By Jesse Fink
October 23rd 2009 @ 6:41am
Related coverage
Why SBS must screen the A-League
Finally, some commonsense from Football Federation Australia, with Frank Lowy realising the game is up for the A-League and the Australian World Cup bid if drastic changes aren’t made – and made now.
At a function hosted by Melbourne Victory, Lowy acknowledged the future of the game wasn’t in being squirreled away on pay-TV and said “there’s no doubt that the game needs to be shown on free-to-air from time to time, or certain parts of the competition on free-to-air”.
This is a seismic statement from the FFA chairman and will have Fox Sports executives, to extend the earthquake metaphor for a moment, shaking in their boots.
With two years left on their seven-year, $120m deal, Fox would have been forward-planning to embed themselves even further in the profile of the local game, withstanding the rights already purloined by SBS, which include the 2010 and 2014 World Cups. Instead it has been left on shakier ground than ever before.
Football has been Fox’s glittering prize: A-League matches, A-League highlights shows, Socceroos qualifiers in Asia and for the World Cup, home friendlies.
A not inconsiderable bounty.
In the process, broadcasting careers have been made and a wedge driven between Fox and SBS for the bragging rights as the “home of football”.
But it appears Lowy has cottoned on to the fact that if he is going to bid for the World Cup, a mission whose raison d’etre is to bring the game of football to as many people as possible, he can’t at the same time be seen to be denying it to the majority of Australians, the very people he needs to get behind the campaign.
Hence his new, calculated message of “football to the people”. Up until now, true to his businessman’s creed, it was “football to the highest bidder”.
Football fans would be right to be cynical about it but hardly in a position to complain. For the game to truly grow it does need to be seen by as many people as possible, and that is on free-to-air.
What Lowy must equally do, however, is not make the same mistake as his predecessor, David Hill, and sell the game’s soul – or part of it – to the station with the biggest ratings or advertising revenue. Hill’s selling rights to Channel Seven back in the late 1990s was one of the greatest mistakes in the history of Australian sport.
Who can forget the slogan: “NOBODY SCREWS SOCCER LIKE 7”?
A former chief executive of its then-pay TV arm, C7, even admitted in an email the network had deliberately “suffocated the sport” in order to appease the AFL, who transferred its own rights from Seven to Nine and Ten.
No, the rights must go to the station that will do the right thing by the game. That station is SBS.
I say that not as a SBS employee (though I am) but as a football fan who appreciates what SBS has done and continues to do for the game I love. No one else, in my opinion, comes close to their passion for the game and the credibility and intelligence of their staff.
Give it to SBS, Frank. And let’s all get on with the show.
Get Australia's best Football opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(91)
albe said | October 23rd 2009 @ 6:44am | Report comment
the rights belong to Fox for a while yet, so the only chance if is they choose to on-sell a game. Which would be great.
If Fox can tie something up long term though – in exchange for giving up a game and some highlights – it could be win-win for everyone.
Mushi said | October 23rd 2009 @ 7:47am | Report comment
I’m struck by the hypocrisy of soccer fans. They should be free to air for the obvious financial benefits. But foxtel should just surrender the rights because it is the right things for soccer.
Here is the thing with out foxtel there is no A-leauge. They took a punt on the leagues future and at the first opportunity your are kicking them to the curb.
If we get the world cup it will be the flat out worst thing for the Australian population. We an not support, long term, the stadiums required to host the game, it will be a billion plus black hole coming out of a recession.
dasilva said | October 23rd 2009 @ 7:53am | Report comment
No one saying that Fox should surrender their rights
That’s ridiculous. The government anti-siphoning list has already decided that they let FOX contract to finish before forcing Socceroos on Free To Air.
The article is just about how next contract negotiation for the rights to broadcast A-league, ACL, Socceroos etc should have been given to a FTA channel
mushi said | October 23rd 2009 @ 10:07am | Report comment
Should be given to FTA? Why the blanket statement? Sure if they offer up better terms and compensation I can see hwy but you are still saying the HAL just abandon the channel that actually helped and that fox should let them go in a “if you love something set it free” kind of way?
dasilva said | October 23rd 2009 @ 1:06pm | Report comment
Mushi my actual opinion is the A-league should remain on FOX. Perhaps with one match a week or a highlight package on FTA
The ACL should be on FTA as I believe that this has potential to be a very important sporting event that could capture the imagination of the Australian public especially if we have a melbourne or sydney team making it far in the knockout stages of the tournament
I’m just responding to your comment that FOX should be surrender the rights
No one is suggesting it. Just that the next time the Football rights are negotiated that there must be some FTA component.
I don’t want football to be on FTA for reasons that we have the right to see events for free. I actually don’t believe in that rubbish and I think the anti-siphoning laws are a bit of peculiarity of Australian culture.
However I think it’s the best interest of the game that there is some FTA component to ensure that people can watch it and actually become a fan of the sport. FTA allows growth of the fan base in the game (I see ACL as a major key to that).
I don’t believe in loyalty bonus. This is business. FFA showed no loyalty to SBS despite years of wonderful service to the game and neither should FFA show any loyalty to FOX just like AFL didn’t show loyalty to channel 7 when it temporarily moved to another TV station.
Of course if FOX is willing to pay obscene money for exclusive rights, my opinion may change. But for know, ideally there should be FTA component in the next deal
md said | October 23rd 2009 @ 7:52am | Report comment
Jesse – I vehemently disagree – returning to SBS would be the worst possible thing for the A-league’s future.
There is more than a sliver of truth to the widely held perception that your stablemates at SBS have not moved on, one iota, from the NSL days; barely a week goes by without someone either whinging that their views (by which they usually mean their cronies’ ambitions for a paid job somewhere on the FFA/A-league roster) are being ignored, or that things were better in the “good old days”. With their reach into multicultural Australia, they had an immense opportunity to assist the game by encouraging their audience to get on board and embrace the changes to the national competition. Instead, for 5 years, they have taken every opportunity to snipe, niggle and undermine the A-league, all from the safety of a taxpayer funded TV job. Their “football owes us a living” approach has been to the local game’s detriment.
More than that, the future of the game must be mainstream and commercial. Put it another way – to have a future, the game must be mainstream and commercial. That means someone other than the tax-payer needs to fork out money to pay for the A-league. Foxsports will certainly offer more than the current $120m for the long-term rights – at least double and probably a multiple. For the game to go free-to-air, someone needs to come up with that sort of money (either alone or in a consortium). SBS is a specialist broadcaster with a much needed mandate in the community for speciality and boundary-pushing TV. Spending hundreds of millions of dollars of predominantly taxpayer money on mainstream sporting rights is nowhere near the proper use of the channel’s funds.
