Broadcasters agree to Supersize

[Swee_82]

No one watches ABC though, that's one of the reasons the ARC went so badly, we need it on one of the big 3 stations, then your average viewer will actually tune in, if on at a decent time...

From memory only one game a week was on the main ABC channel (or maybe that was just in the finals)- the rest were on ABC2, so if you've just got the old-school regular tele, no ARC for you! I know i didn't see much of it except for the games in Perth. I think they might have shown the last couple after the WAFL was over.

[TOCC]

There is no money in free to air broadcasts, Foxtel now has about the same amount of adverts as commercial television so that aspect no longer is a drawing force...

TOCC, ARU schedules the matches, so when us in Perth are angry to be stuck with Fiji's B side as our test last year, it is because ARU took the Boks game away from us, while booking a sub par team to attempt to keep us happy...if we book Italy to come down instead of England it is not the NH's fault as much it is ARU's fault for not booking a more prestigious team, example. playing Italy instead of Ireland in this years November tests.

i completely understand that, in fact that ARU doesnt have all the say in who comes down, the IRB play a big part in where countries go as well.

The ARU cant have France or England every year, they just wont be allowed, the IRB wont allow games to be booked just because it suits both contries commercially, the IRB is very much against that. Hence why they have to play countries like Fiji and Italy at times.

Which was actually what my point was before, the ARU cant always have big crowd teams come down to Australia, which impacts there bottom line and fluctuates the ARU's finances.

Claiming that the ARU 'took games away from you' is a bit far fetching, considering that last season was a short season anyway, Brisbane only got Wales B as well.

[Seldom]

For someone that cant afford Foxtel, I would be happy to 1/2 the games delayed on FTA . Happy to even have them on at 11pm @ night. Any rugby is better than GayFL all the time.

[BLR]

TOCC, by your logic the Tri nations wouldn't exist, why would the IRB try to stop Australia playing big name NH teams? I mean, they don't try to stop the All Blacks from playing the big teams over and over again...if they did try to restrict the ARU's earning potential on purpose we would have a riot on our hands, it is the ARU's responsibility for organising matches, IRB has shown with these ELV's they cannot threaten nations to follow thier views...ARU took away our Springbok game despite our large crowds, obviously to put at a larger stadium....and the ARU have done us no favours what-so-ever in the past....besides giving us back our Bok test....

[laura]

I would be happy to 1/2 the games delayed on FTA . Happy to even have them on at 11pm @ night. Any rugby is better than GayFL all the time.

I would be happy if they showed them at 3am! If the games we played in the Republic (at 2am Perth time) were shown live I would watch them, if they were shown 3 days after the game at 3am I would still watch it!!! I wouldn't mind if they only showed Force games either!
In fact I wouldn't mind if they showed the games 3 months later at 3am in the morning...I WOULD WATCH...get the hint free to air tv I WOULD WATCH IT IF IT WAS ON!! **rant over**

[beige]

I'd be happy with a game-of-the-week... Didn't 7 used to do that over east?

[shasta]

There is no money in FTA

That's just not true. At least in Australia. Otherwise not much AFL, NRL, Cricket, the Olympics, Tennis, Golf....................would not be on Free TV despite anti-siphoning legislation. Foxtel has to compete with 7,9,10 for the rights. The FTA rights for the sports Fox has can also be sold separately to the FTA networks. In some ways though they have Ruperts balls in a vice there. they want the product but they know he wants to use replay rights to attract new fans who might then subscribe for the live coverage. But they are holding out for a give away price & less restrictions on replay telecast times.

It would be interesting to know how many new subscribers have been enticed by Fox's "every game, every week" coverage of the NRL despite Nine's three live (in the East) matches every weekend.

[AndyS]

No one watches ABC though, that's one of the reasons the ARC went so badly, we need it on one of the big 3 stations, then your average viewer will actually tune in, if on at a decent time...

Sorry, so people only watch the big three - must be because of the ads. I'd give it to Access 31 if it got Rugby FTA.

The reason I was thinking ABC was that I'd like to see each "local" game FTA on ABC1, while each of the Australian games could be on ABC2. The ABC would like it as it would promote HDTV uptake, Foxtel would probably feel more comfortable as they don't compete for sporting coverage, the ABC wouldn't stuff each game with ads and they probably provide the most complete FTA coverage across Australia.

[BLR]

Sorry, so people only watch the big three - must be because of the ads. I'd give it to Access 31 if it got Rugby FTA.

