by Magpiespower » Thu Oct 21, 2010 11:42 am
by Groover » Thu Oct 21, 2010 11:47 am
by Strawb » Thu Oct 21, 2010 11:52 am
by Media Park » Thu Oct 21, 2010 1:43 pm
Strawb wrote:If Packer does this I will not watch 10 again. One HD rules and is needed for those who cannot afford or be bothered paying for Foxtel.
Wedgie wrote:I wear skin tight arseless leather pants, wtf do you wear?
by Drop Bear » Thu Oct 21, 2010 1:57 pm
by The Ash Man » Thu Oct 21, 2010 3:04 pm
by Baron Greenback » Thu Oct 21, 2010 3:21 pm
by valleys07 » Thu Oct 21, 2010 3:51 pm
Media Park wrote:I'm fortunate enough to have Austar, but there is a lot of people with your line of thinking Strawb.
by Magpiespower » Fri Oct 22, 2010 5:36 am
valleys07 wrote:Media Park wrote:one HD is fantastic for IPL etc....
by LMA » Fri Oct 22, 2010 10:28 am
by cripple » Fri Oct 22, 2010 12:36 pm
by Interceptor » Sat Oct 23, 2010 12:22 am
by heater31 » Sun Oct 24, 2010 9:27 pm
cripple wrote:correct me if i am wrong, but he has only bought a 19% share i thought. How will he be able to tell the remaining 81% of ownership to get rid of a channel. What i think will happen is that 10 (onehd) and fox might end up cobidding for the big sports packages like afl, nrl and cricket meaning onehd might take on even greater prospects in sports coverage.
by Magpiespower » Mon Oct 25, 2010 6:48 am
cripple wrote:correct me if i am wrong, but he has only bought a 19% share i thought. How will he be able to tell the remaining 81% of ownership to get rid of a channel.
What i think will happen is that 10 (onehd) and fox might end up cobidding for the big sports packages like afl, nrl and cricket meaning onehd might take on even greater prospects in sports coverage.
by cripple » Mon Oct 25, 2010 8:06 am
by tipper » Mon Oct 25, 2010 4:10 pm
Magpiespower wrote:cripple wrote:correct me if i am wrong, but he has only bought a 19% share i thought. How will he be able to tell the remaining 81% of ownership to get rid of a channel.
Packer is now Ten's biggest shareholder.
Expected to have a controlling interest by leading a consortium that includes Bruce Gordon and Perpetual Investments.
United front gives him about 41%.
Look out Nick Falloon.What i think will happen is that 10 (onehd) and fox might end up cobidding for the big sports packages like afl, nrl and cricket meaning onehd might take on even greater prospects in sports coverage.
FTA digital channels can't show protected sports under current anti-siphoning legislation.
(Unless its a simulcast broadcast on mainstream commercial like Ten/One do sometimes with the footy.)
However, Conroy signalled changes to legislation on Insiders yesterday morning.
Would allow live broadcasts of AFL into NSW and Queensland and league to the southern states on One.
Finally...
by cripple » Mon Oct 25, 2010 4:51 pm
tipper wrote:Magpiespower wrote:cripple wrote:correct me if i am wrong, but he has only bought a 19% share i thought. How will he be able to tell the remaining 81% of ownership to get rid of a channel.
Packer is now Ten's biggest shareholder.
Expected to have a controlling interest by leading a consortium that includes Bruce Gordon and Perpetual Investments.
United front gives him about 41%.
Look out Nick Falloon.What i think will happen is that 10 (onehd) and fox might end up cobidding for the big sports packages like afl, nrl and cricket meaning onehd might take on even greater prospects in sports coverage.
FTA digital channels can't show protected sports under current anti-siphoning legislation.
(Unless its a simulcast broadcast on mainstream commercial like Ten/One do sometimes with the footy.)
However, Conroy signalled changes to legislation on Insiders yesterday morning.
Would allow live broadcasts of AFL into NSW and Queensland and league to the southern states on One.
Finally...
Doesnt the arrangement change anyway once the analogue signal is discontinued anyway? once it is, and everyone must have a set top box or digital tele to watch any tv, cant they put whatever they want on whichever channel they want? i may have that understanding wrong though, happy to be corrected.
by heater31 » Mon Oct 25, 2010 7:13 pm
cripple wrote:
Pretty sure this is what Conroy is trying to nut out in federal parliament now. Commonsense says that this should happen, but just because it should happen doesn't necessarily mean it will
by Gozu » Fri Oct 29, 2010 5:59 pm
by gadj1976 » Fri Apr 08, 2011 11:13 am
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |