2nds The SANFL Thread

[Geoffa32]

I haven't said any of that. It's some people's argument. My point is that it will be an unfair playing field to have two teams that don't have to fall under the salary cap as one example.
Is that too hard to understand?
Do you see the problem here?
Do you want Collingwood to have a cap of 15 million and Adelaide to have to abide to one of 8.7 million?
Do you think that is fair?
It's a question of ethics. What is fair and just. What the two clubs want is not fair and just for the other 8 clubs.
And I thought the Port board was myopic!

What about Sturt right now. Fair to say that given each week they generally have the most AFL listed players in their side that the amount the guys representing Sturt on any given weekend is higher than most SANFL clubs?


Sturt are a good example as to why an SANFL/ AFL side such as our Reserves side wont dominate the comp. Neither do the Geelong and Collingwood clubs in the VFL.

 

[brucetiki]

With the SANFL on 9 deal, they've already made an attempt at the WAFL - but it was on the condition all televised matches would be at the WACA, and they show the Queensland Rugby League competition on channel 9 (which formerly was on the ABC).

Hopefully they don't try and do a 'play all games at one ground' deal and try and do a model similar to the Queensland deal - and given Channel 9 expect $1 million from the SANFL for this, the least the SANFL can say is they must broadcast from all grounds like the ABC does.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

If they had to play one game at AO or AAMI or wherever each week to make it an easy fit for the camera crews then who cares? You'd take that to get on free to air tv.

 

[brucetiki]

If Channel 9 can demand $1 million a season than they can set up camp at all grounds like they do in Queensland.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

If we're having to pay money to get it put on tv at all, we're not in a position to call too many shots I don't reckon.

 

[*PAF]

If they had to play one game at AO or AAMI or wherever each week to make it an easy fit for the camera crews then who cares? You'd take that to get on free to air tv.

Don't free to air games belong to the 7 network?

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Don't free to air games belong to the 7 network?

Huh?

 

[*PAF]

Huh?

They are hardly going to give channel 9 free access to their equipment at the grounds.

 

[brucetiki]

Both 7 and Fox Footy outsource their OB facilities these days anyway. Channel 9 could simply outsource their facilities like 7 and Fox do.

This would also mean they could broadcast from any ground because the facilities are portable. If the SANFL do end up forking out $1 million for channel 9 to broadcast SANFL they would have every right to say how that $1 million would be spent - and that includes dictating that they broadcast games at all grounds.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

They are hardly going to give channel 9 free access to their equipment at the grounds.

Oh I see. I was more thinking the infrastructure rather than the actual cameras, cables etc.

Some of the SANFL grounds are pretty basic.

I know the ABC does it out of the back of a station wagon with coffee cups used as satellite dishes but don't reckon 9 would. Maybe I'm wrong.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Both 7 and Fox Footy outsource their OB facilities these days anyway. Channel 9 could simply outsource their facilities like 7 and Fox do.

This would also mean they could broadcast from any ground because the facilities are portable. If the SANFL do end up forking out $1 million for channel 9 to broadcast SANFL they would have every right to say how that $1 million would be spent - and that includes dictating that they broadcast games at all grounds.

No they wouldn't.

$1m if we choose the grounds, $2m if you choose the grounds.

 

[brucetiki]

No they wouldn't.

$1m if we choose the grounds, $2m if you choose the grounds.

So you seriously think the SANFL would agree to fork out $1 million for channel 9 to dictate where they'll broadcast games.

That simply won't happen.

 

[*PAF]

No they wouldn't.

$1m if we choose the grounds, $2m if you choose the grounds.

You would think that if they weren't able to minimise costs the price would go up, also would Channel 9 prefer to go up against AFL games to negatively impact channel 7 ratings?
I really have no idea on any of the above including costs and TV ratings competitions.

 

[*PAF]

So you seriously think the SANFL would agree to fork out $1 million for channel 9 to dictate where they'll broadcast games.

That simply won't happen.

I think in the article the SANFL said that it is trying to see if it can find ways to afford it because as things stand it is way too expensive, however if that happens Channel 9 will most certainly have a saying to which games, where and when.

