that FFA has given Phoenix as much as $15m through a share of the broadcast rights and travel subsidies but, in return, Phoenix have brought very little back to the table.
Another article from Gatt. It's a bit sad when journalists don't realise they are being played.
No truth to this at all.
No doubt many errors, but if the news of a fiery meeting at least is true, that doesn't sound great especially if Gareth was involved as his fiery wouldn't be good.
we're Domed.
People like Coldplay and voted for the Nazis. You can't trust people.
No doubt many errors, but if the news of a fiery meeting at least is true, that doesn't sound great especially if Gareth was involved as his fiery wouldn't be good.
No doubt many errors, but if the news of a fiery meeting at least is true, that doesn't sound great especially if Gareth was involved as his fiery wouldn't be good.
A fan is a fan.
My head hurts reading that
It is understood FFA made its feelings known regarding Phoenix when it got together with the owners of the 10 A-League clubs during an at times fiery meeting in Sydney on Thursday.
In an indication of the importance of the meeting, FFA chairman Frank Lowy made one of his rare appearances as the two parties went through a raft of issues and procedural matters.
It has also emerged that Canberra is now a strong frontrunner to have a team in the A-League when the competition is expanded, most likely to 12 teams by 2017.
Clubs from Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Canberra and North Queensland are believed to be jockeying for a spot in the A-League as the head body looks to expand the competition beyond 10 teams and put itself in a position to negotiate an even bigger TV rights deal. The current broadcast rights are worth $160 million and expire at the end of the 2016-17 season. If Phoenix does not have their licence renewed, then FFA will have to find three new clubs if they want to go to a 12-team format.
Canberra made a good case for inclusion during the Asian Cup in January, when they hosted five games for a total attendance aggregate of 54,682 at an average of almost 11,000 a match — figures that caught the eye of the head body.
Phoenix have been under intense scrutiny for at least 18 months and FFA have made it known they are unhappy with what the Wellington-based club have brought to the competition in terms of dollars, TV ratings and croud figures.
It is believed that FFA has given Phoenix as much as $15m through a share of the broadcast rights and travel subsidies but, in return, Phoenix have brought very little back to the table.
Another article from Gatt. It's a bit sad when journalists don't realise they are being played.
No truth to this at all.
This is a little bit frightening but then again where is the real information in that article?
The croud figures comment is clearly a pisstake when you compare our croud trends with the rest of the league, especially if you look at the other teams with lower population catchment areas like ours. The tv ratings argument has been shown to be a joke as well. Yes we might not rate as high as they would want but remove us from the league and they remove the NZ market altogether. Dollars? I mean seriously WTF. What dollars are the other non-profitable A-League clubs bringing to the league?
And that last comment makes my blood boil;
"It is believed that FFA has given Phoenix as much as $15m through a share of the broadcast rights and travel subsidies but, in return, Phoenix have brought very little back to the table."
So this is money that every single team in the league gets right? As per the FFA's policies in the way they run the league? And it's well known that we do not ask for, or get, any more than that, unlike other teams in the league who have been bailed out/run by the FFA etc etc?
Seriously... is the author of this article a Cameron Slater type paid for smear campaigning? Are the bidding consortiums getting together and organising this kind of media coverage to create an extra spot for themselves in the league? I just can't see any other reason for that kind of garbage.
The worst thing about all this is that in reality our club is being run in the most responsible way, fully focussed on the future with the goal of being sustainable for the foreseeable. You would think, given the goings on elsewhere in the league, that we would be being consulted on how we have been doing things and asked for advice. Instead we get this.
It is understood FFA made its feelings known regarding Phoenix when it got together with the owners of the 10 A-League clubs during an at times fiery meeting in Sydney on Thursday.
In an indication of the importance of the meeting, FFA chairman Frank Lowy made one of his rare appearances as the two parties went through a raft of issues and procedural matters.
It has also emerged that Canberra is now a strong frontrunner to have a team in the A-League when the competition is expanded, most likely to 12 teams by 2017.
Clubs from Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Canberra and North Queensland are believed to be jockeying for a spot in the A-League as the head body looks to expand the competition beyond 10 teams and put itself in a position to negotiate an even bigger TV rights deal. The current broadcast rights are worth $160 million and expire at the end of the 2016-17 season. If Phoenix does not have their licence renewed, then FFA will have to find three new clubs if they want to go to a 12-team format.
Canberra made a good case for inclusion during the Asian Cup in January, when they hosted five games for a total attendance aggregate of 54,682 at an average of almost 11,000 a match — figures that caught the eye of the head body.
Phoenix have been under intense scrutiny for at least 18 months and FFA have made it known they are unhappy with what the Wellington-based club have brought to the competition in terms of dollars, TV ratings and croud figures.
It is believed that FFA has given Phoenix as much as $15m through a share of the broadcast rights and travel subsidies but, in return, Phoenix have brought very little back to the table.
Another article from Gatt. It's a bit sad when journalists don't realise they are being played.
No truth to this at all.
This is a little bit frightening but then again where is the real information in that article?
The croud figures comment is clearly a pisstake when you compare our croud trends with the rest of the league, especially if you look at the other teams with lower population catchment areas like ours. The tv ratings argument has been shown to be a joke as well. Yes we might not rate as high as they would want but remove us from the league and they remove the NZ market altogether. Dollars? I mean seriously WTF. What dollars are the other non-profitable A-League clubs bringing to the league?
And that last comment makes my blood boil;
"It is believed that FFA has given Phoenix as much as $15m through a share of the broadcast rights and travel subsidies but, in return, Phoenix have brought very little back to the table."
So this is money that every single team in the league gets right? As per the FFA's policies in the way they run the league? And it's well known that we do not ask for, or get, any more than that, unlike other teams in the league who have been bailed out/run by the FFA etc etc?
Seriously... is the author of this article a Cameron Slater type paid for smear campaigning? Are the bidding consortiums getting together and organising this kind of media coverage to create an extra spot for themselves in the league? I just can't see any other reason for that kind of garbage.
The worst thing about all this is that in reality our club is being run in the most responsible way, fully focussed on the future with the goal of being sustainable for the foreseeable. You would think, given the goings on elsewhere in the league, that we would be being consulted on how we have been doing things and asked for advice. Instead we get this.
People like Coldplay and voted for the Nazis. You can't trust people.
the nix getting $15m and giving little in return clearly (and deliberately) ignores the contribution that the nix make to the fox deal.
Exactly. Would an employer say to their employee "I pay you $40k per year, what money do you give back to me... apart from the services I actually pay you for..."
