"Football without 7 is frightening" response

Remove this Banner Ad

amazonstud

Senior List
I have read with interest the article by Caroline Wilson in the Age(real footy site) of 2 December "Football without 7 is frightening" and must say how wrong she was when discussing Channel 7's handling of AFL football in the northern States. From her location in Melbourne its impossible for her to know how Channel 7 has failed its investors and the AFL in the northern States. Channel 7 in Sydney and Brisbane is a ship without a rudder, left to flounder in the ineptitude of its parochial management team.

I have had the opportunity to discuss Channel 7 programming in Brisbane with these managers on many occasions. I have asked, queried, argued and complained about AFL coverage. On each occasion I have been told that "no-one in Brisbane cares about AFL football" and that Channel 7 Brisbane makes their own decisions on coverage, no matter what the AFL or Channel 7 senior management states and the large investment it has made. Perhaps that explains why they never win the ratings in Brisbane.

Now for the 20,000 Brisbane Lions members and other AFL followers in Brisbane it comes as a bit of a shock to say we're not interested in watching AFL football. Channel 7 Brisbane prefers to play a 15 year old movie and show an abbreviated match at 1.45am than give a live telecast. An abbreviated telecast which I must say jumps from play to play with no explanation. I have watched AFL football for over 40 years and I get lost and annoyed with this coverage so how would it help promote the product or grow the market.

When I queried the late hour of the AFL broadcasts with Channel 7 Brisbane executives I was told "no-one watches it at that time of night so why would we move it forward". I have also pointed out that the 11pm time slot would still give them their re-run of a Friday night movie I received a similiar response.

The purchase of the football broadcast rights is a large investment for any broadcasting organisation. As a manager I would want to see my company dedicated to making that investment earn large rewards around the country. The team at Channel 7 Sydney and in Brisbane have shown by their actions to date that they don't agree with that premise.

A company with exclusive rights to a product throughout Australia and which achieves targets in Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory needs to look at the non-productive States. Demonstrated demand, loyal users and other Companies clamoring for cross promotion means that the marketing promotion and decision making of those States needs to be addressed.

Perhaps they don't know how to grow a market, promote the product, or capitalise on their market differentiation. That is Mr Stokes concern and its too late after you lose the rights to sell that product to say that we should have done something about it. Channel 10 has shown how to grow and market basketball. It's a pity that the Channel 7 management team didn't try to learn from their competitors.

If I was a Channel 7 investor I would demand a new management team and some strong action in the Sydney and Brisbane stations. Better management combined with promotion and marketing would mean better returns and happier investors but that doesn't matter to the executives in Channel 7 Brisbane. Perhaps it's time that it should.

I'm sure that when Channel 9 bids for the cricket broadcast rights they commit their whole organisation to showing the cricket. The Brisbane and Sydney market relays aren't left to make their own decisions on what is going to be shown. Why would you pay a premium for the rights to broadcast Australia wide and then not try and capitalise on it.

Now in the Northern States not all homes in the metropolitan areas have access to Optus. Furthermore there is no future Optus cable being strung or laid in the suburbs for increased coverage. Therefore we only have free to air TV to provide AFL coverage and Channel 7 has already failed to deliver.

Bring on Channel 9 and Foxtel we can't be any worse off.
 
I hope ch9 gets it too. Channel 7 haven't had full coverage (ie half the game) of a number of Bulldogs games being played interstate. Instead of showing the interstate game they have sometimes even shown a game being played in Melbourne. The fact that Channel 7 hasn't produced a decent football show, at a decent hour, shows to me that it is time for a change.

If ch9 was to get the rights, the amount of free to air games shown shouldn't decrese. The AFL has said that this will be a major issue in the decision of who will get the rights.

Also, I am sick of some of the commentators on Ch7. Especially, I am sick of MacAvany, Sandy Roberts, Jason Dunstall and Drew Morphett. I think ch9 ppl like Eddie, BT, Gary Lyon etc are much better than the ch7 ppl above.

The only worry i have is if ch9 wins the rights, and they give a game to ch10, who will be the commentators??? The only ch10 person i can think of is Quarters...

------------------
http://www.geocities.com/isdogisgood/index.html
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Obviously I can't comment on the television coverage in Sydney and Brisbane but on the whole, I think channel 7 does a pretty good job for Melbourne viewers.

Yes, we can always have our little gripes about certain commentators but that will happen regardless of who has the rights and who commentates.

We get Friday night games delayed by an hour, 1 or 2 live Saturday night games, 2 Sunday games live and Around the Grounds on Saturday afternoons.

A few of our matches were not shown or were shown at a very late hour too HahnPremium37 but that was only because two games were scheduled at the same time on a Saturday night.

From what I have been told about Channel 9's coverage of Rugby League, they currently screen a Friday night game live and a Sunday afternoon game delayed starting at 4pm. As an optus subscriber I usually get many more live games than that. You would hope if they did get the rights, Channel 9 would lift their performance. If my info was wrong just let me know.

Personally I am hoping that Channel 7 are able to retain the rights, Optus retain the pay-tv rights and Channel 7 lift their game big time in Sydney and Brisbane.

And sorry to the Sydney and Brisbane regulars who may think I am acting a little selfish. I'm just very concerned at the loss of free to air coverage that we may have to put up with a change in the television broadcaster

------------------
Fortius Quo Fidelius
 
Everything Amazonstud has said re : Tv coverage of the game in Northern States and the poorly researched Caroline Wilson article is true.

Hear Hear Amazonstud and can I just say that I and all the other Qld-NSW footy fans are quietly hoping Channel Seven get the flick.

sainter - yeah its one of the great paradoxes of Australian Sports Broadcasting, Channel Seven does a great job down south, I know because I used to live in Adelaide and in all honesty you couldn't fault the coverage (except for the dismal attempts at a footy variety or lite entertainment show)it was comprehensive to the point of saturation. But the contrast with NSW-Qld is stark indeed, it goes from a feast to a famine when moving north and its pissing us off !

