Joint Channel 7 & 10 bid for AFL rights.

[Hawksfaithful]

I think it's great to have Brucey back... Ten times more charcter than any of those idiots from Nine...

Shame about the production...

Tonight’s coverage was a throwback to the dark old days of mid 1990's telecasting. If there was one thing that Nine excelled at it was their ability to put together a slick and professional broadcast.

And what’s with the nostalgia clips during the game and on the ending credits don't get me wrong I’m all for embrassing the traditions of the game, but the clips – along with the music, is a bit of overkill.

I was wrapt when Seven got the rights, mostly because I thought it meant more football being telecast at suitable hours…to date Seven has been very disappointing on all fronts.

[the crow]

motor racing does take precedence over AFL..so they are quite correct

You reckon? Or are you being sarcastic? I'm lost.

He's just doing a bit of sh1t stirring.

.

no quite serious..... Adelaide is on next weekend...no AFL for you!

but back to AFL

bruce IS mr S p e c i a l.....

[sandyhill]

You reckon? Or are you being sarcastic? I'm lost.

He's just doing a bit of sh1t stirring.
.

no quite serious..... Adelaide is on next weekend...no AFL for you!
quote]
Ummm ... I guess not - the season doesn't start for another month.

Meanwhile, it seems the new TV agreement hasn't improved relations between ch 7/10 and Foxtel - http://www.realfooty.theage.com.au/arti ... 24176.html

And, it seems ch7 weren't too happy at all (with good reason) with their own first up performance upon returning to AFL, with already one scalp claimed -

Top producer given the boot
28 February 2007 Herald-Sun
Steve Perkin

CHANNEL 7 sacked one of the men in charge of its AFL coverage yesterday after just one weekend of games. Tony Fox, whose title was senior producer AFL, had his contract terminated.

Fox said his sacking was because of what he described as disappointing coverage on Friday night of the Kangaroos-Collingwood game on the Gold Coast.

"I was really quite disappointed in the whole telecast and I took it quite personally," Fox said. "They seemed to think that, because I stuck to myself, didn't go and have a beer with them afterwards, went to my room and stewed on it and was still pissed off the next day, that I wasn't the right person to take them forward. Seven has a policy where quite a number of people are involved in the production of the game at a senior level, which I found quite frustrating last Friday night. I'd given up a job at the ABC, which I was enjoying, to take this on and after one game . . . shown the door."

Fox, 48, had been a producer at Channel 9 and Fox Footy before joining the ABC. He accepted the Seven job on New Year's Day. Channel 7's AFL boss, Ian Johnson, last night denied the network was in turmoil. "It's unfortunate that this has arisen. There are a number of reasons for it and I continue to have great faith in our sports department," he said. Johnson described Friday night's telecast as "a five out of 10 production, but we will only get better". We had a few things that didn't work. We'll improve."

[sandyhill]

The great TV footy war continues on and on ...

Thanks to Foxtel, ch9 has found a way of getting advertising revenue out of the AFL, despite not having the TV rights. Foxtel is to spend millions of dollars in advertising and will also sponsor three AFL themed shows on ch9 -

Eddie poisons Seven's AFL deal
Daniel Ziffer (Age)
March 2, 2007

Television's football war has taken another strange turn, with Channel Nine trumpeting a sponsorship agreement with a competitor it part-owns, pay television channel Foxtel. Last night, Nine chief executive Eddie McGuire revealed the network would run advertisements for Foxtel during its popular Footy Show programs — on Thursday, Sunday and, new this season, Monday nights — something AFL rights-holders Seven and Ten this week refused to do.

Ten said the advertisement was "misleading" and Seven said that it promoted Foxtel's "coverage of sport to be superior" to their own. ... Nine is owned by PBL Media, which also has a 25 per cent stake in Foxtel, and is not concerned by the threat of losing viewers. "It's a sponsorship like any other," a Nine spokeswoman said, pointing out the many AFL-themed programs that will run on the network, despite its losing the rights. "We're thrilled with it."

This week, Seven chief executive David Leckie told The Age: "We think the ads were a direct challenge to our schedule and why would I, as a CEO of a company, accept stuff like that? I am sure (Foxtel boss) Kim Williams wouldn't accept disparaging comments about his network on his network, so the decision was clear."

Watching AFL on Foxtel will cost fans at least $52.90 a month.

[Rob]

It seems 7 and 10 are a bit precious about Foxtel advertising about how they show the footy live.