 

[brucetiki]

I think in the article the SANFL said that it is trying to see if it can find ways to afford it because as things stand it is way too expensive, however if that happens Channel 9 will most certainly have a saying to which games, where and when.

Depends on how that cost is reduced.

If the SANFL comes up with $1 million of sponsorship, then they're in the box seat to tell 9 where games will be shown.

If channel 9 come up with the $1 million of sponsorship, then they're in the box seat to tell the SANFL where games will be shown.

At the end of the day though, no matter whether they pick one ground or all grounds, no ground in the state has permanent OB facilities so they'll have to be trucked in anyway, so would it really matter where they broadcast from if they have to hire the OB facilities each week anyway?

 

[Mego Red]

I can't imagine 9 will care, as its just an outside broadcast truck heading to a ground in the suburbs.

But we should get real - this is incredibly unlikely to happen. The ABC were getting the SANFL, and getting 70k a year. After getting the arse from the ABC, the likelihood of the SANFL coming up with $1m to put themselves on FTA seems delusional.

 

[headache1]

I can't imagine 9 will care, as its just an outside broadcast truck heading to a ground in the suburbs.

But we should get real - this is incredibly unlikely to happen. The ABC were getting the SANFL, and getting 70k a year. After getting the arse from the ABC, the likelihood of the SANFL coming up with $1m to put themselves on FTA seems delusional.

Best one word description of the SANFL ever.

 

[Mego Red]

Just reading this ...

Eddie and 9 get all advertising revenue, plus Eddie gets $1m to cover productions costs (which actually seems very high - $40k a game is crazy for the ten to twelve staff it would take).

This is complete fiction from Rucci.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Won't they just get the $1m by fudging Port's crowd figures?

 

[*PAF]

Won't they just get the $1m by fudging Port's crowd figures?

Or your 38K "sold out" games?

 

[AFC3000]

So Rucci is suggesting we pay for the broadcast games... Is that also "for the good of all South Australian football". Maybe if all of our reserves games are the ones that are shown.

Now if this free to air thing doesn't work, I'm not imagining there are enough Internet savy SANFL supporters who would pay to watch a low quality game of the round online, surely they would just go to the game.

 

[spenze]

I can't imagine 9 will care, as its just an outside broadcast truck heading to a ground in the suburbs.

But we should get real - this is incredibly unlikely to happen. The ABC were getting the SANFL, and getting 70k a year. After getting the arse from the ABC, the likelihood of the SANFL coming up with $1m to put themselves on FTA seems delusional.

Agreed...unless they have already set a price for the Power and Crows reserves

 

[Cap]

So Rucci is suggesting we pay for the broadcast games... Is that also "for the good of all South Australian football". Maybe if all of our reserves games are the ones that are shown.

Now if this free to air thing doesn't work, I'm not imagining there are enough Internet savy SANFL supporters who would pay to watch a low quality game of the round online, surely they would just go to the game.

It is a bit rich for Rucci to suggest the Crows subsidise the competition further.

We as a club have already propped up the SANFL, the Power and the building of a new stadium

now they want us to pay for the whole bloody comp

 

[*PAF]

It is a bit rich for Rucci to suggest the Crows subsidise the competition further.

We as a club have already propped up the SANFL, the Power and the building of a new stadium

now they want us to pay for the whole bloody comp

I think the supporting Port bit has been stated/proven to be wrong many times both on this and the Port board.

Replace "Government" with SANFL and "You" with Port and this pic pretty well sums it up. You lot have definitely contributed more than Port but that in turn doesn't mean that Port has been losing money for the SANFL.

 

[Cap]

I think the supporting Port bit has been stated/proven to be wrong many times both on this and the Port board.

Replace "Government" with SANFL and "You" with Port and this pic pretty well sums it up. You lot have definitely contributed more than Port but that in turn doesn't mean that Port has been losing money for the SANFL.

I'm not going to get into that topic with you as I recall a few seasons ago pointing out how poor your administration was - which you basically referred to me as a troll...and of course they all got the sack, but never mind that

I was in a fortunate position to know a fair bit about the SANFL/Crows/Power relationship, I'm not now so I can't comment on the way it operates today.