Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 49

Thread: The Reason The Force Are Getting Boned

  1. #31
    Player
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    152
    vCash
    5032000
    Quote Originally Posted by LMSC View Post
    It's the broadcasting fees that pay for Super rugby in Australia.
    I wonder what the 5 to 10 year outlook is for the present model of sport in pay television, given the increased on-line content available (e.g. AFL Live and NRL Live), as well as the FTA content available from AFL, A-League and NRL?

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  2. #32
    Champion chibi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Chinatown, Roe St
    Posts
    1,694
    vCash
    5196000
    Quote Originally Posted by LMSC View Post
    Know several ppl in both production & broadcasting within Fox including several on air talent.

    Also confirms why News Ltd where first to declare WF to be axed before any ARU announcement, also why Rbrls have been told they are safe and Brumbies never on the block.

    Remeber what News did to the Reds - same reasons they are keen to see Force out as it makes them (saves them) more money.

    It's the broadcasting fees that pay for Super rugby in Australia.
    I was always flummoxed as to why the Reds were cut before the Adelaide Rams, that makes a helluva lot of sense now.

    1 Not allowed! Not allowed!


    Japan and the Pacific Islands for Aussie Super 9's!

    Let's have one of these in WA! Click this link: Saitama Super Arena - New Perth Stadium?

  3. #33
    Rookie LMSC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    121
    vCash
    5012000
    Remember Fox/News Ltd are no friend of rugby, nor of any sport. They are purely a profit making enterprise and will do what they need to secure and grow their income.

    They tore down rugby league in the 1990's because they couldn't beat 9 & Optus to the TV rights.

    They are only in 30% of households in Australia, but make more $ than the three commercial networks combined - in fact about 10 times the commercial networks combined.

    They don't care whether a club or franchise is sustainable financially, that's someone else's problem (ARU) only what's good for their bottom line.

    Remember - if ARU cut Force (which is what News want and is the only option News have given them) Fox/News get what they want. If the Rebels continue to lose millions and fall over, that's not their problem because the ARU will have to prop them up to meet the requirements of the broadcast contracts.

    The rugby community (all over Oz) should be burning down the house over this and hanging the ARU exec from the Harbour Bridge. The ARU exec are working for News Ltd - not rugby.

    1 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  4. #34
    Champion MI5_Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Rockingham
    Posts
    1,574
    vCash
    5981050
    I suspect we should be putting pressure on QANTAS and other sponsors to let them know that if the Force go then so does our use of their services.
    Hit the ARU in the bottom line and have the sponsors start to let them know that this debacle is affecting the sponsors reputation.

    1 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  5. #35
    Player yungfen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Duncraig
    Posts
    319
    vCash
    5146000
    Good idea MI5 Dog

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  6. #36
    Senior Player
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Reality
    Posts
    723
    vCash
    5034000
    Quote Originally Posted by LMSC View Post
    Remember Fox/News Ltd are no friend of rugby, nor of any sport. They are purely a profit making enterprise and will do what they need to secure and grow their income.

    They tore down rugby league in the 1990's because they couldn't beat 9 & Optus to the TV rights.

    They are only in 30% of households in Australia, but make more $ than the three commercial networks combined - in fact about 10 times the commercial networks combined.

    They don't care whether a club or franchise is sustainable financially, that's someone else's problem (ARU) only what's good for their bottom line.

    Remember - if ARU cut Force (which is what News want and is the only option News have given them) Fox/News get what they want. If the Rebels continue to lose millions and fall over, that's not their problem because the ARU will have to prop them up to meet the requirements of the broadcast contracts.

    The rugby community (all over Oz) should be burning down the house over this and hanging the ARU exec from the Harbour Bridge. The ARU exec are working for News Ltd - not rugby.
    The ARU have already admitted cutting a team was their decision, not SANZAARs or Fox/News Ltd. The ARU now have an obligation to the sport of rugby and its participants to justify why and to make sure the correct decision on which franchise goes is in the broader interests of rugby going forward. The ARU cannot hide behind SANZAAR or Fox/NewsLtd anymore to pass the buck. When the ARU renegotiated the broadcast deal, they had legal obligations to our Alliance Agreement to firstly notify the Force of renegotiations, then include the Force in any new contract that spans until 2020. The ARU did this alone and are on record as applying pressure to these renegotiations with the broadcasters whilst being in direct contravention of its obligations to our Alliance Agreement.
    Blaming Fox for the ARUs bungling is incorrect. The ARU had obligations to the Force that superseded the Fox renegotiations.

    1 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  7. #37
    Immortal Contributor shasta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Mandurah
    Posts
    10,520
    vCash
    5208000
    The Bronze Star of Faith TWF Contributor!
    There has been ONLY 2 Fox/News employees AFAIK who have been death riding the Force. Payton & Pandaram. The Fox Sports team almost all have either supported us staying or said nothing, again AFAIK. If News/Fox were gunning for us I would expect the exact opposite to that. Either that or the leopard has suddenly shaken off the spots he's displayed for more than 60 years. Fox are on record as stating they preferred 5 franchies aren't they?

