Channel 7 announced by SANFL as preferred telecast partner

[johntheclaret]

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.

[bennymacca]

You can't expect a tv network to pay for it given the previous arrangements ie nobody wanted them.

The only way the networks would pay for it would be if two of the commercial networks start a bidding war

[nwdfanparade]

For anyone interested the 2013 SANFL Grand Final is being replayed on NITV (Channel 34) this Tuesday night at 10pm.

Also being shown at 12.30pm on Wednesday

[matt35]

The reality is that this is the first time since 1992 that a commercial network has taken on the SANFL. Only natural that it was an unknown how much they were going to be able to raise in sponsorship, as well as how the games were going to rate.

[johntheclaret]

The reality is that this is the first time since 1992 that a commercial network has taken on the SANFL. Only natural that it was an unknown how much they were going to be able to raise in sponsorship, as well as how the games were going to rate.

Fair point.
But now that it's been such an outstanding success maybe the SANFL should consider renegotiating their contract going forward

[Dogwatcher]

Latest ratings?

[Thunderstruck]

As far as I am concerned, the channel 7 commentary has been absolutely rubbish when compared to what the ABC guys gave. They spend more time talking to each other than actually calling the game properly play by play. Michael Maney sure didn't do that, Kendall or Cross either.

[topsywaldron]

As far as I am concerned, the channel 7 commentary has been absolutely rubbish when compared to what the ABC guys gave. They spend more time talking to each other than actually calling the game properly play by play. Michael Maney sure didn't do that, Kendall or Cross either.

Agreed.

[Booney]

As far as I am concerned, the channel 7 commentary has been absolutely rubbish when compared to what the ABC guys gave. They spend more time talking to each other than actually calling the game properly play by play. Michael Maney sure didn't do that, Kendall or Cross either.

I agree, but aren't you watching the game, do you really need someone to tell you a bloke kicked the ball when you are watching it?

[bennymacca]

As far as I am concerned, the channel 7 commentary has been absolutely rubbish when compared to what the ABC guys gave. They spend more time talking to each other than actually calling the game properly play by play. Michael Maney sure didn't do that, Kendall or Cross either.

I agree, but aren't you watching the game, do you really need someone to tell you a bloke kicked the ball when you are watching it?

Good point. The abc coverage was much more like calling it on radio

[PhilH]

Radio is simple ... assume the person is not at the ground and you have to paint the WHOLE picture, who, where, when, how etc. ie their entire understanding of what is happening comes from what you tell them.

TV is harder given the picture tells a lot of that ... what the commentators need to do is add to that.

Personally if I was on TV I would still call a lot of the names (I never call all of them, even on radio) as many people at home may see the player but not know who it is. But then the people who know every player backwards would see that as unnecessary.

[bennymacca]

That's a really good point.

And to be honest we really are nitpicking here - both the ch7 and abc coverages were good, but it's clear the exposure had increased a lot by the move to ch7

[mighty_tiger_79]

I love it when the call goes

and the eagles have kicked the ball to half forward, by ummm errr ummmm number 37........

[Dogwatcher]

I don't think we can necessarily say that - unless you're saying that more people are seeing the commercials advertising the game and that counts as added exposure. However, just because more people are seeing the ads, doesn't mean they are actually watching the coverage.
Initial early viewing stats were good. We haven't seen any since after the Walker game - on which much of that early rating success was based.
I hope the next figures are positive because that is a positive for the SANFL, whether you live the commentary (which I'm ambivalent about) or not.

The network and SANFL were quick to talk it up with those initial figures, but what are they now? I don't recall seeing any figures recently.

[mighty_tiger_79]

the stateleague showdown will be a ratings bonanza

[bennymacca]

The network and SANFL were quick to talk it up with those initial figures, but what are they now? I don't recall seeing any figures recently.

Yeah I haven't seen any ratings lately either. Would be very interesting.

At least in my experience I have watched a lot more games this year. A lot of that is because the sanfl games quite often don't go up against an afl game. So if there is nothing on tv I'm definitely chucking sanfl on, even if it doesn't involve centrals or the crows.

[whufc]

The network and SANFL were quick to talk it up with those initial figures, but what are they now? I don't recall seeing any figures recently.

Yeah I haven't seen any ratings lately either. Would be very interesting.

At least in my experience I have watched a lot more games this year. A lot of that is because the sanfl games quite often don't go up against an afl game. So if there is nothing on tv I'm definitely chucking sanfl on, even if it doesn't involve centrals or the crows.

Yeah the flexibility channel 7 have shown with the timeslot of viewing is a major benefit they have brought imho

[Dogwatcher]

Definitely has been good. Although, that early start against Norwood remains in my mind as being a bad decision - especially for the clubs, who are the most important people here.

Have there been any other games scheduled at that time? How did they go?

[whufc]

Definitely has been good. Although, that early start against Norwood remains in my mind as being a bad decision - especially for the clubs, who are the most important people here.

Have there been any other games scheduled at that time? How did they go?

Agree that was one the one stuff up.

I guees a big argument that could be made is that we have paid $1m to have games on commercial tv which in turn has increased TV ratings but caused attendances to drop which hurts the clubs most

Have we paid $1m to kill off our own clubs

[bennymacca]

Attendances are up.

Whether they continue to be is another argument but they are