With the proliferation of channels and the fact that the game has massively increased in popularity, the FFA holds a strong negotiating hand. Certainly that hand is strong enough to insist that every game on FTA or cable be shown live, in full and uninterrupted. That is all the punters really want. In the content starved world of multi-channel, the analysis shows will appear wherever the TV rights end up. The much vaunted SBS footballing staff – will have a choice to throw their hats into the ring with whoever gets the rights (and the opportunity will surely arise for them to do that), or stay on the sidelines spending tax-payers money sniping about a game that is moving on, with or without them.
Finally – this is likely to be the last “TV broadcast rights package” in the game’s history. The next package will be mostly an internet delivery rights package (possibly with a remnant TV component), and it is entirely uncertain as to whether that will be more or less profitable for the game. The betting money is on less. It is incumbent on the FFA to get as much money for these rights and to make sure the game is as commercially driven as possible, so that the league and the clubs are in a position to set up for the next phase of media.
Cheers
md
Pippinu said | October 23rd 2009 @ 8:32am | Report comment
md
very good post – all points well made.
But – there remains a big question mark as to whether live A-League games are a good fit for commercial FTAs.
md said | October 23rd 2009 @ 9:31am | Report comment
It’s probably worth expanding on my last point about internet rights.
If you want to see where we are likely to head, go to hulu.com (click through the bit that says only available in the USA), and have an explore. Its early days, but there are full games of college football available for on demand HD download (as well as movies, sitcoms ets…) – some for free and some for a subscription fee. The next gen of TV’s will be (are already in some OS markets) set up to take advantage of sites like this, as well as FTA and cable channels.
Brendan said | October 23rd 2009 @ 12:05pm | Report comment
md
Keep in mind that Internet Companies very rarely create content. Site’s like Hulu are aggregators. They purchase the right to distribute programing that has already been created (generally) by broadcast companies.
It is doubtful that companies like this are going to buy rights directly as they would have put in signficant investment into recording infrastruture. I suppose a sport could make that investment and sell the feed directly but again I doubt the sport would want to tie up its capital in that way.
It is more likely that broadcast companies will buy exclusive rights to record and broadcast sports, they will then onsell the recording to aggregators like Hulu for internet distribution (live or delayed). If the sports are clever they will have clauses in the rights deal that pays them a percentage out of the forward rights.
md said | October 23rd 2009 @ 12:14pm | Report comment
There are plenty of production companies that can do that (e.g. Southern Star, Endemol, possibly IMG), without a broadcaster needing to be involved. It’s not beyond question that the rights go to a production company and its left to them to negotiate the distribution strategy with broadcasters of any format.
Things like Hulu (combined with the national broadband network) will make the distinction between FTA and cable completely obsolete. Shows will be available in every home online either for free, or possibly for an i-tunes single style micropayment. How much weight does an anti-siphoning argument have if the tariff is say $2 or even $5 per game, and you have no ongoing obligation to pay for anything else?
Freud of Football said | October 23rd 2009 @ 3:17pm | Report comment
md, you are right about the internet, this is likely to be either the last or second last tv-rights deal, after that the internet will take over.
In fact I watched the Bordeaux – Bayern CL game online just this week, it was being streamed by SAT1, one of the big tv channels here in Germany and believe me, no German company would bother doing something like that if there wasn’t money to be made. They did an excellent job of monetising it with a number of ads before streaming began and a packed half-time program and I’m getting quite used to the number of games available from actual tv channels online.
However there is some truth that football in Aus needs to be FTA. Australia has long been privileged enough to get its main sports on FTA and many hold the view that if it’s not on FTA that it’s not worth paying for.
Either way, for the game to grow at least one game per round must be shown on FTA. The majority of the Australian public do not have Pay TV and don’t forget many can’t afford it so if we want interest to grow then that’s the best way to do it. Foxtel will in turn be rewarded as the League’s popularity grows and more “casual” fans develop an interest, some to the point that it might tip them over the edge into getting Foxtel.
Also, on FTA football might lose some of the stigmatism surrounding it. It’s naive to think that it’s not still called “Sokah” or “Wogball” in many parts of the country. By putting it out there and providing free entertainment from the game people will lose their skepticism over time, the more people that are exposed to football in Australia the better, that’s the only way the game will grow, Foxtel has more-or-less reached its potential for growing the game and unless it spreads, even with some unique advantages, Australia will struggle to get the WC
Midfielder said | October 23rd 2009 @ 8:00am | Report comment
Jes & MD
Totally agree with MG Jes … SBS for mine need to get over themselves …
Also the Fox agreement was for 7 years signed in Hal 2 so it’s in place until hal 8.
Brett McKay said | October 23rd 2009 @ 8:06am | Report comment
as an occasional football viewer (and who doesn’t have Fox) even just a Friday night FTA A-League game over the summer months would get me watching it. Now that the winter codes have finished, and with key ratings periods also soon to wrap up, there’s not much on the box from now on.
I don’t doubt Fox Sports’ significant contribution to football in this country for one minute. It’s helped re-build the game and become a significant source of entertainment for the Australian (and NZ) public. That source would just get a whole lot bigger with a FTA presence.
In my mind, the A-League and/or T20 domestic cricket should be targetting that vacant Friday night slot over summer. Live sport or re-run Chevy Chase movies?? Seems like a no-brainer to me…
dasilva said | October 23rd 2009 @ 8:06am | Report comment
I don’t agree with FTA should be given to SBS as a principle. Now I don’t mind SBS being given some rights for a few games or even all A-league games but they should be given only by playing in the level playing field with other TV stations not be given simply because they are SBS and helped the game in the game.
Although I’m not as harshly against it as md. After all SBS has become far more mainstream nowadays. You can’t exactly call the Ashes and Cricket to be a marginalised game played only in ethnic community. I still enjoy watching the World Game.
However I don’t like this sense of entitledment that SBS arnd you are giving. They do not deserve to get Football simply because they help the game in the past. Football in Australia is bigger then SBS and it’s always have been. we thank them for their services but they have to play on the same playing field as any other television station when it comes to getting football rights.This isn’t a mate’s club anymore. It’s business.
I’m quite sure the next TV deal, SBS will be very competitive in its bid secure a few A-league games as they don’t seem to be a great interest from the commercial station for it yet. I think Frank Lowy has always had a goal in trying to bridge old soccer with new football so perhaps SBS will have a large role to play.
However SBS is going to have to live with not having a monopoly over Australian Football on FTA.
