• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

Channel 9 continues the tradition of absymal free to air rugby coverage...

Status
Not open for further replies.
W

Wooden Horse

Guest
waratahjesus said:
dear Wooden Horse,
you have missed the point entirely. The law is that Australian games must be shown live or near of on a commercial network unless an application has been made and approved to move it to a digital channel (aus ireland will be on gem).

The ARU dont have the rights to sell this tournament, the IRB sell it directly to the highest bidder in each country. In australia that was Nine, By securing the most money when the IRB divides checks up for the playing countries it means they get more money.

You have no idea if the ARU is lobbying or not, They are not going to come out and say they hate channel nine when they want channel nine to feature and talk highly of a product they have on there station that they want people to watch. The smart bussiness thing to do from the ARU is to nudge from behind the scene without talking down or pissing off nine that then could pull coverage from there news, other sports shows and advertising due to the bad relationship.

and lastly, Channel ( did not buy the rights to relaunch there sports reputation, the cricket is the top rating sport in summer and Rugby league rates its pants off all winter, they dont need union, they basically saw that it was a bargin cos no one else wanted it either. there relying on the wallabies performing to get ratings at the back end of the comp to make there money back and hopefully turn a profit.

as was said earlier, im a mad union supporter but the reality is sticking shit against a wall doesnt mean people are going to stop and take a look.
Click to expand...

I assume you right that Ch9, i.e. saw this RWC as a bargain, don't obviously give a shit about RU & hope thay make a buck simply out of the W's doing well. But such a lame business effort, i.e. they think they'll make more $'s out of rerun rerun sitcoms rather than a full tournament of sport...yep, they've lost it on sport!

As I said, again, no one is suggesting that ARU should promote rugby by televising it or controlling the programming, i.e. it has NO relationship & involvement in TV rights bidding, winning, controlling, etc. Except maybe, before the deal is done, lobbying that archaic institution, the IRB (good luck!). I/most/some know the issues & rules of TV rights, bidding, etc & the new anti-siphoning rules. & hence know it’s not relevant to this issue, hence I don’t raise it as such. So I don’t know why you & other do so as some sort of defense/ justification of the status quo on the current NZ RWC Ch9 coverage remaining. THE DEAL IS DONE AS FAR AS WHO HAS THE RIGHTS! Its’ over, move on, WHAT NOW?...

As I’ve said from the start, the problem here is Ch9, it’s coverage &, then secondly, those being silent (therefore tacet acceptance) on it by RU followers. AGAIN, enraged RWC followers & interested others …sure, vent your anger at ch9 but it's all to ch9's deaf ears & a waste of time if you don't also ensure that you note down all their ADVERTISERS and let them know you that Ch9 has a tournaments' TV coverage to promote & get more viewers in to watch it & theri ads....but it's making a piss poor effort for their very expensive advertising investment!

And then there’s ‘secondly, those being silent’. Yes, the ARU has a role, & AIM, to lobby professionally.

Again remember one of, ARU aims & responsibilities,, ‘Developing substantially more mass entertainment presence domestically and internationally’. Since the heady good coverage years of the early 2000s’ (yes RU pushing out others in primetime) and up to the Oz RWC, & it’s $20M+ profit(!), what has been gained in sports market share & TV coverage?? Back then, RU was looking no2 in popularity, sports market share & TV coverage, behind AFL, but has plummeted since then. And Ch7 & 9, 10 have got away with whatever they wanted

The wallabies do their best to perform on the field & related promotions. That’s one of their roles.

What’s the KPI for the ARU’s ‘Developing substantially more mass entertainment presence domestically and internationally’????.

YOUR RIGHT, I have no idea if the ARU is lobbying or not. I’ll extend that. I, or do any non-insiders, have any idea if the ARU has been lobbying or not for the past decade. The AFL, FFA(Soccer), NRL, ACB, Netball Oz, Tennis Australia, etc, etc successfully continue to publicly but professionally lobby extra TV coverage. And not only the Australian sportspeople coverage, but the tournaments & competitions they’re in. Soccer World Cups(SBS/10), Wimbledon (Ch7), NRL(Ch9), ACB(Ch9/10), Netball Oz (Ch7/ABC) all get coverage on Free to Air TV, even at the local/regional sport level, let alone at the national level.

