Ch9 RWC coverage

[waratahjesus]

Opening Ceremony Grief.....The Opening ceremony starts at 5.30pm our time and is nowhere to be seen on free to air. That's including GEM. Such a showcase for the code we love and it's nowhere! It wouldn't even interfere with the Rugby League semi that starts @ 7.30pm.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. If the stations can't broadcast important events they should not get the rights! They should be ordered to screen it all!

It's unfirtunate thru can't show it on GEM, but they are never going to show something withou massive mainstream appeal in place o there news service that rates huge an has a lot f money invested in it.

You also hav to ad up in this debate what 9 actually bought. They may nt have t right to the world cup, but the rights to Australia and the finals. It's not. Clear cu they can show whatever they want xpcontract these days.

 

[redsfanatic]

Will foxsports have it on? of course they would wouldn't they?

 

[Worldcupnut]

Thanks mate. That's not the point.

 

[redsfanatic]

Thanks mate. That's not the point.

I realise, and I agree that that is stupid. Just making sure it will at least be on TV.

 

[Worldcupnut]

OK. They could show it from 6.30pm onwards. I can't see that it wouldn't have huge appeal. Even if just the Kiwis in OZ watched it it'd be 500k +.

 

[Worldcupnut]

I'll probably go to the pub to watch it. That's means I get p!ssed & probably miss another function I've got on that night......

 

[Mica]

Apparently the schedule can be found here.
Doesn't look too good for FTA
http://www.theroar.com.au/rugby-union/rugby-world-cup-fixtures/

After seeing this yesterday it would appear that the schedule is more fluid.
I noticed that in today's Sunday Mail TV guide (Brisbane) that Channel 9 is showing the England Argentina pool game on Saturday at around 10:30pm (from memory). Looks like programming are rolling the dice on a daily basis!! :angryfire:

 

[Badger]

Yeah, the England vs Argentina match is listed as being on (on delay) after the NRL finals matches on Saturday 10 September in Sydney, Brisbane and Canberra on 9 in the evening. Movie reruns for the other capital cities by the looks of things.

At the very least, why can't 9 show the weekend day games either live or on delay if they don't clash with their NRL commitments? Not many people would miss the reruns of sitcoms or reality TV they slot in at those times.

9 have form in bingo style programming.

 

[Moses]

I suspect that fixture list is just a punt by the roarers considering they have Wallabies v. Ireland on 9, when it's much more likely to be on GEM.

What's all this BS hawking Fox about? Eh? The fact that FTW service is abysmal needs to be addressed and rectified. The fact that you can pay for something you shouldn't have to is completely irrelevant.

I think this shameless marketing on behalf of pay-tv is really obnoxious.

We don't need two threads on FTA coverage of the RWC so I've merged these.

It's not shameless marketing, it's a statement of fact. Fox do a superb job of broadcasting rugby, and in particular the RWC where they've dedicated a HD channel 24x7 for 6 weeks.

Despite what you may believe, Channel 9 do not owe you anything. They'll act in their own interests and the interests of their shareholders. As they should.

 

[grievous]

Sad state of affairs for one of the consistant top rugby nations in the world, could one imagine this happening in soccer with a similar ranked nation?

 

[Moses]

Sad state of affairs for one of the consistant top rugby nations in the world, could one imagine this happening in soccer with a similar ranked nation?

I don't know much about soccer, but all Test cricket in the UK is exclusive to pay TV and has been since 2005.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cricket/8759126.stm

 

[Worldcupnut]

Despite what you may believe, Channel 9 do not owe you anything. They'll act in their own interests and the interests of their shareholders. As they should.

Yes - greed is good, greed works...... I feel they do owe the collective we something. That they act within the spirit of the law. The anti-siphoning laws of the 1990's were designed to ensure that the average Australian could enjoy major sporting events on free-to-air. 9 get the rights to broadcast this major event and then proceed to treat with as much respect as the NZ public treat Quade Cooper.
Does anybody remember the disgrace of the quarter-final in the World Cup cricket?
If I was a shareholder of 9 I'd be asking questions as well. How on earth is it in their best interests not to promote the World Cup to it's fullest? Put the the Opening Ceremony on at 5.30pm, break to the news, put the rest of the ceremony on delayed telecast at 6.30pm and then cut to the League as NZ v Tonga is shown on GEM.
I feel the ARU should be a little peeved too. This is a great time to promote the code to ALL of OZ. As much as we love it, it's still really only a minor sport. People love opening ceremonies and I'm sure our good NZ cousins will be putting on a great show.
I don't know if in your travels you've come across a concept known as Corporate Ethics but there is a good Wiki entry on it.

