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

[barbarian]

None of the FTA comercial channels have done anything worthwhile with the rights they have received since 1994 IMO. They want the RWC and Bleds but will find something else to show instead of evrything else.

Well if they want that stuff they can guarentee decent coverage for the other tests. If they will not do this give the Rugby back to the ABC, they do a wonderful job with the Shute Shield and I have to say their Comms team is very good.

I loved the old tests on the ABC with Norman May doing the call, (now thats showing my age a little).

Sadly rugby just isn't in a position to dictate that sort of thing. Either we take the FTA cash and what comes with it (lack of coverage in non-core markets) or tell them to stuff it but our game suffers at all levels. It's a hard situation, but as the 6th ranked sport in this country we aren't exactly in a powerful negotiating position.

 

[TOCC]

Short memory...

The NBL was huge back in the 80s and early 90s...

Come on Slim, your comparing apples and oranges, basketball filled a gap in the market which was later filled with the advent of the AFL, creation of the NRL and rugby union turning professional...

As it stands currently Slim, the Super Rugby season was a raging success for the broadcasters(+40%), and the last Bledisoe reflected a increase in ratings as well..

If you are privy to something which the rest of us arent then I'm open to opinion, let's not ignore the facts though.

 

[Gnostic]

Sadly rugby just isn't in a position to dictate that sort of thing. Either we take the FTA cash and what comes with it (lack of coverage in non-core markets) or tell them to stuff it but our game suffers at all levels. It's a hard situation, but as the 6th ranked sport in this country we aren't exactly in a powerful negotiating position.

FTA coverage on the ABC would promote the game better than the piece meal rubbish with half baked commentators we have been served up for years. If the game is promoted in such a manner the revenue flows would be better in the long run then the dribble of funds the ARU recieves from the FTA networks, consider the loss of FTA revenue a bit like advertising costs if you like.

Premier coverage would still be with Fox.

 

[waratahjesus]

rugbys day will come, the AFL broadcast rights have shown the future, Foxtel will broadcast every game live and free to air will similcast 3 live games. It will happen, give it time.

until then, complain to 9, if you dont they will never change it.

that being said i remember some force fans arguing about this a few years back and when they did get a live match, an old movie on nine out ratted it.

 

[Army_Gav]

And why shouldn't they? They aren't a charity, they put on programs that will get the most viewers. They have judged, rightly or wrongly, that the rugby just doesn't get enough viewers. Of course they don't have the best interests of the game at heart, you would be naive to think that they would. By all means question their judgement, but I can't believe you are having a crack at them for chasing ratings and dollars, because TV has been that way for decades.

Such an apathetic response. Use it or lose it should be the mentality. As posters above suggest, give it back to a responsible broadcaster in the ABC or SBS even.

Change comes about by challenging the status quo, exactly what we should do.

 

[TOCC]

Such an apathetic response. Use it or lose it should be the mentality. As posters above suggest, give it back to a responsible broadcaster in the ABC or SBS even.

Change comes about by challenging the status quo, exactly what we should do.

Whilst a noble geature, ABC or SBS don't pay $millions, the ARU need every cent they can get

 

[barbarian]

So it is better for the game for a test to be broadcast into every city but receiving only 500,000 viewers because its on SBS, or broadcast live into NSW and QLD and delayed into everywhere else and receive 1,000,000 viewers because it is on Channel 9?

That is what will happen. You will not only lose money on ABC or SBS, but lose a lot of casual fans. Not to mention no-one will see the ads and related promotions. It would be ludicrous to suggest that this is in the best interest of our game.

Not trying to pay out Melbourne or side with Ch9, its an annoying situation. But it is what it is, and I encourage you all to write letters to Ch9 Melbourne to try and change it. And it will eventually once the public interest in rugby grows in these areas.

 

[Crow]

What I don't get is that with all of the extra digital channels and internet broadcasting available, Nine wont put it on an alternate channel and there seems to be no (legit) way to stream the FTA coverage.

 

[MrTimms]

What I don't get is that with all of the extra digital channels and internet broadcasting available, Nine wont put it on an alternate channel and there seems to be no (legit) way to stream the FTA coverage.

For sure. These organisations are so stupid with using these additional channels. Great examples are watching the Ashes or Bathurst in Standard definition while their HD channels are showing glorious up-scaled versions of knight rider and mother & son.

Do they think people who wanted to watch wouldn't buy a set top box? what value could they possibly be adding by showing those re-runs?

 

[Richo]

For sure. These organisations are so stupid with using these additional channels. Great examples are watching the Ashes or Bathurst in Standard definition while their HD channels are showing glorious up-scaled versions of knight rider and mother & son.