But RU needs sport, competition & therefore tournament coverage to promote the sport, NOT JUST THE WALLABIES SUCCESS, i.e. pinned only to their hopeful success. For example, everyone (?...OK, many) still love those long lost Ashes!!!! An increase in sports public interest & market share requires more than just the promotion of one teams success. Even though the Wallabies & their performance is important. Again, Soccer World Cups(SBS/10), Wimbledon (Ch7), NRL(Ch9), ACB(Ch9/10), Netball Oz (Ch7/ABC) all get some reasonable coverage on Free to Air TV, even at the local/regional sport level, let alone at the national level.

Sport needs reasonable ‘Free to Air TV’ coverage to convert the masses, & increase popularity & therefore market share to justify even more TV coverage. Paid TV is a much smaller, & often already converted, market. Of course, all TV is critical for TV rights $’s to the sport & sports players.

Of course the ARU should not, come out and, ‘say they hate channel nine’, ‘ talking down’, ’pissing off’, ‘bad relationship’. Another ridiculous, irrelevant extreme. The other codes head associations continue to publicly, professionally & successfully lobby of extra TV coverage.

So again, I, or do any other non-insiders, have an idea if the ARU has been lobbying or not for the past decade. Is that the only answer to what the ARU have been doing for the past decade??? Only the ARU knows?! This is not a religion of blind faith. What ever the KPI is for their own ‘Developing substantially more mass entertainment presence domestically and internationally’…..RESULTS OF THE PAST DECADE TALK!!

But it is easy for I/others to knock! ARU if your doing your hardest & best ‘behind the scene’…go for it!! We’re all behind you/anyone on the same mission. But of course, results & better coverage talk! RU is has been going backwards!

ARU should be helping. As I’ve said from the start, and again (!), the problem here is TV land, this time Ch9, it’s coverage &, then secondly, those RU followers being silent on it (therefore tacet acceptance).

YES AGAIN, enraged RWC followers & interested others…sure, vent your anger at Ch9 but it's all to ch9's deaf ears & a waste of time if you don't also ensure that you note down all their ADVERTISERS and let them know you that Ch9 has a tournaments' TV coverage to promote & get more viewers in to watch it & their ads....but it's making a piss poor effort for their very expensive advertising investment!

MAINTAIN THE RAGE!!...well in context, it is only sport….folk running around after a ball!

ENOUGH here...off to the advertisers!
 
I like to watch

I like to watch

David Codey (61)
If you are too tight or can't afford Foxtel,you must have mates with it.
If you are broke/ tight and have no mates, then go to a pub/club if you are unsatisfied with Ch 9 coverage.
Why all the angst?
 
waratahjesus

waratahjesus

Greg Davis (50)
i would happily have it delayed for CSI Miami, but CSI New York lacks the awesomeness its miami counterpart brings to the table.
 
darkhorse

darkhorse

Darby Loudon (17)
I like to watch said:
If you are too tight or can't afford Foxtel,you must have mates with it.
If you are broke/ tight and have no mates, then go to a pub/club if you are unsatisfied with Ch 9 coverage.
Why all the angst?
Click to expand...

I haven't really weighed into the debate yet, but for me the problem isn't that I can't see the games as I have foxtel. The thing is that there is so little FTA rugby these days and I feel that the game is struggling in the current 'market' for want of a better word. Sure the Reds have reinvigorated the grassroots and the average rugby fan, but the effect this has had on the general population really was quite limited compared to the possible outcomes if it were on FTA television.

At a time when have a very good chance of winning the RWC I had great hopes of this spurring on rugby and giving it a badly needed shot in the arm, not just inspiring rugby's disaffected fans but bringing new people to the code. The lack of hype in the media - compared to the football WC - and the general neglect of the pool games feels like someone is trying their best to butcher our major showpiece. This weekend has produced some great rugby, enthralling games and looks like being the most competitive RWC yet, but for the most part the average punter remains unaware of this.

A cynical person - and in regards to this issue I'm feeling increasingly so - might take a view that nine bought the RWC to 'manage' the impact it had on the general public to protect the interest it has in League. It really isn't the craziest idea. There are many examples of similar practices occuring in the business world. Warner Bros is known to have bought any hockey script in the 90s without any intention of making a film just to protect its Might Ducks franchise from any competition. Drug companies repeatedly buy any research that looks like finding a cure for AIDS only to bury it to protect its revenue from AIDS medication. Frankly with what Murdoch's other ventures have done over the years I wouldn't be surprised to see Nine take such an aggressive stance on its competitors.
 
