Channel Seven's Coverage

[Magpie Mark]

Does anybody know the state of play with the AFL coverage agreement? In other words, when can Channel 9 get a shot at covering the sport. Channel 7 has had the game for too long. They take what should be a simple sport to cover and make it too complicated.

Their commentators are for the most part annoying and overexposed. I will put up with Bruce but how many chances do Sandy, Drew, Dipper, Couchy et al have?

Dermie needs to learn that his role is that of a commenatator - not an analyst. We all are pretty good analysts at home - we don't need another arrogant opinion.

 

[Bloodstained Angel]

Its no use thinking the people who run Cahnnel Nine are gonna be some kind of 'White Knight' riding in to save all us hapless football fans from the Evil Empire that is Channel Seven.

Nine is not interested in the rights, thats why they aren't taking the current round of negotiations seriously, and I don't think they can really be bothered by making a formal bid (which Seven has a right to reply to anyway)

We will be stuck with the gormless philistines at Seven AGAIN - for the next few years anyway.

Know why Nine isn't interested ?

Because the Packer family (of Bellevue Hill, NSW) absolutely despise Aussie Rules football, thats why. And don't be confused by how much Eddie Mcguire likes to get up Jamie Packers arse, they might be mates, buts thats not going to convert the Rugby-heads at Channel Nine over to OUR way of seeing things

cheers

 

[Eagle_Fan]

Good. Channel 9 would ruin the coverage.

I think Channel 7 does a good enough job. They have a range of shows, and angles in whih they cover the sport. We might have to put up with the occasional programming clash (Arch) as well as the odd bad commentator, but think what Stealth Bomber and co get -nothing!

It is free after all...

 

[Haggis McHaggis]

I'd believe the "channel 7 do a good enough job" thing if the pricKs ever actually played matches in qld at a watchable hour.. and as for their "range of shows" we get a few of em.. incidentally the earliest we get any afl up here apart from sat n sunday occasionally is 11:50pm... screw u ch7

give afl to the abc i say... no adds.. crappy commentary and second rate camera work sure... but at least I'd get to watch games live

 

[Guest]

BA, very percerptive commentary on the Packer organization, almost no doubt they have a deep loathing for AFL but do you really think that would stop them from making money?

If they could find a way to make a buck out of the footy rights they'd jump on faster than you can think. It's amazing how fast you love something when it starts to make money for you.

In the end I agree with you, those fu%#@ng twits at seven will get the rights again, every time this topic is raised I get more vitriolic.

If.......when 7 get the rights again I'm gonna let everyone know what I REALLY think of those pricks at 7.

 

[Bloodstained Angel]

yeah thanks Happyhawker

The situation with the Packers absolutely baffles me. You would think that they would be very interested in getting the TV rights because of the squillions of dollars that can be made out of it, also if Nine had the footy then they would slaughter Seven in the Sourthern States ratings as well, thereby strengthening their already dominant position in the marketplace and sinking Seven further back into broadcasting obscurity.

But no - Nine is conspicuous by its silence in these negoiations and I have wondered why.

We might all hate the Packers and what they stand for, but we all know these guys adore money and are very good at making it - so why are they not interested in televising footy ?

I've wracked my brain and the only answer I can come up with is that on a personal, emotional level - the Packers just don't like Aussie Rules Football.

So in this case yes, it looks like the Packers have allowed their personal viewpoint to determine thier commercial decision making.

 

[Guest]

BA, just imagine if 9 actually did get the rights, it would send 7 down to 10's level of significance in the market. As 9 already smashes the other networks in the ratings if they had the footy it would be almost a monopoly, a giant flanked by minnows...............who does own channel 9 ..........mmmmmmmm.

 

[Haggis McHaggis]

BA: to dislike something on a personal/emotional level first they must have a soul/personallity... they don't qualify given the prerequisites

 

[Magpie Mark]

OK Channel Seven has done it again. Was anyone as annoyed as I was that Channel Seven chose it fit to put a couple of minutes of comemrcials on when Essendon was doing their victory lap after the Grand Final. That is one of the most precious moments a supporter can see if they support the winning team. The thousands of supporters who the AFL SCREWED OUT OF TICKETS missed out on seeing it. Well done Channel Seven and the AFL - you clearly don't care about the supporter more than advertisers money.

 

[Gonzo]

Should have been a kangas fan last year - got no coverage whatsoever of the lap (Channel 7 had to rush to the news - the first 5 minutes of which was the coverage of the GF!!)

The AFL in their wisdom decided to start the GF 15 minutes earlier this year so we didn't get a repeat performance - can't inconvenience Channel 7 now can we!!

 

[YES! YES! YES!]

Channel 7's coverage is a disgrace.

Bad commentators, bad hype up to a game, bad presentation/special effects. Let's not forget their incompetency to show the Grand Final in HD. The Grand Final broadcasting rights should go to Fox Footy, but be displayed on a FTA channel.

Other than that I really wish channel 10 made a bid for the TV rights again. They knew how to make the most boring of Melbourne games a climax to watch.

 

[JUBJUB]

Mega bump from the newbie

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Channel 7s coverage is going a long way toward ruining the game.

 

[power09]

I have a problem with nearly everything about it

 

[Matt Stevic]

Mega bump from the newbie

Ahhh the forum paradox. Make a new thread, and be told to post in an existing thread. Post in an existing thread, and be told off for bumping.

 

[Squibbs]

Ahhh the forum paradox. Make a new thread, and be told to post in an existing thread. Post in an existing thread, and be told off for bumping.

I guess it's a bit of an exception when this thread is 15 years old.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

I have a problem with nearly everything about it

Yup. I could list problems with it for days.

 

[Kram]

Who said that the big bump was dead.

 

[Father Jack]

Well, this is the last time I pray to Channel Nine for anything

 

[Greater Gattsby]

"BBBBBBIIIIIIIIIIIGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY"

 

[SBYM]

Their commentators are for the most part annoying and overexposed. I will put up with Bruce but how many chances do Sandy, Drew, Dipper, Couchy et al have?

Not that many it would appear.

 

[SBYM]

Dermie needs to learn that his role is that of a commenatator - not an analyst. We all are pretty good analysts at home - we don't need another arrogant opinion.

Two things wrong with this; Dermie has been employed in the media for 15 years, and based on BF, I dunno about the 'pretty good' part...

 

[Marley10]

Lol he was complaining about the commentators then.

"Say that again"

 

[Marley10]

Not that many it would appear.

You know the post is from 2000?

 

[SBYM]

You know the post is from 2000?

No, I can't read so I had no idea.