In any case the channel 7 deal will probably never happen again. There will be some sort of clause that you must show 80% or whatever percent of live A-league game in the contract just like there is in the Foxsports. So we don’t have to worry about ti.
Although I do agree that Channel 7 should never be given football ever again. However I don’t mind it on other channels
True Tah said | October 23rd 2009 @ 8:14am | Report comment
Jesse
“Football has been Fox’s glittering prize”
I take it you are unaware of the fact that the NRL and Toyota Cup absolutely dominate the Pay TV sports ratings. Yes a handful of futbol games rate very well, but I understand that in the top 100 programs, over 60% are NRL/Toyota Cup.
Midfielder said | October 23rd 2009 @ 9:27am | Report comment
TT
Jes is right … for a fraction of the cost of any other sport it rates quite well.. the Socceroos out rate all other events… and the A-League out rated the union or it did in Hals 2 / 3 / & 4… ot to sure about this year…
BTW the RU thing is based on an Australian wide thing the East Sydney Blues rate very well … on par with any team its the other teams that are not that viewer pulling…
The Bishop said | October 23rd 2009 @ 8:15am | Report comment
Talking of credibility, a writer who left Foxsports under a cloud and then went to SBS is slagging of foxsports and spruiking his own TV station in an article he gets payed for. Very credible indeed
Exhibit A: The Premier League in England, the richest and most watched league in the world why? One reason – pay TV. These deals made it what it is today, short and simple. I believe Buckley has made the same point. Likewise, Pay TV has been crucial and continues to be for the good of the growth of the A-League. In fact, it has made the A-League possible to date. End of.
SBS have rarely been able to afford (or have refused to pay enough for) decent football coverage in recent times, they save their pennies and cherry pick one or two events like the world cup, I doubt things have changed in ‘this financial climate’. In any case, I already switch over to ESPN when the cover the Champions League as they are dreadful and biased – their agenda-driven comments show that passion can sometimes be a bad thing.
Gaz said | October 23rd 2009 @ 8:17am | Report comment
SBS is still the home of “old soccer” or whatever you wanna call it, which is all the more reason to give the A-League to SBS. We need to get those Euro-snobs and NSL die-hards on board, and FAUX is never going to do it.
Besides which, in case anybody hasn’t noticed, News Ltd is owned by a man who deserved to be tried in the Hague for his war-mongering propaganda. He uses profits from sports and movies to prop up his global political agenda. Just sayin…
md said | October 23rd 2009 @ 8:33am | Report comment
Gaz – Rupe’s main vice is chasing money. He supports Foxnews because it appeals to the right-wing third of America, which gives him 100m+ rusted on loons to sell advertising to. One man’s war-mongering propaganda is another mans constitutional right to free speech and/or dissention. It might be highly distasteful to make money out of it, but denying those rights of free speech and/or dissention to rightwing loons is the first step down a path that actually does deserve to end up in the Hague.
Art Sapphire said | October 23rd 2009 @ 9:32am | Report comment
md – spinning for Rupert. What a load of tosh. Since when has Rupert been an advocate of free speech.
He is an advocate pure self-interest, making money and weilding power.
New York Time reported – Mr. Murdoch cooperates closely with China’s censors and state broadcasters, several people who worked for him in China say. He cultivates political ties that he hopes will insulate his business ventures from regulatory interference, these people say.
Gee md – I wonder how many of his worldwide publications opposed the Iraqi invasion. Can you name any??
md said | October 23rd 2009 @ 9:58am | Report comment
I think we are saying the same thing, but with different angles to it. Criticise Murdoch all you like for shady deals with authoritarian governments (and some democratic ones), and I won’t disagree a jot.
My point is that you cannot legitimately take issue with the fact that in countries like the USA, the UK or the EU (which have strong free speech protections, fearless regulators and plenty of other avenues for people to obtain information), he runs channels or newspapers that appeal to and play off the prejudices of lunatics, for commercial profit. He’s a sensationalist and a tabloidist. That’s how he makes a large portion of his money. It’s distasteful, but completely legitimate.
If on the otherhand, you want to send him to the Hague, on the basis that you disagree with what he publishes, or find his business distasteful, then that is the first step down a very dangerous path that leads to Chinese style state censors.
Art Sapphire said | October 23rd 2009 @ 10:56am | Report comment
md – There is a fair bit of hypocrisy here. The Chinese authorities disagreed with what the BBC was showing so Uncle Rupe did them a favour and took the BBC off his Star TV Network.
You, don’t want those simple Chinese folks to be exposed to anything but the official party line now do we. As long as there is a buck in it News Ltd has no problem doing business with fascists and dictators.
What was that you said about heading down a dangerous path?
md said | October 23rd 2009 @ 11:15am | Report comment
Absolutely. Our miners have the same problem. Stern Hu is sitting in jail charged mostly with letting Rio get one over the Chinese state apparatus.
As I pointed out on Davidde’s recent blog, we are going to have to do deals with these same compromised regimes and turn all sorts of blind eyes to get a real chance of hosting the world cup.
It’s a very dangerous path. Do you pack up your bat and ball though?
Art Sapphire said | October 23rd 2009 @ 11:57am | Report comment
md – When did multinational corporations like Rio Tinto become “our miners”?
I thought they were only “your miner” if you owned shares in them.
Stern Hu is an Australian citizen working for a multinational. Rio Tinto’s brief is not the betterment of Australian society, it is to maximise profits for their shareholders.
The same applies to News Ltd. I can’t see how owning over 70% of the national daily press is healthy for a democratic society. Where are the fearless regulators in Australia?
I know where – Hiding from big Rupe.
md said | October 23rd 2009 @ 12:27pm | Report comment
Look – farbeit from me to be spokesperson for this planet’s highly compromised reality, but you may wish to google the cross media ownership rules, take a look at parts 5 – 7 of this http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/bsa1992214/ and possibly consider the fact that simply by being online you have access to an extraordinary range of media diversity. Or is Rupert preventing you from doing that too?
Art Sapphire said | October 23rd 2009 @ 12:48pm | Report comment
md – That’s hilarious – you give me a link to a set of rules that can be changed at anytime if the regulators are ever brave enough.
Rupert has never prevented me from doing anything – what a trite line. I am just stating certain realities that I and reasonable people find unsatisfactory.
If you want to be a Murdoch apologist. You should charge him for it.
In the world according to Rupert, its a user pays world. You are selling yourself short, md
Gaz said | October 23rd 2009 @ 11:07am | Report comment
One of the top Nazis sentenced to death at Nuremburg was Julius Streicher, a major propagandist and editor of Der Stuermer, a virulently antisemitic newspaper. Of course he was just following Herman Goerring’s line, right?
