RustyCage wrote:topsywaldron wrote:klaan wrote:Aerie wrote:Give the ABC $1,000,000 and they'd probably do it!
How many times to people have to point out, the production costs $1m. Guess it doesn't suit your argument that the world is caving.
Shows you what a great deal the SANFL had before then doesn't it, we pay the ABC $70,000 for a million dollars worth of costs.
Guess it doesn't suit your argument that the AFL reserves teams can cure cancer though.
The ABC's coverage did the comp a disservice by the pathetic commentary and absolutely dead atmosphere created by there being zero crowd noise coming through the mics. At least channel 7 have commentators who call what happens on the oval not what they think happened.
Isn't it a case of you get what you pay for.
Is CH 7 that much better than ABC. For $1m a year you'd expect t it to be. How it's paid for is irrelevant, it still cost €1m.
From what I've seen it is more polished and more commercialised which is the least you would expect for the cost. Giniver's acting the comic and that stupid grin does turn me off. If I wanted Abbott & Costello I'd rent TCM movies.
Having said that, greater exposure on mainstream TV and sponsorship coughing up most of the costs then it would seem a good deal for the SANFL.
Two things that spring to mind though. Seeing it's the SANFL that are footing the bill, what percentage of televised games have included a reserve side?
The other thing I can't get my head around is why the SANFL have to pay for the coverage at all. If it was so easy to raise more than a $1m in sponsorship and the ratings are so good, then surely CH7 should be paying the SANFL for the rights to air matches. Isn't that how it works? I couldn't see the EPL paying SKY or the AFL paying whoever to televise games and in both respects then maybe it isn't such a great deal for the SANFL after all.