So from our selfish perspective we don't care who gets the rights, we just want to be able to sit down at 8pm on a Friday with the kids in front of the telly and watch some AFL football.

Is that too much to ask ?

cheers
 
Living in Queensland as I do, I feel that I can comment on this thread.
I too have discussed this issue with the senior programming staff at BTQ Brisbane.
Did people in Melbourne realise that if the Lions play a match away from home on any night of the week, they will not show it live.
Trying to bring logic into the discussiion is fraught with frustration.
In 1999, the 5th most watch television of the year was the Lions vs Roos match.The programmer told me I was wrong, even though I could prove by the AC Neilson ratings that I was correct.
What would be nice, would be live away match for all Lions matches next year.
That said
Channel 9 in Brisbane never ever shows live Broncos matches.No live League matches at all.So I worry about what they will show live in the Northern states.
Channel 10 if they are still in the equation may have a ratings boon if they show live Lions and Swans matches.
 
i agree with amazon as far as how on earth can a B grade movie out rate a live match of afl or for that matter any sport us aussie,s are sports fans and while in melb we get a great coverage from 7 as well i have optus i do sympathise with our northern neighbours on this issue.
however as the saying goes better the devil u know than the one u dont.
ch9,s coverage of the cricket is on about the same level as ch7 up north do u think things will change if ch9 get the rights i dont think so.
no matter who gets the rights the one thing is for certain is that 10 yrs or maybe less the grand final will be pay per view and blockbuster games will be shown live in cable pay per view within 5.
cheers!
 
The TV Rights have been unbundled from the Internet Rights. A prime reason for this would be so that the AFL will be able maximise the amount of revenue realised by selling them as separate components.

I still the the prime end game that both Murdoch/Packer and Stokes are aiming at is Pay TV. Regardless of the victor, through the course of the next 5 years we will be forced to experience a little cultural shift. Pertinent point in an article by Michael Gleeson in this morning's Herald Sun (p81):

While the AFL has committed to a minimum five games a week on free-to-air rights, it has not committed to the quality of those matches.

Take it as given that the amount of 'blockbuster' games shown exclusively on Pay TV will increase.

------------------
This is a hallucination and these faces are in a dream. A computer generated environment; a fantasy island you can do anything and not have to face the consequences.
 
Originally posted by Max Power:
Who does Caroline Wilson's husband work for?

Wouldn't be Channel 7 would it by any chance

Don't you just love conflict of interests in the AFL industry
 
If C9 get the rights and are desperate for commentators, they might as well keep the cricket commentators for the footy season. Can you imagine Tony Greig sticking a key into the MCG on Grand Final Day and Ian Chapell monitoring the toss of the coin
wink.gif
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I actually think Ch10 coverage of motor sport for the most part is fairly good. The large proportion of ads in the first and last 20 laps of Bathurst is irritating though. My main problem with Ch10 picking up the slack of games 9 can't do would be the commentary team. Quarters, Quarters and Quarters.

On a side issue if 9 and 10 do a joint telecast then MMM football in Melbourne could well suffer with the probable loss of Eddie, Quarters, BT and possibly Dermott.
 
Channel 7 don't know what they're missing out on by not showing AFL games live up here.

Although, the telecasts of the games are better than they used to be and I would rather have channel 7 keep the rights than give them to channel 9 to share with channel 10 and their pay-tv friends.

Not everyone has pay-tv (i do though) and if channel 9 were to share the rights with Foxtel, then it wouldn't be fair on footy fans.

Also, channel 9 hardly shows any rugby league games live in Brisbane, so why would it show AFL games live up here.

I hope that channel 7 keeps the rights!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
I have no problem with Channel 7's coverage in Canberra, however I am aware of the lies and deceit used to justify their (C7) poor coverage in Queensland and NSW. Before this year, Prime TV continually informed me (and others) that they had no power over the coverage of Friday Night Football; the decision according to them was made by their parent company in Sydney. Of course this, and other excuses have been exposed as complete fiction.

In my opinion, Foxtel already have the Pay TV rights sown up. The AFL's decision to split the tendering process would appear to confirm this. So too would C7's "substantial offer" for the NRL Pay TV rights. Despite the (quite justified) anger from Channel 7 regarding the split tender, it is quite obvious that seven has all but conceded the Pay TV rights. Foxtel is certainly a better option then Optus, in the northern states.

The free-to-air rights is a more vexing issue. Although the managers of C7 (and 9) in Brisbane and Sydney are "rugby supporters", these to stations are the only ones in a position to compete for the rights.

I am yet to be convinced that the joint 9/10 bid would be better for the game then Channel 7. Although 10's coverage of football news is better then the other two (in terms of quantity), their other broadcasting ventures have failed. A previous poster mentioned basketball. Basketball's popularity declined during 10's coverage; the people who watched the sport when it was on Channel 7 did not continue to watch it on 10 (despite 10's coverage being better).

In my opinion, 9's decision to involve 10 in the bid is a cynical exercise to make their bid more attractive. The 9/10 bid is different to other countries, where competing networks share the rights independently of the other. In this case, Channel 10 is clearly in a subordinate position to Channel 9 and would be dependant upon the decisions of Channel 9. The relationship and understanding between the two networks would need to be set in concrete for the deal to have any chance of working.


On another point, it would be interesting to know what effect(if any), Kerry Packer's illness will have on the negotiations.



------------------
"Be not afraid of greatness."
Shakespeare, Twelfth Night.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

"Football without 7 is frightening" response

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top