It’s funny how all the Murdoch papers were madly keen to go to war in Iraq, innit? And even though we know the intelligence was “sexed up” we still cannot get a real inquiry. But that’s just clever business to you is it, md?
A million Iraqis or more are dead as a result. That’s my point.
And that’s why I will never suscribe to News Ltd.
md said | October 23rd 2009 @ 11:25am | Report comment
I invoke Godwin’s law. You lose this one.
The Bishop said | October 23rd 2009 @ 8:23am | Report comment
Gaz, has it escaped your notice that the main football analysts on SBS are extremist eurosnobs themselves (as is most of their demographic)? Are they the ones you want handling A-League coverage?
cbowden9000 said | October 23rd 2009 @ 8:26am | Report comment
There is no doubt that the A-League needs at least some free-to-air coverage, but saying that SBS should be the only network to get the rights is foolish. How much exposure and advertising would people see? People that aren’t already interested in football are less likely to know that an A-League game will be on SBS than say, if the games were on One HD.
Sports on One HD are advertised on Channel 10, and I must say that I believe the 10 Network to have no bias against Australian football. I watch Sports Tonight regularly, and unlike Channel 7 or Channel 9, Channel 10 speak positively about Australian football and very rarely report on the gossip and speculation of any sport. For example, during the Frank Farina sacking, channel 7 and channel 9 news would use negative words and speak in a negative tone of football, where as you got the straight story with all the facts in Sports Tonight’s report.
It needs to also be noted that One HD has already jumped on the football bandwagon with matches and highlights shows from the Serie A and the Bundesliga.
Vote 1: One HD
JiMMM said | October 23rd 2009 @ 8:27am | Report comment
Jessie
While I agree that there needs be at the least a FTA component of the next TV deal for football, there is absolutely no reason the rights should just be “given” to SBS. The rights like anything else should go to the highest bidder (and there should be some pretty stirngent conditions that go with it), and if that happens to be SBS then so be it.
I also think FFA need to be careful when they sell the rights to make sure they aren’t screwing themselves like the NRL did. I don’t think any match should be broadcast live into the area that the game is being played in unless it is a sell out, e.g. A game played at Lang Park, would not be broadcast into South East Queensland live unless every seat in the stadium is sold (90% is more practical).
agga78 said | October 23rd 2009 @ 8:40am | Report comment
If you want the game to grow in this country SBS is certainly not the station to grow the sport, if the domestic game returned to SBS all the gains football has made in the past 5 years would be for nothing. SBS has ratings in the 4% range, even though SBS is on FTA, no one watches SBS. Plus The way SBS world game program has treated the A league since they lost out in broadcasting matches has been nothing short of disgraceful, the negative bile coming from Les and Fozzihno who seemed to think A league teams should be able to play like Barcalona. You don’t see channel 9 kicking AFL at every opportunity even though they lost the TV rights, they still talk positively about the game, but at SBS the bitterness towards the A league comes on the screen loud and clear. I am happy for the game to stay on Pay tv until a FTA has enough respect for the sport, that they try to promote the code not shoot it down at every opportunity like SBS has done for the past 5 years (what would Johnny Warren think, I think he would be at foxsports if he was alive)
andy g said | October 23rd 2009 @ 8:49am | Report comment
The current coverage being offered by Fox is by far the best and most thorough coverage the local game has ever had in this country.
I’ll never forget what channel 7 did to soccer and would be loath to take that risk again, and would be disappointed if a free to air contact meant a less comprehensive coverage, which is almost inevitable.
I get to watch every game played now, which is far better than any commercial network could offer.
Vince said | October 23rd 2009 @ 9:09am | Report comment
Back in the days before live EPL on Fox, there used to be a weekly highlights show on FTA to keep fans up to date.
I can’t see SBS being able to afford live games but maybe ia highlights package for the HAL might do the trick?
Personally, I can’t see why people bitch and moan about the cost of Pay TV, it isn’t that much, you just have to prioritise – 1 family dinner at McD a week or Pay TV for the week?
Eamonn said | October 23rd 2009 @ 9:14am | Report comment
When did SBS ever show the National Soccer League in a style that ever matched Fox?
One game a weekend on SBS, if you were lucky, and no innovation or imagination in presentation along the way.
Sure the World Cup on SBS has always been great, but when SBS had the local product for years and years they were unable to lift the profile of the domestic game. Not all their fault, but they hardly helped the cause did they?
There traditional repetitive turgid analysis, dismal presentation style, (black suits, thighs spread, and lets bore the pants of the viewers) narrow view of the fans and the place of the game in Australia; and alienation of many sports fans actually hindered the games progress in my view.
and let’s not forget they’ve been knocking the A-League for most of the early years…..so what every game on SBS would be criticised for not being of Barca standard….should get the viewers in in droves. Nice try Jesse, the story is slanted all over SBS website as well.
We need FTA but not sure SBS is the answer…though with Test Cricket on SBS at least Aussies know where the station is these days!
AndyRoo said | October 23rd 2009 @ 9:23am | Report comment
If there are 6 games of HAL each week with 5 on Fox with just one on FTA then that will probably be a boon for Fox.
1 game a week whet the appetite but not satisfy it for fans.
Midfielder said | October 23rd 2009 @ 9:29am | Report comment
Jes
Just a tho… you should maybe show this thread to Mrs Football & Fozzie … almost total agreement don’t let SBS near …New Football ….
Jesse Fink said | October 23rd 2009 @ 9:49am | Report comment
The Bishop writes: “Talking of credibility, a writer who left Foxsports under a cloud and then went to SBS is slagging of foxsports and spruiking his own TV station in an article he gets payed [sic] for. Very credible indeed.”
Um, my friend, what was the cloud? PMG came in and decided to cut the freelance budget. Hence no HTO. An unkind chap from PMG then slagged me off in print because a reader thought the replacement blog, ‘The Whistleblower”, was crap. I responded in kind and told him to shove it.
This is also an article “payed for” by Conversant Media, which last time I checked was independently owned and has nothing to do with SBS whatsoever.
I have also never worked for SBS-TV. Ever. My only work has been for SBS Online.
md said | October 23rd 2009 @ 10:05am | Report comment
“I have also never worked for SBS-TV. Ever. My only work has been for SBS Online.”
Righto then. Completely different.
mushi said | October 23rd 2009 @ 10:13am | Report comment
That comment was a little strange, pedantry rarely wins the day when talking about ethics and motivation. It makes it appear more motivated by self interest.