P

pete88

Guest
I like to watch said:
If you are too tight or can't afford Foxtel,you must have mates with it.
If you are broke/ tight and have no mates, then go to a pub/club if you are unsatisfied with Ch 9 coverage.
Why all the angst?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry that really.... annoys me, I had a massive rant ready to hit "Post" on that would have probably either sparked a forum shitfight and/or got my post deleted, but geez mate, try thinking from the shoes of someone who isn't earning top dollar and who doesn't want to sponge off their mates, assuming that they are rich enough to have Fox.

Darkhorse, that's kinda been my feeling form the get-go with 9, they will take the "big money" games and show them, but they'll bury it as much as possible to benefit their flagship product. It's the other half of why I'm so "angsty" about this, as I Like To Watch so kindly put it.
 
Da Munch

Da Munch

Chris McKivat (8)
I've been through most of this thread and there is one thing that I don't think has been mentioned - Whose getting "your" money when you get fox?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_News_Corporation

I can't, with good conscience pay money to the Murdoch's and I can't believe that there others in the the world, who aren't mungos who would!

So I'm left with FTA coverage which as pete says is getting buried by Channel 9 for the NRL - I'm so glad the AFL is taking them on, which the ARU isn't smart/gutsy enough to do.

And before the "it was the IRB" starts up again, the ARU as part of SANZAR sold the Super Rugby highlights to Channel 9 which they scheduled in at 2345 on Monday nights ...
 
mark_s

mark_s

Chilla Wilson (44)
Foxtel is owned 50% by telstra and 25% each by news and the packer family.

Is there really much more to say on this topic? All of us without fox are frustrated and have now vented. C9's programming isn't an accident and won't change.
 
Rob42

Rob42

John Solomon (38)
So does anyone know how the various RWC matches rated on 9 over the weekend? Compared to the NRL matches?
 
Slim 293

Slim 293

Stirling Mortlock (74)
Missed this one from the Drum, published before 9 shifted their Melbourne programming:

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2878512.html

We're surrounded by bias and vested interests, everywhere we look. Not one word ever is printed or published without betraying its writer's agenda at best or paymasters at worst.

Even if there is no bias or agenda or group of backroom faceless men thugging their way around, the accusation will be there.

Some of this bias is justified and not at all surprising, such as when anyone, other than the man himself, says something about Andrew Hilditch.

Accusations of bias can and are quite rightly hurled at me whenever I write about any sport at all, because whatever sport I write about is not as important or as good as whatever sport (or non-sport) it is that you're into.

This being the internet and therefore a Broad Church, it's difficult to keep all the people happy all the time, so all I can do is try to keep most of you annoyed some of the time.

In what is no doubt a vain attempt to negate accusations of bias but will probably just end up making me sound like almost every comment I've ever read, I herewith present most of what is wrong with just about everything.

Australian Rules? What a joke, all that jumping around in the air and getting a free kick because someone touched your arm. The fixture's done with no aim other than to maximise attendances, and as for all those claims to be a national sport? P'chaw! It's only played seriously in three states and not at all overseas.

Which brings me to Rugby League, and hello, what claims do you have to being international? Here and New Zealand it's a poor cousin to its progenitor, and as for the rest of the world, two cities in Northern England play it when they're not knifing each other and does anyone remember that "World Cup" they held and nobody bothered turning up?

Oh and before I get away from the two bullies in the schoolyard, both codes should be ashamed of themselves for the thugs and drunks and rapists they employ and endlessly protect.

Tennis has been crap ever since I stopped playing. Why do the players need silence before they serve? No Aussie Rules or either kind of Rugby player needs, or could expect, silence when lining up a match-winning kick, why do these prima donnas need an expectant hush while they bounce the ball and adjust their underpants?

The World Game is so corrupt it could be an African dictatorship and if it's so bloody great then why do Australian teams and entire leagues collapse like Argentinean strikers every few years? Perhaps a look at the genius behind our World Cup bid gives a clue...

Cycling? Well they're all on drugs and who wants to watch a bunch of skinny blokes in lycra throw water bottles at farmers anyway?

Swimming could only be made more boring if they combined it with golf or badminton. Cricket needs to get its snout out of the trough for a few seconds and realise that Twenty20 is killing the game faster than an Australian Soccer administrator.

Beach volleyball, well it's nice to watch in slow-motion I suppose, but really, a sport that dictates the maximum size of competitors' bikini bottoms needs to stop hanging around ladies' change rooms in a stained raincoat.

Horse racing would be bearable if they could promote it on a basis other than "come and get shit-faced with 80,000 other orange bogans", but then they'd be left with "come put a bet on which bookie has a personality most like a trapdoor spider and don't go to the toilet on your own".