    -1 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  8. #38
    Immortal jargan83's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    always in the last place you look
    Posts
    18,622
    vCash
    100329
    141 Club Award The Bronze Star of Faith
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalahard View Post
    The ARU have already admitted cutting a team was their decision, not SANZAARs or Fox/News Ltd. The ARU now have an obligation to the sport of rugby and its participants to justify why and to make sure the correct decision on which franchise goes is in the broader interests of rugby going forward. The ARU cannot hide behind SANZAAR or Fox/NewsLtd anymore to pass the buck. When the ARU renegotiated the broadcast deal, they had legal obligations to our Alliance Agreement to firstly notify the Force of renegotiations, then include the Force in any new contract that spans until 2020. The ARU did this alone and are on record as applying pressure to these renegotiations with the broadcasters whilst being in direct contravention of its obligations to our Alliance Agreement.
    Blaming Fox for the ARUs bungling is incorrect. The ARU had obligations to the Force that superseded the Fox renegotiations.
    Could not agree more.

    The ARU could have shot down any plans for a loss in Australian teams in London back in March where it was decided that they would cut an Australian side.

    Quote Originally Posted by shasta View Post
    There has been ONLY 2 Fox/News employees AFAIK who have been death riding the Force. Payton & Pandaram. The Fox Sports team almost all have either supported us staying or said nothing, again AFAIK. If News/Fox were gunning for us I would expect the exact opposite to that. Either that or the leopard has suddenly shaken off the spots he's displayed for more than 60 years. Fox are on record as stating they preferred 5 franchies aren't they?
    They sure are, I'd have to do some digging for the article.

    Fox's original wish was for 5 Australian sides as they were concerned about local Rugby content.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  9. #39
    Rookie LMSC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    121
    vCash
    5012000
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalahard View Post
    The ARU have already admitted cutting a team was their decision, not SANZAARs or Fox/News Ltd. The ARU now have an obligation to the sport of rugby and its participants to justify why and to make sure the correct decision on which franchise goes is in the broader interests of rugby going forward. The ARU cannot hide behind SANZAAR or Fox/NewsLtd anymore to pass the buck. When the ARU renegotiated the broadcast deal, they had legal obligations to our Alliance Agreement to firstly notify the Force of renegotiations, then include the Force in any new contract that spans until 2020. The ARU did this alone and are on record as applying pressure to these renegotiations with the broadcasters whilst being in direct contravention of its obligations to our Alliance Agreement.
    Blaming Fox for the ARUs bungling is incorrect. The ARU had obligations to the Force that superseded the Fox renegotiations.
    You're confusing the point.

    The ARU likely wanted to cut a side for a number of years. The point put to them has been - why did they agree to the 18 team expansion adding further pressure when Australia rugby was already dire.

    The ARU have countered on a few occasions (listen to the Clyne interview with Alan Jones), that this is now the first opportunity they've had to cut a team because the broadcaster will allow it by keeping their fees at the same level.

    That itself proves the ARU had already begun planning to cut a team well in advance to the SANZAAR meet as they would have held discussions with the broadcaster.

    The only reason they can now cut a team is because the broadcaster is allowing it. The only reason the Force are the team they "want to cut" is because that's the terms Fox/News have given them - we'll keep paying the same, if you cut the Force.

    The ARU are making a decision against the interests of Rugby. because they are in the pocket of Fox/News Ltd.

    If a team needs to be cut, by all measures (finances, participation, members, state player registrations, crowds), the Force are ranked 3rd or even 2nd in Australia. The worst performing franchise by those categories is Melbourne, closely followed by the ACT.

    The Force are in the gun - because of Fox Sports/News Ltd.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  10. #40
    Rookie LMSC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    121
    vCash
    5012000
    Quote Originally Posted by shasta View Post
    There has been ONLY 2 Fox/News employees AFAIK who have been death riding the Force. Payton & Pandaram. The Fox Sports team almost all have either supported us staying or said nothing, again AFAIK. If News/Fox were gunning for us I would expect the exact opposite to that. Either that or the leopard has suddenly shaken off the spots he's displayed for more than 60 years. Fox are on record as stating they preferred 5 franchies aren't they?
    Remember Fox Sports are not those who front the cameras. Fox Sports is News Ltd and the execs that run the conpany.

    They'd hardly send the msg down that they want to cut the Force to make more money for the company. That would go down like a lead balloon with former rugby players come Fox Sports presenters.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  11. #41
    Rookie LMSC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    121
    vCash
    5012000
    Quote Originally Posted by jargan83 View Post
    Could not agree more.

    The ARU could have shot down any plans for a loss in Australian teams in London back in March where it was decided that they would cut an Australian side.



    They sure are, I'd have to do some digging for the article.

    Fox's original wish was for 5 Australian sides as they were concerned about local Rugby content.
    The ARU do want to cut a side.