Pat said | October 23rd 2009 @ 9:53am | Report comment
I agree with a few of the above points:
- Internet distribution is the way of the future, and we should be preparing for that long term reality right now
- The A League needs to find a FTA presence to grow the game
- That FTA “home” must be contractually bound to show live games (or a live game, with the rest on Fox) in a way that doesn’t destroy ticket sales
SBS should have no entitlement to the game. I love its championing of football, but the idea that a public broadcaster with a clear mission to broadcast multicultural content should shell out hundreds of millions of dollars for a mainstream sport is a bit weird and probably unjustifiable to parliament.
Surely ONE digital or someone else will come in, buy one game a week and the Socceroos, and the rest will end up on Fox…
Mackey said | October 23rd 2009 @ 9:59am | Report comment
A FTA deal with one game per week, delayed by half an hour in the host city and a highlights package would be the best thing for the game I think. Remember, the majority of NRL and AFL matches are shown live on Foxsports too.
SBS might have great analysis, but they need to add some bells and whistles and catch up with the modern age of technology a bit I feel. Foxsports FC would be fantastic if they touched on other competitions aside from the HAL and EPL.
Ben of Phnom Penh said | October 23rd 2009 @ 9:59am | Report comment
The A-League is still in its development phase. More teams are to come and the desire for cup competitions and a second tier has been aired. For a long time yet the sport is going to have to place a greater emphasis upon the financial return from the rights as opposed to the accessibility. It is not a matter of either or, it is a matter of weighting. As such SBS will probably have to bid less that Fox to access the rights however not much less at all.
The Bishop said | October 23rd 2009 @ 10:05am | Report comment
Thanks for picking me up on the correct spelling of ‘paid’ Jesse, nice to see you focussing on the big issues as always. You have won me over, I now see the truth is that you are completely objective and willing to forego any personal gain for the betterment of Australian football, indeed, a true custodian of the world game. Bravo.
Michael said | October 23rd 2009 @ 10:24am | Report comment
I think the future is a hybrid of both Free-to-air, and Pay TV, much like AFL has done, but in a more successful manner.
Without Foxtel, we wouldn’t have the A-League as we know it now, and it was great for establishing the league. However, the time has come where instead of establishing the league, we need to develop it and expand it’s audience. This can only be done on Free-to-air TV.
I’m not sure that SBS would be the correct channel, but the only other suggestion I can offer is Channel 10, and given their current financial climate, I don’t think they’ll be bidding big bucks for the A-League.
Channel 7 and 9 are too caught up in AFL, and there are far too many conflicts of interest. However, if there is something in the contract forcing the networks to show the matches (either on their analogue channel, or a digital counterpart) then it can only be win win for the FFA.
The problem with putting the Socceroos on the anti-siphoning list, is that it will force the price down of covering these games. SBS would be the only real bidders, and the FFA would stand to lose a fortune if Foxtel aren’t in the bidding process to raise the prices.
Jesse Fink said | October 23rd 2009 @ 10:27am | Report comment
Bishop, I couldn’t give a a frog’s fat arse if I’ve won you over. I’m correcting facts: 1/I don’t work for SBS-TV, 2/I didn’t leave under a “cloud’, rather an economics-motivated management decision, 3/I am being paid by Conversant Media for this article. If you are going to call my credibility into question, man up.
md said | October 23rd 2009 @ 10:52am | Report comment
OK Jesse – I’ll bite on point 1, and I do it in the interests of knowing, rather than having a go:
Is there a significant difference between TWG’s online and on-air arms. If so, how do they differ? For example:
- Are there different people in charge of deciding what goes to air, and what goes online?
- Do those people have different editorial guidelines.
- Is there strictly enforced structural separation or do people float between both arms based on what is needed?
Would be interested to hear your take on it, because to most people SBS is SBS is SBS.
Jesse Fink said | October 23rd 2009 @ 1:05pm | Report comment
MD, I can only answer as someone who is a freelance employee not a staffer at SBS Online, but to the best of my knowledge TV and online are separate entities with separate management structures. Ie, there is an executive producer of sport, online, and there is an executive producer of sport, TV. They obviously “synergise” content, to borrow a Rupert Murdoch term, and exchange information and ideas, so to answer your other question: no, I don’t imagine the divisions are strictly enforced. But at budget time each manager is responsible for his/her department.
md said | October 23rd 2009 @ 1:58pm | Report comment
Cheers Jesse.
The Bishop said | October 23rd 2009 @ 11:12am | Report comment
Which ‘facts’ are you correcting? I said you went to SBS. And you did. You do work for SBS, you say exactly that in your article – on this point we are both correct – I don’t give a frog’s fat arse which department of SBS you work for, that’s a red herring.
Man up? “The lady doth protest too much, methinks”.
Jesse Fink said | October 23rd 2009 @ 12:59pm | Report comment
No, you wrote I was “spruiking [my] own TV station”. Again, I don’t work for SBS-TV. I am an employee of the online division, which has a separate budget and separate employees. Which is not to say I won’t work for SBS-TV perhaps sometime in the future but at time of writing it is not now.
Freud of Football said | October 23rd 2009 @ 5:28pm | Report comment
“which has a separate budget and separate employees” – Rubbish, a seperate division for all intents and purposes it is not. If we were to look at who does the football at SBS it’s the same people with the same agenda’s in both “divisions”, just because the money comes out of different pots doesn’t make them independent from one another and to say so shows an inherent lack of understanding of how businesses like that are operated.
We aren’t all so naive as to swallow that crap.
Maybe you haven’t worked for “SBS-TV” but you’ve done a lot of work for their “Online Division”, either way you are a part of the greater SBS machine, an entity with an agenda, a common goal etc etc.
You are employed by them because you write interesting football related opinion pieces which fit in with their general strategy and views. If Rebecca Wilson wanted to write a weekly football piece we all know SBS wouldn’t have her because she doesn’t fit their footballing-ethos.
Stop trying to distance yourself from valid criticisms of your work, perhaps some of the wording was wrong but we all know you have a number of agendas, some like Nicky Carle’s selection for the Socceroos appeal to many, others like Lucas Neill getting a club annoy the hell out of those who regularly read your work and when you write a “company orientated” piece like you did here, you will get some stick, you’re the one who needs to “man up” and take it on the chin.
Brendan said | October 23rd 2009 @ 11:33am | Report comment
Jesse
I cannot believe you are pushing the point that there significant differences between working for SBS Online and SBS TV. They are both divisions of the same company ,SBS Corporation.
It would be like someone saying that they don’t work for McDonalds, they work for McDonald Café.
I think your others points are valid though and people should get a grip when using rumours and forum gossip as facts (especially when they call peoples credibility into question).