Everything, absolutely everything at the Olympics sucks. It just sucks and there is no point to any of it, other than giving our governments an excuse not to spend money on things like hospitals or police or roads or schools. What is laughingly called "coverage" by whichever network handed the biggest brown paper bag to the IOC consists of nothing but cross-promotion and out of context two-minute clips of Australians losing, except when an Australian wins in which case we're treated to 23 minutes per hour of replays.

Which brings me to Channel Nine.

Oh you loathsome parasites. You life-suckers, you magic-killers, you utter, utter bastards.

The Rugby World Cup is the biggest sporting event this year. It's close by in New Zealand, which is about the same time zone, at least in hours if not decades. The Wallabies, having had a couple of lean years, have suddenly found some form and are again a decent chance. This will be a good tournament.

Having never ever showed the slightest interest in Union, your cynicism in buying the rights for all Wallabies games and a few other pool games and the finals is simply breathtaking.

First game of the tournament is tonight, at 6:00pm. When do we get to see it in Melbourne? 1:40am tomorrow morning. You have three channels, you <redacted>s, could you not put it on one of them? Oh no, you need to show a seven-year-old episode of Friends, and two episodes of CSI/NCIS/WTF, and a couple of lame-arse movies and a game of Rugby League on three-hour delay (as usual).

I don't care about bias or defamation or phone-hacking, THIS is why we need tighter regulation of the media. A network that has shares in the Pay network (Fox3) that's showing all the games live outbids a network that would actually treat the tournament with some respect (hello, SBS).

Then it hides the games in the middle of the night, so the only way to watch is to buy a Foxtel box, which is what they really want in the first place. Channel 9 has no, repeat no interest in showing the Rugby World Cup.

This is cynical, this is wrong, this is an abuse of the free-to-air anti-siphoning rules.

Instead of worrying about whether I've downloaded Game Of Thrones or I'm looking at NudeNerdyBabes dot com, perhaps our Communications Minister could start fulfilling his legislated duties, rather than being the Minister for the Religious Right And Jamie Packer.

Now, where's my credit card, I'm just going to the study to do some research...

Actually, I'll be honest. What I'm doing, like thousands of others, is finding a website that will livestream the World Cup and neither Fox nor Nine will get our eyes on their ads. And it will be free, just like all my p*rn.

Justin Shaw has been seen at football games cursing the umpires and opposition only in Shakespearean English.
Click to expand...
 
naza

naza

Alan Cameron (40)
pete88 said:
I'm sorry that really.... annoys me, I had a massive rant ready to hit "Post" on that would have probably either sparked a forum shitfight and/or got my post deleted, but geez mate, try thinking from the shoes of someone who isn't earning top dollar and who doesn't want to sponge off their mates, assuming that they are rich enough to have Fox.

Darkhorse, that's kinda been my feeling form the get-go with 9, they will take the "big money" games and show them, but they'll bury it as much as possible to benefit their flagship product. It's the other half of why I'm so "angsty" about this, as I Like To Watch so kindly put it.
Click to expand...

Pete, I'm 100% with you, don't take any shit from these muppets. Any **** who answers "just get Foxtel" is a ****, who is in line for 100 uppercuts from the Naza **** processing factory.

Not all of us are kajillionaires.
Not all of us can get foxtel even if we want to.
Going to the pub for every single rugby game is hardly a sustainable fucking strategy (I'm now a moderate drinker at only 67 schooners a week).
Channel Nein have no "flagship product", it is non stop turd sandwich on that network.

As an Aussie, I reserve my right to have a bitch about the situation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DPK
Da Munch

Da Munch

Chris McKivat (8)
Rob42 said:
So does anyone know how the various RWC matches rated on 9 over the weekend? Compared to the NRL matches?
Click to expand...

It'd be an unfair comparison because the NRL is shown live, where as the RWC has mostly been buried late at night with the only game being shown live being out of prime time.

There's some numbers here;
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/socie.../the-ratings-race-week-37-20110905-1jsyb.html

The one interesting comparison (other than AFL won hands down) that I can see is;
LIVE: Rugby World Cup: New Zealand V Tonga on FOX SPORTS 3 scored on Friday night with 237,000 [ @ 21.7% saturation in metro(the densest population), so 237000*100/21.7 ~= 1,092,200 ]
RUGBY LEAGUE FINAL SERIES QF1 Nine 977,000

So RWC rated better with my hacky statistics.


The attendance to games is another interesting one 13,972 went to the Manly v Cowboys game on Saturday night ...
from:
http://www.theroar.com.au/2011/09/14/sydney-wheres-the-support-for-the-nrl/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top