I hope Sky TV gets it!!!!!
The footy will most likely go the way it has here, with the only way to see it pretty much is on subscription channels. Still, in 5-10 years, all this stuff will be delivered thru broadband to your PC/TV/Home entertainment centre.
Lets Hope 9 Get The Tv Rigths!!!
Moderator: bbmods
-
London Dave
- Posts: 7172
- Joined: Wed Dec 16, 1998 7:01 pm
- Location: Iceland on Thames
- Contact:
-
Spidergirl
why doesnt fricken Foxtel get footy like Optus and i mean Australian footy. I am bored shitless with the constant American grid iron or whatever the hell it is and golf and water polo or whatever the hell they put on.
The only footy we get on Foxtel is Screema and even that we have to pay extra for.
#8 RoCkS
Go RiCkY!
The only footy we get on Foxtel is Screema and even that we have to pay extra for.
#8 RoCkS
Go RiCkY!
-
CQ
- Posts: 5818
- Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2000 6:01 pm
- Location: melb
-
jeff#2001
-
AlfAndrews
The worst thing about the TV coverage of football is that the commentators never know when to shut up. As soon as one commentator has finished saying something, another one cuts in. Don't these idiots know the value of silence. This is TELEVISION, for Christ's sake. Not radio. You don't need an intricate description of every little thing that happens. THAT'S WHAT THE BLOODY PICTURES ARE FOR, you pack of cretins.
I've actually conducted experiments on this. When Sandy or Bruce or one of those other morons has finished saying their spiel, I've started counting to see how long the next commentator takes to come in. And I've noticed that there is never more than 2 seconds silence between comments. Talk about a friggin' overload.
English soccer commentators have got the right idea. They often leave 5 or 6 seconds between comments. And their commentary is usually minimalistic. They usually only identify the player. They don't give you intricate descriptions of what's happening because they assume that you can see that for yourself. We have got eyes, haven't we? The English commentators tend to leave the comments for when there's a break in play, such as a corner or a goal-kick.
Our dick-head commentators are using radio commentary techniques for TV. Someone should tell them. But of course, they wouldn't listen because they'd be too busy talking.
I say they should give the TV rights to the B.B.C.
------------------
**floreat pica**
I've actually conducted experiments on this. When Sandy or Bruce or one of those other morons has finished saying their spiel, I've started counting to see how long the next commentator takes to come in. And I've noticed that there is never more than 2 seconds silence between comments. Talk about a friggin' overload.
English soccer commentators have got the right idea. They often leave 5 or 6 seconds between comments. And their commentary is usually minimalistic. They usually only identify the player. They don't give you intricate descriptions of what's happening because they assume that you can see that for yourself. We have got eyes, haven't we? The English commentators tend to leave the comments for when there's a break in play, such as a corner or a goal-kick.
Our dick-head commentators are using radio commentary techniques for TV. Someone should tell them. But of course, they wouldn't listen because they'd be too busy talking.
I say they should give the TV rights to the B.B.C.
------------------
**floreat pica**
-
jeff#2001
-
Greg J
- Posts: 1509
- Joined: Thu May 13, 1999 6:01 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
-
London Dave
- Posts: 7172
- Joined: Wed Dec 16, 1998 7:01 pm
- Location: Iceland on Thames
- Contact:
Alf, the BBC would be the second worst broadcaster to have the rights, after Ch7. They are totally useless pommy wankers at sport. Thank god uncle Rupert came over and started Sky, with decent sports coverage. Mate, I've checked them out on the ground for 6 years. The BBC is OVERRATED! Only dopey Guardian readers and the like think it's any good. If Packer's lot got the right's, you'd be worse off than you are now. Anyone who has experienced their RL coverage and "live" test cricket from the UK should know that in 9 land, friends comes before sport! TV coverage may even go down the path mooted here, where clubs sell their home games. It may be that clubs sell to Ch 9, some more to Ch 7 and Carlton to SBS. When digital TV comes in in OZ, the poo will hit the fan. The pies may even start up their own subscription channel.
Agree with some points on the commetating style, although soccer is usually a little less frenetic than footy. I wouldn't mind them talking all the time if they didnt talk such absolute bollocks. The great thing about having lived Os for the last 8 years is being able to turn on the TV withoutthat gormless prat Sandy Roberts and ghis goofball ugly mug appearing on screen. Wot a tosser!
On Ger J's point about Ch & AFL bedroom mazurka over colonial TV rights......
"The sponsors have been very clever in receiving $99.5 million from Channel 7 for sale of naming rights, 4 500 undercover reserved seats, carparking and some signage rights. In July 1997, AFL final offer broadcasting rights for 2001 were bundled in with the stadium. This raised the interest of Channels 7 and 9, which were not involved to this point. It was clever because Channel 7 virtually had to agree to become involved in the stadium if it wanted to continue televising football or risk losing it to Channel 9. After Channel 7 committed, the television rights were unbundled and Channel 7 needed to bid another $20 million for them."
Taken from the Collingwood rants guest rant. Makes v. interesting reading in the light of todays VFL park developments.
Agree with some points on the commetating style, although soccer is usually a little less frenetic than footy. I wouldn't mind them talking all the time if they didnt talk such absolute bollocks. The great thing about having lived Os for the last 8 years is being able to turn on the TV withoutthat gormless prat Sandy Roberts and ghis goofball ugly mug appearing on screen. Wot a tosser!
On Ger J's point about Ch & AFL bedroom mazurka over colonial TV rights......
"The sponsors have been very clever in receiving $99.5 million from Channel 7 for sale of naming rights, 4 500 undercover reserved seats, carparking and some signage rights. In July 1997, AFL final offer broadcasting rights for 2001 were bundled in with the stadium. This raised the interest of Channels 7 and 9, which were not involved to this point. It was clever because Channel 7 virtually had to agree to become involved in the stadium if it wanted to continue televising football or risk losing it to Channel 9. After Channel 7 committed, the television rights were unbundled and Channel 7 needed to bid another $20 million for them."
Taken from the Collingwood rants guest rant. Makes v. interesting reading in the light of todays VFL park developments.
-
maggee_pye
- Posts: 59
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2000 7:01 pm
- Location: queensland,australi
channel seven holds shares in colonial stadium, the afl have shares in colonial stadium. what is channel seven going to do with the stadium if the dont have the television rights for the game at their stadium? do what john elliotts doing take the afl to court insisting that they own the television rights and wont let anyone into the stadium (television) to televise games sell their shares a a cut throat price? of course the afl will look after them when the time comes.
-
CQ
- Posts: 5818
- Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2000 6:01 pm
- Location: melb
alf, you are so right! that f*ckwit DERMOTT is THE biggest dickhead out, the stupid thing is that he doesn't actually COMMENTATE, what he does is ramble on about something that happened 5 minutes ago and how he saw this and that 'out the corner of his EYE' (eye would have to be his favourite word) and he goes on about what the players are thinking about, how the f*ck would he know what they are thinking, this is pure stupidity. dont even get me started on the other commentators....