For some balance how about an article highlighting some of the issues at SBS TV
GaryGnu said | October 23rd 2009 @ 10:30am | Report comment
Whenever SBS gets hold of a sport they present it well and wholeheartedly. They did it with football in the 80s/90s, cycling and athletics in the 2000s and test matches from England more recently. Content is shown live and followed up with thorough analysis.
If football is to be broadcast on FTA then they can do far worse than SBS.
(Disclaimer: I do not have access to One HD at the moment, however, the one time I did see it in a gym they went to a commercial during a MLB game break of innings and did not return until after the game winning run had been scored by the first up batter- small sample I know but, if indicative, it is an indictment of One HD)
Brendan said | October 23rd 2009 @ 10:32am | Report comment
Sorry Jesse but you have this one wrong, have to agree with MD here.
I would rather stick with FOX than go back to SBS. A co deal between FOX and ONE would be the best result for football in this country by a country mile. With the budget and money that SBS have to make a deal it will never be able to do the sport justice.
In terms of the internet future you still need to record the games and so a broadcast deal will never completely disappear but on-selling and distribution of those games across the net will become more important in the next TV rights (I assume sometime around 2017-18).
Hamish Alcorn said | October 23rd 2009 @ 10:36am | Report comment
Couldn’t agree more Jesse.
mahony said | October 23rd 2009 @ 10:46am | Report comment
Football to SBS for mine – but with very clear contractual obligations around editorial matters. We know SBS will do tremendous game coverage and game analysis – but the ‘football culture wars’ are such that SBS might be prepared to shit in its own nest in the way a commercial provider would never. I can see 6 live games, followed up by league sapping analysis of how the ‘good old days’ were better…..
Gweeds said | October 23rd 2009 @ 10:47am | Report comment
I agree with Jesse that some FTA presence would be great for football. However I don’t agree with the ‘anti-Foxtel’ feeling. Especially the comparison of FOX with Channel 7 which actively got the rights to bury the game to ingratiate itself to the AFL.
I can’t afford Foxtel, but I am lucky to have a pub within walking distance that has it and I am happy to go there have a lemonade and watch the game. I think that overall Foxtel has done a great job in showing the A-League and my understanding (and I am happy to be corrected) is that they were the only TV that were prepared to front up with substantial money for a product that no one really knew whether it would be successful. So I would say that without Foxtel we wouldn’t have an A-League.
I also don’t agree with the anti SBS feeling. If it wasn’t for SBS we wouldn’t have the level of football support we have now. They were the ones that showed the World Cup live. This got lots of people interested and I think eventually contributed to the government forcing change in the administration of football to ensure that Australia got its value for the money it was giving.
The only way is if there was some form of agreement between Foxtel and a FTA station. Now FOXTEL is owned by Telstra Corporation Ltd (50%), The News Corporation Ltd (25%), and Consolidated Media Holdings Limited (25%). Now isn’t Channel 10 also owned by News Corp.? I know that Foxtel and Channel 10 have co operated before. Maybe some FTA (or at least an A-League type show) can go on Channel 10 or ONE Digital.
md said | October 23rd 2009 @ 11:02am | Report comment
Ten isn’t owned by News Corp or Fox. It was most recently owned by Canwest who went broke in the financial crisis. For now, it’s an independent company.
Brendan said | October 23rd 2009 @ 11:18am | Report comment
Actually just to clarify
Canwest has sold its majority shares in the company to Macquarie Capital Advisers Ltd. The idea is that Macquarie will onsell these shares to institutions. It is not independent, so is still answerable to its shareholders (which means in effect they are currently owned by Macquarie Bank).
Savvas Tzionis said | October 23rd 2009 @ 11:08am | Report comment
I see the usual Anti wog agenda from the likes of Midfielder still living in his delusion that Soccer would have been in even BETTER shape than it is now IF us wogs had given Kerry carte-blance power back in 1977.
You do realise that the biggest defender of the NSL clubs was Johnny Warren?
As for the point being made about Free to Air, I think SBS’s ratings are quite problematic for them to have them outright, but the situation is much better than 10 years ago. These days we have the ability to mix and match with Pay-Tv and either SBS/Channel Ten or the digital networks to cater for the A-League and other assorted matches.
dasilva said | October 23rd 2009 @ 11:29am | Report comment
Has any of you guys actually thought that perhaps SBS talking down on English Premier League and the A-league is because they didn’t have the rights to it or at the very least a protest to FOX about not having access to highlights.
That it was an act of brinkmanship with FOX rather then, SBS really hating A-league and Australian Football.
When SBS had EPL match every week. i didn’t hear many critique on how backwards EPL football was. Sure there was a few mumbles about how there’s more to world football then EPL and that EPL shouldn’t be considered the undisputed best league of the world but they certainly didn’t butcher it with the style debate like they do now.
Similarly SBS didn’t talk down on the quality of NSL when they had the rights to it.
when SBs actually got some highlights footage from FOX they did tone down their criticism of the A-league.
so all this fears that SBS will talk down their own product may be unfounded judging by past history.
Chook said | October 23rd 2009 @ 11:31am | Report comment
I would like to see the main stream channel run with it,
But SBS would be the best at it. SBS has had a long and very good history with football and are far and away the best at it.
Im still think that a hours A- League package similar to the EPL 1 hour package would still be a success on free to air.
Peter said | October 23rd 2009 @ 11:52am | Report comment
People Dont realize that last year Channel 9 went to Fox Sports to make a offer for one A-League game a week. It would have been the Sunday Afternoon game National Coverage and the offer was for about $10M [one game a week]
Fox Sports……………..REJECTED the offer.
They also have told C9/10 they are NOT interested in selling Socceroos games.
Australian Football [Club/International] WILL be on FTA but not for a few years yet.
Art Sapphire said | October 23rd 2009 @ 12:02pm | Report comment
Was that for the remaining 3 years of the deal. EG – 3.3 mil for per season for one game a week.
Otherwise it does not make sense – Fox paid 15 million a year for the whole kit and caboodle.
Peter said | October 23rd 2009 @ 1:08pm | Report comment
No Art that was $10M PER YEAR. The Football deal FS have makes them FAR FAR FAR more money than the Alf deal they have.
Art Sapphire said | October 23rd 2009 @ 1:46pm | Report comment
Peter – Ofcourse Fox have got get a better return in regards to what they outlaid with the football deal.
If Nine were willing to pay that much for one game a week, then you could make an argument that the A-League rights (not including Socceroos) could go close to $50 million a year next time around.
