Fixing the Victorian crowding "problem"

[Kwality]

When considering how "fair" the draw is commercially there are some other relevant factors to consider.

Then consider how the TV deal works and in particular the "sweet heart" element for the non-Victorian clubs. Each one of their matches shown on FTA in their respective home states and from next year all live. This is a tremendous commercial advantage. It's no coincidence that West Coast have had WA companies such as SGIO and Perth Precast as their major sponsors and Freo Alinta Gas and Woodside to their financial benefit. Non-Victorian clubs also crucially benefit from such high exposure when competing against other codes for supporters and sponsors. However the same privilege is not extended to Vic clubs and those with the most Foxtel games are hurt most. The policy means overall TV rights for everybody are worth less because Foxtel/Austar are disadvantaged.

.

Are you suggesting that TV stations should not show the best rating games in the various markets?
That WA viewers should get games of lesser interest because its fairer for Melbourne clubs.
Why would WA companies sponsor a non WA club when the majority of its clients follow WA clubs - is this also fairer for Melbourne clubs ?

Hungry Jacks are long time Eagles sponsors of a nationally consumed product so are they disadvantaged under your manifesto?

Note: I'd swear you are acknowledging there are too many teams in Melbourne.

 

[the big lebowski]

Note: I'd swear you are acknowledging there are too many teams in Melbourne.

No, i think he is just pointing out it is much harder for Vic clubs to operate.

 

[Prince Imperial]

Are you suggesting that TV stations should not show the best rating games in the various markets?
That WA viewers should get games of lesser interest because its fairer for Melbourne clubs.
Why would WA companies sponsor a non WA club when the majority of its clients follow WA clubs - is this also fairer for Melbourne clubs ?

Hungry Jacks are long time Eagles sponsors of a nationally consumed product so are they disadvantaged under your manifesto?

Note: I'd swear you are acknowledging there are too many teams in Melbourne.

Nah, I'm suggesting that the money the League would receive would be greater if Foxtel/Austar were allowed to compete for the exclusive rights to show non-Vic teams in their home markets (just as they have exclusive rights to matches involving Vic teams in Victoria). It's a clear advantage to non-Vic teams and WC in particular take full advantage of it and it results in lower dividends to all clubs. I also note that it was announced earlier this year that BankWest would be their new major co-sponsor from next year replacing Hungry Jacks - yet another indicator of how much of commercial advantage this arrangement is.

http://www.westcoasteagles.com.au/tabid/7155/default.aspx?newsid=110907

 

[Rob]

Nah, I'm suggesting that the money the League would receive would be greater if Foxtel/Austar were allowed to compete for the exclusive rights to show non-Vic teams in their home markets (just as they have exclusive rights to matches involving Vic teams in Victoria). It's a clear advantage to non-Vic teams and WC in particular take full advantage of it and it results in lower dividends to all clubs. I also note that it was announced earlier this year that BankWest would be their new major co-sponsor from next year replacing Hungry Jacks - yet another indicator of how much of commercial advantage this arrangement is.

http://www.westcoasteagles.com.au/tabid/7155/default.aspx?newsid=110907

You are aware that this arrangement results in a lot more exposure for Victorian teams on FTA than they would otherwise get? It's very rare for FTA to have a non Vic vs non Vic game, simply because they know they can show it in both states. So invariably they pick the Victorian teams and show that game in most markets. Both Perth teams get just 3 or 4 FTA games a gear FFS. Good coverage in Perth sure, but shithouse in the rest of the country.

If you think you get screwed by FTA broadcasters now, you'd be ropeable if they had to show the same game nationally. You'd probably have your FTA coverage halved. Conversely, non Vic teams would get far greater national coverage as FTA networks would be a lot more inclined to pick their games and would certainly get a much higher national audience.

I'm not sure how WCE getting a new major sponsor is proof of their 'commercial advantage' either. Every club has a major sponsor. If anything, it's simply proof of too many Victorian teams, given that's the only reason a similar arrangement isn't implemented there as well.

 

[Prince Imperial]

You're exaggerating the 3-4 games a bit there Rob. This year Freo had 6 national FTA games and WC 5. The current arrangements are no doubt good for some Vic teams such as Coll and Carl who get 16-17 FTA games per year but for a club like NM who only got 7 they are at a clear disadvantage. And when they play another Vic team and its a Foxtel game then the exposure is pretty limited.

 

[Rob]

Either way it's bugger all. And there's absolutely no doubt that the arrangement benefits Victorian clubs in giving them more FTA exposure.

 

[the big lebowski]

Yeah Rob, becuase North is on Free to Air so often

 

[Rob]

Yeah Rob, becuase North is on Free to Air so often

You'd be on FTA a lot less if networks were forced to show the same game nationally because you don't rate. At least not at the moment anyway.

 

[Teffy]

Rob!

What a pleasant surprise to find you in a thread like this.

How's the therapy working out mate?

 

[Rob]

Rob!

What a pleasant surprise to find you in a thread like this.

How's the therapy working out mate?

Who the hell are you?

Nice to see i've still got a following around here though.

 

[Paul7890]

HUH?

Wouldnt it be more like

5 VIC
6 NSW
3 Qsld
2 SA
2 WA

Don't like that. Queensland should always have less teams then SA and or WA because its not a footy state. Would we just be adding teams in Queensland so that we could hope to sway the Rugby population?