Media Coverage Overall

Yeah but the Breakers are the only NZ team to win in an Australia competition across any code (and there is really only NRL and HAL so)

That's sport.

I am not quite sure what this article is getting at ... it appears to be a follow up article on the $ 110, 000 Sky pay FFA for the broadcast and FFA saying they could get more from a FTA channel and the benefits would be greater... However someone pointed that Sky also pay they believed 10% of the A-League broadcasting costs [no idea if this is true but accept at this point] ...

Seems to me Sky is trying to keep Football but does not want to pay for it ... however you guys are on the ground and should be able to give a better insight... 

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/football/10666528/Cas...

snore

Another weird article.  Are they saying that the SKY TV deal is holding up the Phoenix getting a licence extension?  If so, that's a strange bargaining chip

I don't live in NZ and am a passionate NZ football fan. I get all my NZ football news over the net through the NZ media...Stuff, NZ Herald, TV1, TV3 etc/ I can't believe the negative slant taken by nearly all the NZ media against the Nix and NZ football in general.

The coverage varies from the  indifferent...i.e TV1,to the outright hostile...Stuff, and many sports jocks on the radio. I am not sure why....perhaps most sports journalists consider themselves rugby supporters and regard football as a threat to their sport...who knows.

Contrast the Nix's coverage to that of the lions(who have had a disasterous season) I have read headlines about the lions like "brave lions go down again"  compare that to the usual "nix shit again" headlines.

There is little interest from Sky in particular or most of the other media to help develop the sport.

Football does not help itself either. Guys like Dome need to stay on positive message.....banging on about crowds won't bring more people through the gate. The Nix may well have a good season but unfortunately the media narrative has hooked in behind the lack of spectators story. Then there are ex players like Hay who are continually taking pot shots at the game from the sideline. 

Is it any wonder that the casual sporting public don't have enough of a positive image of the game to pay to go to matches.

yet another rubbish article by Simon Plumb. There is NOTHING in there that says that money or sky are holding up our licence extension. In fact all of the quotes are positive, nix, NZF and sky working together to increase interest and viewership in football and the A league in NZ. Yet they've gone and twisted it into a negative based on nothing. 

Starting to really piss me off. 

Tabloidism is the new journalism in this country.  Say something controversial as no one will call you on the accuracy of it because facts and research don't sell. 

Radio Sport this morning even had the CGW producer regurgitating the statements from Hay and Vietch over the weekend as though they were the facts not just the opinions of people who live 600ks from the actual facts.

Hello there.

The main problem with this story is the headline.

The essence of the headline is not substantiated in the body of the text, with only a weak "understood" linking to anything even vaguely resembling a cash block - and no attempt to back that up any further. Disappointing for the sub as much as the writer.

My initial thoughts on the article: It's the sort of thing a journo knocks out when they've heard a bit of rumbling about an issue on their sports round and they feel the need for a "matcher", even though there is no actual news to report after they've wasted an hour ring-around the usual suspects, and they need to justify their time. So they bang out what is largely a non-story.

As a yarn it has a soft belly. The intro is particularly weak given the boldness of the headline. Indeed, if you only read the intro, you'd probably conclude: "So what?"

But I will say that I generally find Plumb's stories to have a bit more steel in them. I usually don't mind his work as much as most of you folk.

As a general rule conflict is always a valid news angle in media. (Though the problem often arises that hacks too often then go in search of it as a default mechanism, even if it is not there.)

On a related matter, I would seriously encourage those on high in Yellow Fever to put out their own media release about crowds in light of the recent publicity, a lot of which seems badly in need of context.

Declaration: I used to work for Fairfax as a journo up until mid-2011.

Idol thoughts and they can be dangerous … and very much in dream world >>>> BUT>>>

If Sky pay only $ 200, 000.

What if YF or the Nix’s or a joint venture between the club and fans, produce a youtube broadcast of all Nix’s games essentially stream all your games.

Cost I have no idea, the 13 away matches travel and accommodation ????? Smithy to call the games with Hard News as his 2IC…

The raw figures 27 games, say $ 5.00 per game streamed, average 7.5K watch. That’s over one million in revenue. Another way is every 1, 000 viewers is $ 135, 000.

Just saying you do better than Sky and average 35K per game… OMG 27 games by 35, 000 per game by $ 5.00 per game… that’s almost 5 million …

OK I put the joint down now >>>>> BUT >>>>>

 

Except Sky own the rights, so you'd be shut down before you even got started.

Plus the Yellow Fever bank account has a four figure sum of money in it, not a five or a six figure one!

I can fix that. And by fix, I mean reduce it to a 3 figure balance.

