Can anyone remember what the FTA situation was last year?

It's live on Go

Sports Fans have fox.

Period.

Slightly off topic, but talking about the regular season games:
What I don't understand (and I mean that honestly) is why we can't have some form of combo deal.

If you look at the absolute crap they fill the secondary FTA channels with (repeats of "American Loggers" etc) its clear they are scraping for content.
So presumably it is the COST of producing a sports broadcast that is prohibitive.

So why not a deal whereby games are live and add-free on Foxtel, then delayed (but still at a reasonable time) on FTA, and split the production costs. (Or to put it another way, FTA buys the product from Fox?)

They do have a combo deal, but that is only for a game out of primetime. The NBL doesn't rate well enough for a primetime spot on FTA, the two times it got them (Ch10 in early 90s and 2011) it was moved to later spots pretty quickly.

Ten had to produce the games themselves, though. With Fox on board, it's now like COPS and whatever other garbage they air, where it only costs them the rights.

Fox wanting exclusivity is probably a bigger reason for the lack of FTA coverage.

If Fox wanted exclusivity they would have exclusivity, not the current combo deal. Fox wouldn't give away their product without covering costs though, whether that's Nine or the NBL paying for it.

Regardless, the reality is the ratings don't warrant a primetime spot on FTA so the NBL doesn't get any.

I think that was a stipulation from Fox - can't airplay on iOS devices or anything similar....

http://pickandroll.com.au/nbl-announces-free-air-tv-deal-channel-9/

"Nine will also broadcast five matches during the Finals series, including the trophy-winning game, and deploy a substantial promotional package for the league across its various platforms." Good one Larry Ha Ha Haaaa.

Just like the "Aspire" The NBL is a little short on integrity and a little long on bullshit!

I Hope for the privileged its a great contest and an exciting game but like the majority of Australians I sadly wont be able to watch it.

Perhaps we will see five finals game sometime over winter.

Thanks.

As for

"Sports Fans have fox.
Period."

Now that sounds to me like a genY comment.
I'm ok so no one else matters.

Paul,
Have you seen some of the rubbish that fills the secondary channels? Nine now has 5 branded channels, and 7 has 4. Not to mention all the other crud out there.
Surely a sports channel would rate better than the cruddy repeats of cruddy shows that now proliferate.
Just to show how BAD those secondary channels are, Ten shows its prime-time leader "Family Feud" on all THREE channels, because that's better value for money than what a Mash repeat costs them.

The issue with NBL must surely be cost? ie compare the cost of producing a 2hr sports broadcast, against a couple of episodes of The Nanny. So my question is why can't Fox sell their product at a price that works for both parties?

I get that up to a point they want exclusivity to drive subscriptions, but surely once they hit the ceiling on that, re-selling their product would be mutually beneficial.

If I was flush with cash, I would consider paying for Foxtel to watch away games and some AFL. But most of us cannot justify that expense. I really don't think there would be that much bleed from people who can afford Fox, to those prepared to wait and watch the game delayed with ads.

Nah, I'm "assuming" that they would want to sell their product and defray some of their costs. I don't know the industry or what things cost, so I'm purely speculating here.

"Surely a sports channel would rate better than the cruddy repeats of cruddy shows that now proliferate."

Isn't a sports channel what Ten Network tried with One and found it didn't rate well? If I'm remembering that correctly, the answer to the question would be 'no'.

No, ONEHD as a sports channel rated reasonably, it was just a hell of a lot cheaper to do repeats of crappy shows. There were greater ratings and sponsors, but also greater expenses involved.

It lost a lot of ratings, and the network actually lost quite a lot of money as well switching away from a sports channel, it's not really seen as a successful move. But Murdoch probably bought it to ensure no competition for Fox Sports so he doesn't care about the fate of ONEHD.

Point is that (especially for the secondary channels) its not about ratings, its about profit. Your advertising revenue is more or less driven by ratings (and the contained demographics). So if you earn $1M less from re-runs of Mash, but it cost you $2M less, then you're in front.
If Ten had to produce the NBL broadcasts, then that's very expensive television.

Why question is whether there isn't a point at which it becomes mutually viable to buy the product from Fox?
Fox keeps their pay audience by being live and add-free, then offsets some of their costs by selling the broadcast to the FTA station, who buy it relatively cheaply and run it (delayed) instead of Here's Lucy.

If it were profitable and the ratings were suitable, they'd be doing it. If Fox want to get subscribers, then surely they hoard the things that people may pay to watch.

(I don't have Fox or ever intend to get it.)