No, it's because the big three, if they have something on thier station they will flog it to death, ABC basically lets thier line-up speak for itself instead of having a 'Greys Anatomy' advert twice an ad break....it's annoying but it works, we want to try and bring in the people just flicking through wanting to find something interesting, they see some hyped up advert for Rugby and they decide to give it a look....just showing the game is not enough to be commercially viable, we need to saturate the market as much as possible so that people know when it is on and why it is good....

[TOCC]

TOCC, by your logic the Tri nations wouldn't exist, why would the IRB try to stop Australia playing big name NH teams? I mean, they don't try to stop the All Blacks from playing the big teams over and over again...if they did try to restrict the ARU's earning potential on purpose we would have a riot on our hands, it is the ARU's responsibility for organising matches, IRB has shown with these ELV's they cannot threaten nations to follow thier views...ARU took away our Springbok game despite our large crowds, obviously to put at a larger stadium....and the ARU have done us no favours what-so-ever in the past....besides giving us back our Bok test....

i suggest you start doing some research then, its part of the IRB constitution that they sanction representative tours, the IRB isnt necessarily going to stop them playing big name NH teams, its more of a bargaining system.

What normally happens is that national unions will discuss the possibility of playing each other, and then approach the IRB to get it approved, the IRB will approve it or deny it on the grounds that they dont want the same elite teams playing each other every year. They want the smaller countries like Italy and Wales to have the oppurtunity to play the bigger teams as well.

Generally speaking its usually a smooth process as all countries respect the system, then you have to throw in 'club vs country' issue. The English clubs will only release English players for 5 weeks(3 games) in the August window and France will only have there players at the end of June.

Then throw in the fact that england might want to play RSA or NZ, or France want to play someone else and it makes it a very difficult process.

[BLR]

i suggest you start doing some research then, its part of the IRB constitution that they sanction representative tours, the IRB isnt necessarily going to stop them playing big name NH teams, its more of a bargaining system.

And what has Australia got from this bargaining system? More games against the All Blacks in different countries? It's fine that IRB has to sancion rep tours, I don't doubt that, but to put in place some kind of injunction against playing a team after the two unions agree to it, that very much I doubt....I mean, it could happen but would it honestly? You would assume that there would be a whole lot of fuss made over the extending of the Tri Nations to three games for each match up...but, none....SANZAR went on thier way and did as they wished...you would think Argentina would have been in a competition by now after the IRB requested it to be done, but nope...

ARU could go up to the IRB and say we would play (insert undesirable team here) at thier home ground on this date, as if we play it on our own home ground we would not get enough people and would not have the opportunity to fill that window with a test which would get a larger crowd...that's bargaining, a famous international team playing in a second tier nation would be a huge windfall for the second tier nations funs, instead of a fairly average turnout game in Australia...

After all, isn't John O'Neill a business man?

[TOCC]

When i say Bargaining system, everyone goes to the meeting with there requests for next season or the following season, all the national unions have already spoken to each other and know what to expect of the IRB, so basically its only a formality when it comes to it.

The IRB sanctioning is nothing to be sneezed at, if a game is played without being sanctioned then the national union is held responsible for all liabilit issues, records wont count, and they could be suspended from the IRB, if the ARU had there way they would be playing England every August, and a grand slam tour every year.

As for the 3N and the 6N, well these are accepted because they are the cornerstones of professional rugby. As for Argentina, the IRB can request countries to play each other, or get argentina included in the 3 nations, but they cant force them to make it happen, nor can they force a country to break a contract it has sanctioned.

You talk as though the IRB are a small player, not quite, the RWC is the main revenue source of the IRB and they redistribute this back through all the world unions. The ARU received $7million from the IRB alone, not to forget they help subsidise competitions like the Pacific Nations tournament last year which had Australia A and Junior All Blacks, which develops our junior talent.

[KenyaQuin]

That's just not true. At least in Australia. Otherwise not much AFL, NRL, Cricket, the Olympics, Tennis, Golf....................would not be on Free TV despite anti-siphoning legislation.

Point noted Shasta however would this include rugby? Would they be able to assure advertisers that there is or will be significant viewership numbers and thus attract the advertising $$ to make it worth the FTA broadcast? Offering exclusive rights to pay-tv probably works out to be more beneficial to the ARU and by extension SANZAR hence the current situation and I would imagine the status quo will be preserved..but I hope I'm proved wrong.