I understand this it's obvious... however it was a four year deal ... meaning sometime next year the rights will be under negotiation ..

FFA have made it very clear they see what Sky pay for the rights and the air time they give Football to not be anywhere near what they want.

This means FFA must be willing to talk to any group willing to broadcast and pay more .... my understanding is there are a number of net / youtube operators both willing and capable of doing the broadcast and normally for a % fee of subscription ... assume a fee of say $ 4.00 per game.

With the additional teams ie 6 games per round by 33 rounds + finals is 203 games..

198 A-League matches which includes 33 Nix matches + 5 finals...

Just saying and pulled out of thin air ... however the calculation is the same no matter who does it...

33 Nic games say 35 K per game is 1, 155, 000 @ $ 4.00 or $ 4,620,000

165 other games say 10K per game is 1,650,000 @ $ 4.00 or $ 6, 600, 000

5 Final games say 30K per game is 150, 000 @ $ 4.00 or  $ 600, 000

Total 11, 820, 000

Pay Fox a Fee or broadcast yourself say 50% FFA 40% ... YF / Nix parntership 10% ...

I will go back into my room now and forget I even suggested this but I would have throught all the above figures are achievable.. 

You have to find a production partner in NZ to actually produce the content and also partner with the likes of Kordia to get the content to Fox in Australia which they can then disperse to their partners.

It's not a trivial exercise - but it has been discussed that WelNix themselves should buy the rights and partner with say TVNZ as well as do their own online thing ala premierleaguepass.com

Yellow Fever should save up and buy out Sky TV. Am available to assist in sausage sizzles to raise money.

Yeah is this the place to 'discuss' this well thought out and researched piece of journalism? http://www.theroar.com.au/2014/10/28/wellington-ph...

It's based on that Stuff.co.whatever

ITS TIME TO GIVE BACK TO AUSTRALIA THANK YOU AUSTRALIA THANK YOU 

#thingsThePhoenixCaused 

We bankrupted the Fury 

This article just regurgitates all the same old arguments .....NZ should be in the Asian Federation, Nix don't get big enough crowds, TV deal is too small etc etc

So what?  the Nix are here to stay. The Roar.com writer suggests that we are keeping out another Aussie side from maybe Canberra or Wollongong.....really?  Canberra has a smaller population than Wellington. Do they really think there are a bunch of millionaires sitting in Canberra waiting to lose big money on a football team? Would they get any bigger crowds than Wellington?  Ditch the Nix and replace them with Canberra does not get one cent more in TV revenue...in fact the FFA would lose the SKY revenue(small that it is)

IMO the FFA needs to come in and shut this discussion down now by offering the Nix an extention.....they know how tough it is to get an A-league team up and running. They have been seriously burned by the Gold Coast and fury fiasco's. CCM and the Jets are in $$$ trouble. The Nix are close to breaking even...which is  minor miracle. The FFA would be crazy to dump a financially sound club.

The longer the FFA let this "nix out" story run the more momentum it will gather.  The NZ sports media seem to be convinced that the Nix are in trouble r.e their licence extention. In fact it is a non story and its distracting from the clubs on field success. 

Another comment about media coverage overall. How come there is so little NZ coverage of other A-league games?. The derbies we have scene this season have been a great watch. They have also featured some great play from guys like Costa. Yet the NZ media have totally ignored this.

We'd be naive to pretend that there isn't some issue between the FFA, SKY, NZF and maybe tangentially the Phoenix.  Dome has commented on this, Cockerill who is well connected is writing about it and Martin has been meeting with the FFA - why else would he be doing that? 

I think some people are putting 2 and 2 together and making 5 regarding the Phoenix beingkicked out of the competition, and I thought getting Martin to comment on the SKY A-League TV deal was odd as he's not the guy for that.

Bruce nails the article itself, really nothing to add, very well put!  I agree that Plumb is usually pretty good although I think he's better connected in Auckland and with NZF sources so when he writes about the Phoenix he usually does it from an Auckland angle

JD

Very astute your observation

I am almost scared [given some past reactions] to post what many above have posted pertaining to the A-League coverage across the NZ media platforms,  simply it's poor.

FFA want a 100 million dollar media deal for 12 teams across 33 rounds, plus finals, plus FFA Cup, plus ACL ... about 233 games ... [plus Socceroo friendlies as the WCQ & ACQ the rights are owned by the AFC who pay all teams the same amount for each game.]

What drives media deals is rating and potential ratings... 

Most media buyers believe their is a correlation between media coverage; and ratings, crowds, and memberships...

The Nix is considered as far as I can see one of the best run clubs in the league with backers willing to fund. Also there is no way FFA want to find 3 teams for the next media deal, 2 will be hard enough..