Do they think people who wanted to watch wouldn't buy a set top box? what value could they possibly be adding by showing those re-runs?

Frustrating, yes, but I think this is a lot about "use it or lose it" -- and not in the fantasy fairyland way such concepts are being thrown around in this thread. the TV networks, I believe, have to run multi-channels and the cheapest way to do this is with old, syndicated TV series. Sports -- especially live sports -- cost a fortune to broadcast, doubly so when ratings are insufficient. This is why One is shifting from sports-only to sports-lifestyle-manstuff.

For those of you complaining about pubs not showing rugby -- come on. I've ended up stuck in strange cities all over the world during the Super and Test seasons the last couple of years and always found a pub to watch the game at. Take 5 minutes out from complaining about it to do a bit of Googling. Lots of sports pubs put their TV schedule online. Or, if there really is nothing in your vicinity, call some local pubs and ask them if they'd put the game on for you if you came down and watched. I've never known a pub to refuse to change the channel unless there is already a crowd at every screen.

 

[MrTimms]

Surely it doesn't cost much just to broadcast the feed from Fox, sure, more than old re-runs, but who tunes it to watch them? it has to be just the odd channel surfer who gets stuck on it.

 

[Richo]

I don't think anyone tunes in to watch them. But they probably cost next to nothing -- and no doubt Fox charges bucket loads for its feeds.

EDIT: But yes, I agree with you that it's a stupid and short-sighted use of the extra channels. I just think there is a lack of vision and no willingness to invest on the part of the networks.

 

[Army_Gav]

What I don't get is that with all of the extra digital channels and internet broadcasting available, Nine wont put it on an alternate channel and there seems to be no (legit) way to stream the FTA coverage.

They can't see my post below for information.

 

[Army_Gav]

We've relaunched our campaign "Rugby on FTA": http://www.rebel-army.com/rugby-on-fta.

Would appreciate the support. Most of us would have Foxtel, but it's for the good of the game.

 

[TOCC]

The actual reason the broadcasters don't use the alternate channels is due to government legislation preventing them from doing so..
It's part of the anti-siphoning legislation which is now outdated and didnt factor in the advent of digital multi-channels, amendments have been submitted and they should have passed by now but I believe it has been caught up in beuracratic red-tape.

I haven't been following it to strictly, but it should be passed completely next year, the AFL broadcast rights have actually factored in this change, it's inevitable this will filter through to the other sports.

 

[Richo]

The actual reason the broadcasters don't use the alternate channels is due to government legislation preventing them from doing so..
It's part of the anti-siphoning legislation which is now outdated and didnt factor in the advent of digital multi-channels, amendments have been submitted and they should have passed by now but I believe it has been caught up in beuracratic red-tape.

I haven't been following it to strictly, but it should be passed completely next year, the AFL broadcast rights have actually factored in this change, it's inevitable this will filter through to the other sports.

Thanks, TOCC. Contrary to what I've read/heard elsewhere, but makes a lot of sense.

 

[TOCC]

You are probably right about the cost of streaming live events been prohibitive, like you mention, it probably comes down to the costs which the hosting broadcaster charges(ie Fox).

 

[Moses]

The actual reason the broadcasters don't use the alternate channels is due to government legislation preventing them from doing so..
It's part of the anti-siphoning legislation which is now outdated and didnt factor in the advent of digital multi-channels, amendments have been submitted and they should have passed by now but I believe it has been caught up in beuracratic red-tape.

I haven't been following it to strictly, but it should be passed completely next year, the AFL broadcast rights have actually factored in this change, it's inevitable this will filter through to the other sports.

I recall they were forced to show the Ashes on their primary (SD) channel, but there was nothing to stop them also showing it on their HD channel - is this correct?

Seems ridiculous that the only place you could watch the 2010/11 Ashes series live, and the only place showing it in HD was the UK.

 

[Richo]

The missing piece for me was the anti-siphoning aspect.

 

[TOCC]

I recall they were forced to show the Ashes on their primary (SD) channel, but there was nothing to stop them also showing it on their HD channel - is this correct?

Seems ridiculous that the only place you could watch the 2010/11 Ashes series live, and the only place showing it in HD was the UK.

By law stations are only allowed 2 SD channels and 1 HD channel, also the main channel must be one of the SD allocations.

The stations were all previously multi-casting/simul-casting there primary SD channel onto the HD allocation, but govt/ABC just allowed this to change and the HD allocation can operate as independent channels.

To answer your question, CH9 could has simul-cast the Ashes onto the HD channel, but at no point were they allowed to show any footage on the HD channel that wasn't already been shown on the SD channel, so when the primary channel cut to news, the HD channel had to taken break as well..


This is the sort of thing the anti-siphoning legislation amendment is supposed to fix..