 

[Badger]

Despite what you may believe, Channel 9 do not owe you anything. They'll act in their own interests and the interests of their shareholders. As they should.

They need viewers to generate advertising which earns income for them. Key to getting an audience is to provide programming that people want to watch. So it is in their interests (and their shareholders) to schedule programs that appeal to viewers.

Furthermore, as a shareholder, I would ask why is the money being spent on acquiring rights to an event if they are not going to be fully utilised.

 

[barbarian]

Furthermore, as a shareholder, I would ask why is the money being spent on acquiring rights to an event if they are not going to be fully utilised.

See where you say 9 are not 'fully utilising' the RWC, they would say they are picking out all the good bits by showing the Australian games and QFs, SFs and Final, and leaving the rest (which most people don't want to watch). Like it or not, events like the Opening Ceremony or New Zealand vs France just don't get the viewers to justify showing them on FTA. Let alone the minnow games like Fiji vs Namibia.

I like it as much as you but that is just the way it is. We just can't expect blanket coverage as the 5th biggest pro sport in this country.

 

[TOCC]

They need viewers to generate advertising which earns income for them. Key to getting an audience is to provide programming that people want to watch. So it is in their interests (and their shareholders) to schedule programs that appeal to viewers.

Furthermore, as a shareholder, I would ask why is the money being spent on acquiring rights to an event if they are not going to be fully utilised.

sigh... reality sucks buddy, a RWC pool match involving 2 foreign rugby union teams isnt going to rate in prime-time TV slots in Australia...

 

[Slim 293]

sigh... reality sucks buddy, a RWC pool match involving 2 foreign rugby union teams isnt going to rate in prime-time TV slots in Australia...

It seemed to do alright in 2003?

I think the problem here lies more with the ARU rather than channel 9.

The fact that 9 weren't the only bidders (and apparently not even the highest) means the ARU could've laid down better terms for their product.

When they sold the rights to 9 they knew it wasnt going to get much treatment. Especially with 9 putting all efforts into tryi g to obtain the AFL rights which ultimately failed.

But with the pay tv dollars they obviously don't give a damn. It appears to be another decision from them that is more financially better in the short term by does nothing for the expansion of the game.

 

[barbarian]

It seemed to do alright in 2003?

I think the problem here lies more with the ARU rather than channel 9.

The fact that 9 weren't the only bidders (and apparently not even the highest) means the ARU could've laid down better terms for their product.

When they sold the rights to 9 they knew it wasnt going to get much treatment. Especially with 9 putting all efforts into tryi g to obtain the AFL rights which ultimately failed.

But with the pay tv dollars they obviously don't give a damn. It appears to be another decision from them that is more financially better in the short term by does nothing for the expansion of the game.

The final was awesome in 2003, but you think Wales vs Samoa rated its pants off? It did not.

And do you really think the ARU should have demanded all games get prime-time billing? Really? Because that would be one way to get all of your bidders to head for the hills.

 

[Slim 293]

I'm not suggesting that at all.

But 9 aren't making an effort to show much of anything.

That's their decision, but there are other networks that would've done a better job in showing the games.

 

[TOCC]

It seemed to do alright in 2003?

I think the problem here lies more with the ARU rather than channel 9.

The fact that 9 weren't the only bidders (and apparently not even the highest) means the ARU could've laid down better terms for their product.

When they sold the rights to 9 they knew it wasnt going to get much treatment. Especially with 9 putting all efforts into tryi g to obtain the AFL rights which ultimately failed.

But with the pay tv dollars they obviously don't give a damn. It appears to be another decision from them that is more financially better in the short term by does nothing for the expansion of the game.

apples and oranges buddy...

the 2003 RWC had flow on publicity from the fact that it was based in Australia, it was also held in Oct-Nov when no other sporting codes were playing.

On top of that, you need to realise that the ARU arent responsible for the selling of the RWC TV-Rights. The IRB negotiate their own tv-rights and all the money goes directly to the IRB, not the ARU.

 

[DPK]

07 was done pretty well on Ten, I recall them playing the majority of games. But they had it easy, many of the games were on at 1 or so in the afternoon.