What I have posted before and with caution say again is FFA want Sky to lead and increase the A-League media coverage in NZ and want NZF to help as well... 

Its simply about money, no longer is can you pay the bills the issue, today is what revenue can you bring...

So tis quite astute JD when you said """We'd be naive to pretend that there isn't some issue between the FFA, SKY, NZF""" I am not over there so can offer no real comment on what should or should not be done... 

The issue is about revenue and media coverage and IMO has a long way to run... 

I think this is a fair analysis.

Basically, it's fine saying to sponsors we have 4.5mn potential A-League fans in NZ but if no-one is actually tuning in then that's going to be a problem for the FFA.

Why is no-one tuning in?  Partially because SKY don't give the league much priority in their scheduling and do little in the way of additional programming to support the rights.  Partially because the A-League hasn't quite taken hold in NZ like it has in Australia, and Auckland, which is by far and away NZ's biggest market, isn't really a football town.  In fact, as someone said earlier, Auckland is almost a league town now

The $200,000 number is misleading given the costs SKY front in producing the NZ games, and it's unlikely that SKY will ever be able to front with huge amount cash wise.  I'd say the FFA would be more concerned with viewing numbers rather than caring that much about an extra $500,000 here or there.  And viewing numbers aren't something the Phoenix can do a lot about, but SKY can.

That's why I see this as more of a beef between the FFA and SKY rather than a Phoenix issue.  And it's also why I don't understand why the phoenix licence extension is being linked to the media deal, it seems tangential at best.  But there clearly is an issue which is why I thought that the article on football central was naive.

I think the FFA could do a lot to help the Phoenix by coming out with a simple statement of support - their silence just builds the pressure on the club unnecessarily.

Oh and now it's Mark Reason's turn :P

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/football/10670824/Rea...

Reason is just a complete waste of time.  Rambling rubbish without a point

Oh I agree...just posting it as it is a seeming continuance...

On that point the title on the article vs the title of the link is interesting...

The reason the A-league has not taken off in NZ is because no body knows about it. The NZ sports media don't really cover anything other than the Nix games. They don't even cover it when kiwis like Costa and Smeltzy are tearing the game up for other A-league sides. IMO there are similarities with Oz league in the 1980's......Australian league suddenly got loads of media coverage and then took the country by storm...suddenly everyone was talking about the Broncos and Manly.

IMO there is a very fertile football market in NZ that is being neglected. Football has a very high participation rate. For loads of NZ families it is a big part of the weekend ritual. John Reason's recent column hit the nail on the head when he said "there are lots of like minded souls looking for a (football) team to follow. The sports landscape in NZ has changed dramatically. Much of this is immigrant based.

JD you said that Auckland is not a football town. I would beg to disagree with you. Things have changed significantly since the old days of the Knights/Kings. Last year was an eye opener for me when i went to see the Nix play at Eden park. At half time I looked around at the crowd sitting in my zone. On my left were six new NZers of middle east extraction....sitting in front of me were about eight fijian/indian NZers who went crazy every time Krishna warmed up. To my right were 4 guys wearing Dynamo Kiev shirts....in the causeway were loads of young Chinese NZers wearing EPL shirts. This crowd reflects modern day Auckland where there are over 350,000 people of Asian and middle eastern descent.

These people don't do egg ball or league. They are brought up on a diet of football. IMO there is a huge reservoir of football supporters who just like John Reason are "looking for a team to support". The biggest problem for our sport in this country is that in general the NZ sports media does not reflect the reality of what is happening in our big cities. They are locked into a time warp of exclusive eggball coverage. SKY being a monopoly does not have to or want to do anything different. Editors of major newspapers are all old school. There is too much old wood.....football enthusiasts like Piney should be writing football columns for the Star Times not negative hacks like Hay.

Maybe the rumblings we are getting from the FFA and NZF about participation and coverage are an attempt to stir things up a bit.....and about bloody time!!!!!!!

(as an aside and related to my point about Auckland....if all the stars aligned, if they found a rich backer, if it was promoted and run properly, if they had a downtown stadium for 20,000 people, then modern day Auckland would successfully run an A-league franchise IMO.....but it won't happen for at least a decade...if ever)

 

I actually agree with the bulk of this, even though it's poorly researched and written by some semi-literate bogan.

- NZ should join Asia: sure we should, there are myriad reasons why we can't, but it would be the best thing for us.

- The Phoenix need to deliver something, not just be a passenger: totally agree.

- Sky don't pay enough for the A-League rights: totally agree.

- Kiwi players have made a strong contribution to the league: yes they have indeed.