So why don't 7 and 10 just show the footy live as well? F**king idiots that they are. It's not like they can't fit plenty of ads into a live telecast.

[Cheesie-the-Pirate]

I was looking back through this thread reminiscing about the ratings bias model I made back in January 2006 (and considering making a new one to work with the new arrangements) and found this little Herald Sun article posted by sandy that made me smile.

Include pay-TV or count cost
14 January 2006 Herald Sun
Damian Barrett

NINE days have elapsed since Channels 7 and 10 were accepted by the AFL as football's broadcasters from 2007, yet it may take 111 more for the deal to be signed. Under terms attached to the legal rights of Seven and Ten to bid last in the broadcast negotiations, the AFL was required to grant the networks 120 days to finalise their package.

In matching the offer of Channel 9 on January 5, Seven and Ten bought the contract the AFL had struck with Nine through Publishing and Broadcasting Ltd. That deal had stipulated key matches, including Friday and Saturday nights, would be broadcast live into the northern states.

The AFL had awarded all eight weekly matches to PBL but inserted a clause allowing up to four matches to be sub-licensed to pay-TV. Nine had reached agreement with Fox Footy on those four matches, and the pay-TV network was also to be used as the vehicle for live coverage into the northern black sports on Friday and Saturday nights.

Seven and Ten matched the Nine bid without the involvement of a pay-TV party, meaning, as it stands, they will be forced to wear the ratings beltings -- and subsequent erosion of advertising dollars -- in the northern states. They need to strike an arrangement with a pay-TV station before the 120 days expire.

My calculations make the deal 279 days late.

[yob]

Get a load of this:

Port Adelaide V Fremantle: Fox Sports 1. live 3:30pm

Port Adelaide V Fremantle: Channel 10 Adelaide, live, 3:30pm

[Egan]

Yeah I know, I saw those oddities in the tv rights earlier on.

Channel 10 decided to broadcast live in Perth because the Eagles game is being shown live on Channel 10 now.

[yob]

Apparently the same thing for QLD viewers with Brisbane V Hawthorn


What a cock up!!!

[Waz]

It only ever happens for the SA nad WA markets if their team is drawn to be shown on Foxtel in an interstate fixture.

I don't think it's a hugely rare thing - The Aus v West Indies cricket game was also on channel nein and fox sports at the same time the other night...

If there's a game on both, I'll always be watching the FTA version as foxtel's picture quality leaves a lot to be desired...

[Cheesie-the-Pirate]

It will happen everywhere except Victoria. It's all about the move from regional-specific Fox Footy to national Fox Sports. When the FTA networks take the Fox Sports feed Fox Sports will still be showing it.

You can't really blame Fox Sports for doing it that way. Even if you ignore the fact that they wouldn't have wanted to face the extra cost of running 5 different concurrent channels it really doesn't help them to be forced to show the least-popular game in each market.

[Waz]

I think Fox Sports won't be too worried that every now and then one of their 4 games is shown on FTA at the same time, as they still have more than last season.


Anyone else here catch Ten's coverage of Syd vs West Coast in HD? I only have a relatively bottom end Sony HD LCD with only 760 vertical pixels, but the picture was absolutely magnificent! If all broadcasts were like this, you'd find it hard to tear me from the TV! This is the way sport should ALWAYS be broadcast - take note channel Seven!

[Cheesie-the-Pirate]

I think Fox Sports won't be too worried that every now and then one of their 4 games is shown on FTA at the same time, as they still have more than last season.

Well, yes. I'm sure they would've preferred if they could get their four games live and exclusive but I'm positive they prefer live and non-exclusive to live and exclusive in each market but only able to show what the FTA networks don't want.

[broncos]

Well its that time of year again, where AFL season kicks off. And we all know what that means, the Swans match in Sydney gets outrated by the Iron Chef.

Its a grand final rematch and how many people watch?? An average of 112 000 watched the Swans. Must have been a really good episode of the Iron Chef!!!

[quidgybo]

Don't go stirring that pot. It'll still rate better than the Storm in Melbourne simply because, unlike the NRL telecasts, it'll actually be on at a time that anyone who wants to watch *can* watch. As a RL fan, I'd happily take getting hammered in the ratings by Iron Chef every week if it meant we actually got the time slot in Melbourne up against Iron Chef. Instead we've got the graveyard shift where most weeks the local side doesn't get shown at all on Free to Air and 100,000 viewers is something we can only dream about.

Leigh.