Should Channels 9 and 7 share AFL rights

[rewind]

Who Not????

The TV is meant to be there for US the viewer. Each week they should choose 4 games each they want to cover. Each diff week they take it in turns of who chooses first.

If they want to have a bidding war, have it for the finals when there are no games played at the same time.

Isn't this the answer?

 

[Eagle_Fan]

In a word- no.
If they had 4 games each, they'd forever be competing as to who had the best commentators, graphics, music etc etc. It would get out of hand, and we (the viewer) you be pawns in their war.

 

[Perth_Bomber]

I agree with Rewind. That is obviously the best answer.

We would get to see all games this way, the condition should be that they go live into each city.

 

[staggy]

not bad mate, but i do agree with eaglefan: there would be massive competion as to who has the best game. However, when you thik about it it will ever happen - why do you think channel 7 paid for colonial to be built???

cheers, staggy

------------------
2000: year of the bomber

 

[rewind]

Does that mean only channel 7 can broadcast from there.

SEE THE BOMBERS FLY AS THE POWER DIE IN 2000

 

[Arch]

maybe if we get the "conference" system (which i dont want really, but anyway....)the channels can be asigned one of the conferences and broadcast those games only. That way its all decided in adnvance.
I think they do a simliar thing in the NFL with ABC and FOX, both sharing the rights.
the biggest problem though, would assigning rights to the GF. That would be a real sh*tfight.

 

[Arch]

oh and to rewind- yes it does mean only seven can broadcast from there. that includes concerts and all, not just footy.

------------------
BOMBERS REIGN SUPREME.