- Licence renewal needs to be sorted asap: quite right.

So yeah, lots to agree with imho. 

 

JD is right Austin. Over a long number of years dating all the way back to the Kings/(good)Nights Auckland has proven itself not to be a football town.

Aucklanders will come out for an "event", a one-off. They'll go to see a team certain to win, but they won't support any team consistently. Look at the Warriors for all the evidence of that you need.

They certainly aren't a football town. They don't turn out for All Whites games, the Chatham Cup final, the most successful ASB Premiership franchise of all time (TM), or anything else much.

Sure, they turn up in moderate numbers for a heavily promoted one-off Phoenix game once a year but one swallow does not a seasoned head-giver make.

To give the Aucklanders fair play though, they aren't alone in this. Kiwis generally, including Wellingtonians, are only fans when their team is winning. We (Fever generally and the Phoenix) just happen to have rallied a committed hard core in Wellington who will turn up to watch even the most insipid Phoenix performance. It's something quite unique, and random. 

To be fair Smithy, (although I agree with much of what you observer above) if I was a football mad teenage Asian immigrant I am not sure I would find Kiwitea St. all that enticing.

At least Reason could get his facts right. There's only about 3 in the whole article.

I take your point Smithy about Aucklanders not getting out and buying tickets to Chatham cup, ASB and All whites games. However I don't believe that there are not tens of thousands of Aucklanders who are football fans and potential viewers.

The problem is not that there are no football fans.....the problem is a marketing/promotional/publicity issue. Which brings us full circle to the overall media coverage question. IMO the marketing of football in NZ is a disaster. The promotion always seems to get sidetracked into negative issues like crowd numbers/profit/loss(just like the Nix season already).

Australia has finally overcome the cringe factor over football....pushed by a groundswell from their immigrant community football there has become mainstream. The potential in Auckland is the same IMO. Like most things in little 'ol NZ we are probably a decade or two behind the rest of the world....it will happen. What we see once a season in Auckland(with the Nix) is just the beginning. What we need to do is somehow connect with all those new immigrant kiwis. We need them to stop buying Man U shirts and start buying AW shirts.....or even Nix or Auckland city shirts.

The first step will be to get the NZ sports media behind the game.....how exactly is the million $$$ question. But I suspect there are people in NZF and the FFA looking into it right at this moment

This one has made me laugh for fifteen years.  Where is anything written that the A-League is only allowed 10 teams?  It's only the most clueless and Xenophobic of Australian writers (and their New Zealand parrots) who don't think 'Phoenix AND Canberra' or 'Phoenix AND Wollongong' or 'Phoenix AND North Queensland'.

If you are too dim to see even this most basic of facts you probably shouldn't be allowed to use a keyboard.  You'll probably injure yourself on it as you are licking your screen.

Let alone know how to locate it and get to it. "I'll just jump on my bike Dad..." Yeah right.

Don't need just football fans though, you need football fans who are A-League fans and are also people who like going to live sport and can get to the stadium easily and who can afford it.  If you did a venn diagram of that lot the final result would be surprisingly small for Auckland.  Not sure why but I think history has born that out a lot

What the actual fuck. That 'article' is just bizzare, Reason doesn't seem remotely capable of forming consecutive coherent sentences let alone an actual argument. He just seems to randomly switch from one half-point to another and then back again. Who on earth approved that for print? Good grief.

I don't think "history has born that out" so much as the two previous attempts at an NSL/A-League franchise in Auckland were not particularly well managed. The Knights, in particular, actually did serious damage. I really don't think its fair or wise to hold the Auckland football public accountable for not going to watch The Knights!

That said, you're right that there are still quite a complicated mix of factors that come into play when considering whether to have another go in Auckland. I'm optimistic though, I think it can be done.

One thing that has fundamentally changed the landscape is, of course, the Phoenix, who provide both a template and leverage for the next NZ franchise. That's still a long way from solving the whole problem but it is a massive leg up from what previous attempts had.

off topic but:

Would a second NZ A league team based in Auckland make TV rights here more valuable or just increase the leverage of sky as they'd be broadcasting twice as many A league games themselves? 

Is it a short term vs long term trade off? In the short term sky would enjoy increased leverage, but in the long run the hope would be that itd increase interest in the competition as a whole, making the rights to non-nz games more valuable and decreasing the leverage sky enjoyed. 

How does Mark Reason even make a living from journalism?

Certainly think that a second New Zealand A-League team would increase the interest in the competition as a whole. I would expect the viewer numbers you'd get for the Phoenix vs other NZ team match would make Sky sit up and realise the potential the league offers.

 

I like your enthusiasm but do not share your optimism.