    The only reason the Force are their preferred "cut" option is because Fox/News Ltd will allow them to do it (under the broadcast agreement) while paying the same in broadcast fees - but ONLY if the ARU cuts the Force to create an all east coast comp, making it cheaper for Fox the produce the sport.

    They currently lose money on Force home games as it costs more to produce and the ratings are lower - WA has one of the lowest subscriber bases for Foxtel.

    Again, remember the only reason the ARU "can" cut a team is because the broadcaster is allowing it (and stipulating it should be the Force)

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  12. #42
    Immortal jargan83's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    always in the last place you look
    Posts
    18,622
    vCash
    100329
    141 Club Award The Bronze Star of Faith
    Quote Originally Posted by LMSC View Post
    The ARU do want to cut a side.

    The only reason the Force are their preferred "cut" option is because Fox/News Ltd will allow them to do it (under the broadcast agreement) while paying the same in broadcast fees - but ONLY if the ARU cuts the Force to create an all east coast comp, making it cheaper for Fox the produce the sport.

    They currently lose money on Force home games as it costs more to produce and the ratings are lower - WA has one of the lowest subscriber bases for Foxtel.

    Again, remember the only reason the ARU "can" cut a team is because the broadcaster is allowing it (and stipulating it should be the Force)
    The negotiations with the broadcaster happened after the ARU had already agreed to cull a team in order to move back to 4 sides.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  13. #43
    Senior Player
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    586
    vCash
    5016000
    Quote Originally Posted by LMSC View Post
    The ARU do want to cut a side.

    The only reason the Force are their preferred "cut" option is because Fox/News Ltd will allow them to do it (under the broadcast agreement) while paying the same in broadcast fees - but ONLY if the ARU cuts the Force to create an all east coast comp, making it cheaper for Fox the produce the sport.

    They currently lose money on Force home games as it costs more to produce and the ratings are lower - WA has one of the lowest subscriber bases for Foxtel.

    Again, remember the only reason the ARU "can" cut a team is because the broadcaster is allowing it (and stipulating it should be the Force)
    Will be interesting to see what happens nationwide with ratings if the comp has a prolonged legal case which prevents the ARU getting rid of the Force. Any increased costs of covering force games in WA would be nothing of a huge tune out of coverage of the game.

    I can see the costs getting significantly higher and their thoughts of saving money becoming more irrelevant. The more this drags on the more the cost structure of getting rid of a side does as well.

    The complexity comes as the Rebels no longer trust ARU, especially after last weekend's statement outlined to the world. You would have expected that there would have been no heavily worded statement on Good Friday by the Rebels if the deal between Fox Sports and ARU was locked in. Seeing how the conversations and articles have been worded the last few weeks, it seems the legal case for the Force is very strong which has put the Rebels under more risk of being cut than when these deals were initially implemented.

    It seems from the outside that everything that was going to happen is now unsure. I would be expecting the ARU are re-visiting what it does as the pathway they want to go down seems to be one they can no longer go down. Commercial directives often have to change when you get an injunction, you either have a case or you have to go back to the drawing board.

    No doubt News Ltd/Fox Sports play a role in this still, but I think from what has happened over the last few weeks there is more grey than black and white.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  14. #44
    Champion MI5_Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Rockingham
    Posts
    1,574
    vCash
    5981050
    So ARU want to cut a team
    They go to NewsLtd and say "We want to cut a team but we need the same amount of money"
    NewsLtd say "OK but the only way it's of any benefit to us is if you cut The Force"
    ARU are sweet with that and decide The Force have to go.
    Force say "But what about our agreement! We're calling in the lawyers!"
    ARU are all "Oh no! Now what? No plan B!"

    2 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  15. #45
    Senior Player
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    586
    vCash
    5016000
    Quote Originally Posted by MI5_Dog View Post
    So ARU want to cut a team
    They go to NewsLtd and say "We want to cut a team but we need the same amount of money"
    NewsLtd say "OK but the only way it's of any benefit to us is if you cut The Force"
    ARU are sweet with that and decide The Force have to go.
    Force say "But what about our agreement! We're calling in the lawyers!"
    ARU are all "Oh no! Now what? No plan B!"
    That's my bet with how it has gone.

    Add the fact the Rebels were most likely aware of all of this and previous commitments by the ARU was based on the Rebels understanding the position of Foxtel/News Ltd.

    Anyways there will be lots of popcorn if we have a court case in the WA Supreme Court.

    1 Not allowed! Not allowed!

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The reason you don't attempt the 141 club by yourself
    By eleypinkbit in forum Public Bar
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 25-05-13, 08:49
  2. Ewen MacKenzie ...boned from Stade Francais
    By The Man in forum International Rugby
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 09-09-09, 21:49
  3. Boned, beige, off-white, ivory, boned
    By chook in forum NSW Waratahs
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 01-04-08, 21:37
  4. Anyone need a reason? Here's 374!
    By The InnFORCEr in forum Public Bar
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 04-03-08, 23:35
  5. Good reason for our own Stadium
    By travelling_gerry in forum Stadiums
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 19-04-07, 16:06

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •