Jump to content

Australian TV Rights Up For Grabs



Recommended Posts

To be honest, SBS' supplementary coverage of the 2004 Games pissed all over Channle 7's "big name, little Olympic knowledge" coverage...  Rebecca Wilson?  Ew.  Tony, Roy, HG et al - the comedy angle was very, very stale.  Sandy did OK, and of cource Bruce - though he sounded a little flat.

I'd imagine Fox Sports would only get coverage if they got in bed with 7, 9 or 10.  It would be very bad form if the rights were exclusively pay TV.  However by saying that, I did enjoy the extra coverage offered in 2000 and 2002 - it was missed a bit in 2004.

Channle 10 did a good job with Seoul, so it'd be nice to see them have another go - but knowing our luck, the coverage would be hosted by Bert Newton and Rove.  Actually, Bert would rock!  Channel 9 would be an Eddie/Toni Peiren fiesta.

Seven has done well, but they need to overhaul their coverage policies.  All Australian all the time got old very fast.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I was in Australia for Athens 2004 and i was quite impressed with SBS, Channel 7 was just Australia, Australia, Australia, Australia so it was great to see a lot of the NZL teams on SBS.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite frankly I don't really give a toss about 90% of things that don't involve Australia so I quite enjoy Seven's coverage. They have to do something about their on air "talent" though.

I don't know if I would risk going to another channel, Seven is the only station I've known when its comes to the Olympics.

I have the barest memories of Channel 9 in Lillehammer, but it would be so Eddie centric, most of us will want to slit our wrists by the time the closing ceremony comes around. Plus I think Catriona Rowntree would offer more dumb blonde comments than Rebecca Wilson and that's never a good thing.

Channel 10 is a darkhorse....like SBS they know their sh!t and are very professional about it. eg AFL and motorsport.

Maybe change will be a good thing....everyone thought the world was coming to an end when Seven lost the rights to the AFL, and its turned out alright, especially Ten.

I'm pretty sure Pay TV can only offer secondary coverage due to the anti-syphoning laws. It always has to be one of the 5 free to air channels at the helm.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted for SBS because unfortunately Seven's coverage has degenerated badly since 1992. I've got several videos dating back to then, and the biggest change in coverage from Seven has been its increasing jingoistic focus on all things Australian at the games. Yes, I love seeing Australian gold medals, but ultimately I have an interest in more than just our success (or failures) during a games.

Then there's been the manner in which Seven has delayed or manipulated its schedule to draw out or reshape so-called live footage. It was bad enough in Sydney, but during Athens there was so much delayed telecasting passed off as live it wasn't funny. Unless it's swimming or track & field, forget about seeing the event live on Seven.

To be honest, SBS' supplementary coverage of the 2004 Games pissed all over Channle 7's "big name, little Olympic knowledge" coverage...  Rebecca Wilson?  Ew.  Tony, Roy, HG et al - the comedy angle was very, very stale.  Sandy did OK, and of cource Bruce - though he sounded a little flat.

I agree TNMP about Wilson and Tony squires...they're efforts were piss-poor, and reflected the weak attitude during the Athens Games re how Seven covered the events, even preferring a Melbourne studio to one in Athens. I love HG & Roy, but 'The Dream 2004' wasn't as strong as before.

So why SBS? Two words....Les Murray. Well, it actually amounts to more, but Les embodies so much that is excellent about SBS sport. It's not partisan, relies on experts and is diverse enough to cover sports like cycling, cricket, football, curling, track and field, and of course the secondary role for 2004 free to air. Their nightly World Sport show is truly a 'world sport' show, and old criticisms of SBS as the 'Soccer Broadcasting Station' aren't fair or accurate nowadays.

As for the others, 10 simply has not enough quality commentary and recent experience in covering any multi-sport games (I think they last had the Commonwealth games in 1990 or 1994), whilst Nine would be a nightmare. It's bad enough they have the Cricket, League, Wimbledon and AFL, plus have been sniffing round the Rugby World Cup, tried to take the 2002 World Cup away from SBS, and only seem to have any cred when it comes to swimming. To endure the likes of Eddie McGuire, Fathead Vautin, Kenny Sutcliffe et al trying to pull together an Olympics coverage is a nightmare to be avoided.

As for Foxtel, I would expect that the anti-syphoning laws as per Eruedan's comment would hold true. On the other hand, what about the digital channels that all free-to-airs offer (with varying degrees of content)? Seven used their digital channels a bit during 2004, but why not have different streams/programming during the games on the 3 or 4 digital channels each network can access? That would really circumvent any Fox intervention in Australian Olympic broadcasting.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Anybody guessing how much money the top bidder will bidding?

The Australian has a story by Glenda Korporal here that quotes an expected minimum of $A70 million, which to be honest looks very low considering the successful bidder will also be able to broadcast and/or on-sell material to internet and potentially pay TV outlets. And what worries me about this story is that it gives Nine plenty of scope on a bid (Korporal is very good when it comes to Olympic journalism, so whatever she reports I'd take seriously).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

The Bidding Process for the Australian TV Rights sounds so familar with the successful negotated TV Rights in Canada.

Judging by that article. If it is true that Channel Nine and Fox Sports Australia are planning a joint bid and if Telestra is Nine's parent company (wireless and internet capabilities) that they may have an inside track. Just ask Bell Globalmedia (CTV, TSN, RDS, TQS, Sympatico) and Rogers Communications (Rogers Sportsnet and Omin Canada, Rogers online.) in Canada

Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of these networks have really annoying presenters.

But I am a little over channel 7.

In fact, most things lately about channel 7 are really annoying... ESPECIALLY their silly radio news ads/updates.

We do not need silly banter between hosts and ongoing music both designed to promote seven rather than the actual news, for a sad depressing and/or serious news story.

- "So Rosco, there's some outstanding footage tonight of the riot that seriously injured 50 people"

- "That's right, tonight on seven news we have exclusive pictures of this amazing event, and seven's reporters speak exclusively to who witnessed it. They take you right into the action. See this tonight, only on seven news".

- "Yes, it's really amazing stuff. We can't miss that great coverage tonight Rosco."

blah

I think Channel Ten would be able to do a good job, as I believe would Channel Nine, because they wouldn't get caught up in their own hype.

And the other channels don't have that funny (funny 'interesting', not haha) reporter who tends to get distracted easily (distracts himself most of the time), who reported on the Sydney torch relay and other things.

And Daddo.

And Koch!!! ugh!!!

And the whole Sunrise team...

And why did Grant Hackett have to get a job with THEM? Why?

Hmm... *ahem*... excuse my rant.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Bidding Process for the Australian TV Rights sounds so familar with the successful negotated TV Rights in Canada.

Judging by that article. If it is true that Channel Nine and Fox Sports Australia are planning a joint bid and if Telestra is Nine's parent company (wireless and internet capabilities) that they may have an inside track. Just ask Bell Globalmedia (CTV, TSN, RDS, TQS, Sympatico) and Rogers Communications (Rogers Sportsnet and Omin Canada, Rogers online.) in Canada

Australia has a network called "Channel 9" and "Channel 7"?...........and please tell me that Fox Sports Australia isn't owned by Murdoch. :help:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes we do - we can't be bothered making up aconyms. (Except for the government owned channels, ABC (which everyone calls channel 2 or "aunty") and SBS (channel 28 or the "porn channel")

And I'm pretty sure that Murdoch owns Foxtel and therefore Fox Sports.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Australia has a network called "Channel 9" and "Channel 7"?

What’s so surprising about that? Most countries in the world have tv channels with numbers for names. In New Zealand it’s: One, Channel 2, Channel 3, C4 (Music Channel), Prime and Maori TV.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Major Sporting Rights By 2010

Seven Network

-Rugby Internationals/World Cups

-AFL (2007-2011) if its bid to buy back football is a success

-Grand Slam Tennis

-Davis Cup

-Melbourne Cup/Spring Racing

-Possibly Rugby League

-Golf

7 will have quite the swag.. with the exclusion of possibly AFL and Cricket internationals.. 7 probbaly wont have room in their budget for the Games

Link to post
Share on other sites
Major Sporting Rights By 2010

Seven Network

-Possibly Rugby League

Actually, Nine and Foxtel just sewed up the rights to Rugby League today up to 2012. So that's a few more pennies in the Olympic kitty for Seven.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe FOXTEL only bought the rights to the ENGLISH SUPER LEAGUE (The UK's answer to the Telstra League)

I believe FOX also signed up for the rights to the new expanded Super 14's competition from 2006 onwards when the new teams are introduced.

Link to post
Share on other sites

- Seven will lose the rights to the RWC to either 9 or 10

- As stated 9 & Fox have signed a new NRL deal till the end of 2012

- 9 will keep AFL also in partnership with either Fox (or SBS showing Friday night AFL into NSW/QLD) - 7/10 bid will get blown out of the water

- 9 will bid big (beating anything that 7 could bid) for 2012 if London wins according to a report in todays paper

And anyway Seven suck at sport

Link to post
Share on other sites
well. maybe this is some perth bias (Seeing as Perth citizens rank channel 7 as the best station, the only city to do so) but i see no problems with 7's coverage... Channel 9 is piss poor.. 10 i rank averagly..and i soooo hope 9 doesnt get the 2012 Olympics.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...