Griffo said | October 23rd 2009 @ 12:26pm | Report comment
One thing is for sure, FFA will have to be very smart and forward thinking in the next media deal if they are going to fulfill the agendas of making money and getting the vision of the game into as many minds as possible.
I’m not sure FFA are that smart in thinking about Internet coverage just yet, but I agree it will be important long term. I think that Internet coverage will first up be the responsibility of the main broadcaster, who will either be contractually bound to provide some Internet coverage (FFA being smart), or chose to do so of their own accord. The FFA will be smarter still if they negotiate for a percentage of revenue made by the broadcaster (or broadcasters) from Internet coverage. What the Internet coverage could be like is wide open, but could be anything from full match highlights, simulcast or delayed telecast to just a highlights package. All would be add supported, as is the case now with Ten’s catchup service, or covered elsewhere, as is iView by the ABC.
The FFA will expect to have all the power in the next round of negotiating. Fox may thump a great, big wad on the table and scare off the speculators, but that may only entitle Fox to at least get the ‘Match of the Round’ live and exclusive, plus any other number of games shared with FTA, plus live coverage of non-world cup Socceroo matches, probably shared with again with FTA. The FFA will want to share around coverage so FTA can expect some games, and be expected to show them live, as well as being gifted live Socceroo matches (and perhaps recoup some revenue via interenet broadcasting). What this might do initially is to make the kick-off times of games a bit more family friendly, as I do not think the FTA broadcaster/s will want to mess with their prime-time slots unless audience numbers are adequate to get some return on ad revenue. Protecting the ‘local zone’ to maximise crowds at the game will be there, too.
If the FFA is smart, they will add clauses to cover themselves a la the ‘Channel 7′ syndrome, get revenue from the networks for any money the make from the game (FFA don’t have to be greedy about this) and ideally give themselves room to move if football isn’t getting the best coverage that it should be.
I can’t see SBS getting more than World Cup coverage: the price tag is rising for every event and it will probably be all or nothing for them. FTA wise Ten is front runner; 7’s got penance for past wrongs and 9 wouldn’t be much better. ABC? Well, it could be the surprise bid for Internet coverage, a good fit given it’s vision on where online content viewing is going, but would require it getting delayed feeds from another network. Fox? It probably will wonder who it will have to sleep with to get some World Cup coverage – it might get some simulcast of Socceroos and important (ie: WC Final) games, if and only if it is very good in bed.
Mick said | October 23rd 2009 @ 12:33pm | Report comment
It can not go to channel ONE as alot of people in regional areas have no way of receiving it.
Fox should of let there be a highlights package / delayed coverage of socceroo games on fta as a way of getting more subscibers.
It worked with Setanta during euro 2008
simonjzw said | October 23rd 2009 @ 12:46pm | Report comment
All this jibber jabber about broadcasting the A-League – internet, pay tv, sbs, commercial network – is based on the premise that people want to watch the A-League.
News Flash!!! They don’t
Crowds are down and ratings are poor. The rights are being artificially inflated by the incorporation of the Socceroos in the package. The A-League alone is a white elephant for broadcasting.
The standard of play is poor (as Pym Verbeek acknowledges) and no-one really cares about the teams or identifies with their players.
Peter said | October 23rd 2009 @ 1:13pm | Report comment
simon go back under the red-neck rock you live under TROLL!
Socceroos Top the Week on Subscription TV
The FOX Sports’ coverage of the Asian Cup qualifier, Live: Football: AFC Asian Cup Qualifier Aus v Oman
topped the week on subscription TV with 248,000 viewers. Live: Football: A-League Adel v Sydney was
watched by 73,000, Live: Football: EPL A Villa v Chelsea was seen by 68,000, LIVE: FOOTBALL: A-LEAGUE BRIS V C’COAST was watched by 62,000.
The Link said | October 23rd 2009 @ 2:13pm | Report comment
Where does he say the Socceroos rate badly? In fact I thought he said the opposite.
Adelaide v Sydney came in 24th for the week and it was a prime time Friday night. Its behind such ratings juggernaughts as Hanna Montana, Eastenders, Sonny with a Chance and Property ladder.
The A-League struggles for Pay TV ratings with a relative clear window of sports scheduling in Australia.
Robbos said | October 23rd 2009 @ 3:11pm | Report comment
You certianly don’t have pre teen girl children in your house, both Hannah & Sonny rules in my house well aboveany sporting events.
Pippinu said | October 23rd 2009 @ 4:41pm | Report comment
Yeh – Hannah and Sonny are pretty popular with the kids.
In fact, even on free to air, the final of master chef rated more than all the footy grand finals for 2009 combined.
James said | October 23rd 2009 @ 4:55pm | Report comment
Peter = Rolled
Chook said | October 23rd 2009 @ 4:36pm | Report comment
Simonjzw intersting point what sport do you follow??I think people do want to watch it but not as many as AFL or league but I think if the A- League had the exposure that the AFL or league does free to air it will, I watch football in the summer and league in the winter it great and if it were on i certainly would watch it.
yeah I agree the main media networks are not really interested atm. I know in Brisbane that the Roar will struggle due to the fact that the Broncos are own by the only Brisbane newspaper hence the last 3 back pages are dedicated to league.
but look at the NSL average crowd was 4000
now the league has around average 10,000
The NRL has
95 – 14600
96 12303
97 10510
98 – 16979
99 – 16317
2000 – 15915
2001 – 14054
etc etc
today 2009 – 16979
the point is that the league grew with time
so will the A-League
Football has a lot of growing it doesnt have the 150 years of history the AFL has and has to work hard to identify with the public. Contry to popular belief there is a small but growing element that follows the A- League closely and we all no the quality is not as good as Europe but is getting better.
The socceroos are a different ball game all together league, rugby and AFL would salivate for the crowds and the following the Socceroos have internationally. We bag them for getting 40,000 to Holland and 20,000 to Oman but league would never get those numbers. Not for a friendly or a qualifier with a team ranked below.
constantine said | October 24th 2009 @ 3:22pm | Report comment
40k was basicly a sell out lol. and a sell out at rip of prices.
constantine said | October 24th 2009 @ 3:28pm | Report comment
also there definately is a growing aleague fan base. i liken hal to mls. they went through a novelty stage and were going great, then they stagnated and then following a good wc by the NT they are back on the ascendency. HAL will be the same here, people that think it wont work dont realize just how many people play it and if they dont play it; they dont realize how many afl and nrl fans also have an interest in the world game. it doesnt have the 150 year history but it has a strong foundation, over time our senior team will get stronger (with the new changes at grassroots im confident about this) and all the xenophobia facing the sport will whither away. it took the j-league 25 years (including a wc) to become the juggernaut it is today (that included almost completely dying out), we have had 5 and people are already panicking. give it time its a sport for absolutely everybody and it will do fine here
keeper11 said | October 23rd 2009 @ 1:50pm | Report comment
Well said Jesse….
memo to the trolls….
That ‘behaviour’ by Seven and its AFL lovechild to basically bury the dreaded sockah breached every aspect of corporate governance and ethics related to restraint of trade, monopoly and collusion..
..but ofcourse..this is the good ol’ boys club that is Australian commercial media…
Redb said | October 23rd 2009 @ 1:59pm | Report comment
yeah the AFL were so beholdent to Ch 7 after that disgraceful act they awarded the next TV rights to Ch 9.
Westy said | October 23rd 2009 @ 2:34pm | Report comment
I think the FFA should look for the best FTA coverage and the best return. As SAV says this may not be SBS.
I have nothing personal against Les and his heart is in the right place and I think that Craig is one of the best technical analysts in the game . However i think SBS would need for the sake of credibility alone to have a new spokesperson with Craig as say a technical commentator only.. We are past the race stuff but I listen to SBS and lines like the “tartan brigade ” are not the best way to criticise the A league clubs or technical peoficiency.
Les rightly or wrongly has hitched his sail to a certain point of view which make it very difficult for him to be a advocate for the current Aleague. That is all.
I continue to watch and enjoy SBS’s excellent coverage of overseas football.
Midfielder said | October 23rd 2009 @ 3:09pm | Report comment
Sav
Gee wizz … mate …. just because you don’t like my opinion on SBS or what the past management practices of the NSL and it’s forbearers hardly means I am anti wog (in fact I think I am in the majority)….. as Westy has said above I don’t use words like the …”"”tartan Brigade”"” or the ””Pommy influence”"” …
On Kerry Packer … if you think he was going to pay twice what he was paying for RL to loose money … then that is your opinion .. but I would suggest if PK had taken over the running of Football in 1977 it would be very much like the A-League today…
On the anti wog thing you accuse me of …. mate I have played football most of my life and it most teams the wogs well and truely out numbered me … and at BBQ and watching the Socceroos were all wogs together….
Just don’t play the race card because you disagree with me…
westy said | October 23rd 2009 @ 3:36pm | Report comment
Suggestion Jesse why not get the management of SBS to view your aticle on the roar and see the overwhelming support for SBS FTA overage of the A League. I do not know if SBS online or whatever run their football blog but i can assure you they like filtering or editing out or censoring any criticlal comments of SBS football coverage and comments.
Compared to what you and Spiro cop on here that SBS football blog is a closed shop. Up the roar.
eastgate said | October 23rd 2009 @ 5:28pm | Report comment
A league’s chance to grow to the wider population is by hitching itself with a commercial network.- not SBS or ABC.
As the A league is essentially a summer competition – Ch 10 is realistically the only commercial network over the October – March period with adequate free air time to push the code.
Ch 9 has cricket, Ch 7 has tennis / golf.
As for SBS, they should always be given the World Cup as no one does it better.
Ben of Phnom Penh said | October 23rd 2009 @ 6:51pm | Report comment
Again, its the formula of cash(x) x viewership(y) x quality(z) = desirable result. x, y and z being the weightings. The question is the weighting that is provided to each. SBS score highly on quality, decent on viewership however can they come to the party on cash? This matters as at the moment the weighting ‘x’ is heaviest at this time of our game’s development and other stations have greater financial backing. Football purists would love to see a combination of ‘y’ and ‘z’ receiving greatest weighting however the reality of our current position dictates otherwise.
The Noble Prize for Ale Inspired Economics awaits.
cab711 said | October 23rd 2009 @ 10:46pm | Report comment
Im of two minds on this line Jesse.
I respect the effort that SBS has given towards football while other FTA channels will have nothing at all to do with it. It may be perhaps because of backdoor dealings granting higher coverage towards rival codes but I dont care. If all that channel 7/9/10 want to show are players behaving badly I just wont watch it.
I understand why staff at SBS would feel justified that the A-League would go to SBS given the decent effort of coverage on football we get weekly. Im sure most of the people on this blog who just now criticised SBS watched the EURO and Champions League games this week. Im sure SBS would do justice to the League though I feel financial stability would be better in the long run.
IMO FTA is not the magic card that will ensure long term stability of the HAL. It is financial stability the HAL needs now more than ever. I also feel than none of the other FTA channels will do the HAL any justice. I would hate to see a ridiculous Footy Show of the HAL. It is hard to predict how the HAL would perform on another FTA channel and epic failure is not what the HAL needs right now.
Unfortunately, keep it on FOX.
The Answer said | October 24th 2009 @ 7:05am | Report comment
Change of tune Jesse?
http://www.theroar.com.au/2008/10/29/fk-fta-the-revolution-isnt-being-televised-anyway/
Jesse Fink said | October 24th 2009 @ 8:47pm | Report comment
No, I was talking about the FTAs outside of ABC and SBS.
Jesse Fink said | October 24th 2009 @ 9:13pm | Report comment
Didn’t add this bit in time. Having read it again, I can see the ambiguity. Yeah, a fair cop. Poorly written and edited by me. I was haranguing the commercial FTAs, Nine, Ten and Seven, in direct response to the letter writer’s assertion that “the FTA networks have their finger in the AFL and NRL TV rights pie they’ll do anything to help us forget football”. The insertion of the word “commercial” following after that quote in my own copy would have helped clarify what I was saying. Point accepted. I have never had an issue with the government-owned FTAs and their contribution to the Australian game. Cheers.
The Answer said | October 24th 2009 @ 10:19pm | Report comment
Yeah, a fair call Jesse. I must admit I read it later myself and realised that you were talking about C9 rather than
SBS and there is a fair point of distinction between the two and indeed FTA networks in general. Just the memory of the headline stirred me, don’t write such memorable headlines!
I agree if the A-League is to be treated fairly on FTA it should begin with SBS, I don’t think the other networks could be trusted not to bury it if ratings dipped.
Freud of Football said | October 27th 2009 @ 10:37pm | Report comment
“I don’t work for SBS-TV. I am an employee of the online division, which has a separate budget and separate employees” – So Mr Fink, when it suits you to distance yourself from the tv division so as to retain your credability you do so, then to kiss Jason Culina’s arse you refer to the collective at SBS on your blog at TWG.
“We all thrilled, including us here at SBS” – http://www.theworldgame.com.au/blogs/halftimeorange/gold-coast-brought-it-on-themselves-249847
Make up your mind.