Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Eddies Broadside Misguided Chris88s editorial comment
#1
Eddies Broadside Misguided

Eddie Everywheres stunned and angry outburst against Channels 7 and 10 on the Footy Show last night smacked of a man under attack from all quarters and someone who was desparate to get a few punches into each before he went down for the count.

Unfortunately, Eddies outburst was also misguided aiming at the easiest targets in the media rights war in rival channels 7 and 10 and deplorably deriding them for holding football to ransom while ignoring a number of common sense points and the huge role a nave AFL has played in bringing about this situation.

It is usually the mark of a desperate man (and in this case, TV channel) to play the man rather than the ball. Eddies attack last night did exactly that.

To accuse the other two channels of ganging up to drive the lowest bargain prices,
smacking Channel 7 for always sinking the boot into footy whenever theyve had the chance, and then imploring his own boss Kerry Packer to do something special to save football are among the more ridiculous words ever uttered from his mouth and go a long way to ignoring a number of key points.

1 Channels 7 and 10 want a viable football competition with eight games a week to telecast. They know the responsibility they have to pay a fair price for the TV rights to ensure there is money in the bank, and it is a fair assumption they will do so.
Lets also be realistic Ch 7 and 10 wont want to buy the rights for $3.50 and watch the league fall over, will they? They want a good product to ensure their investment is returned in ratings, revenue etc. So they will pay what they think is a fair and realistic price.
Strong rumour suggests that a good amount of money will flow to the AFL through a deal by Ch 7 as part of the TV rights bid to sell the league Telstra Dome well ahead of the current 30-year schedule meaning a huge boost in revenue from the venue for the league and money in the bank to help struggling clubs.

2 The previous TV rights auction saw the rights ridiculously overvalued and over-paid for by the News/Packer conglomerate who bid high to ensure Ch 7 had no chance to outbid them. Channels 9 and 10 have lost money - about $6m and $1-2m respectively I believe - because the amount they have laid out hasn't been recouped in revenue.
In that light, why should Channel 7 and 10 pay an inflated amount this time around because the last buyers did so? Thats not smart business.

3 The accusation of Channel 7 sinking the boot into footy is scandalous. Seven supported footy for 40 years before the previous rights deal, and will continue to do so into the future.
Just because Ch 7 are willing to do legitimate stories that dare to be critical of the AFL, question players behaviour or, at times, the AFLs effectiveness, doesnt mean they are sinking the boots in.
As journalists and a media outlet they are not only allowed, but obligated, to ask legitimate questions, as are Ch 9, 10 Fox Footy, etc etc. Eddie himself has bagged the AFL on a number of occasions in his convenient dual media/CFC president role is he sinking the boot into the AFL? I doubt hed admit to it.
Not only that but the Footy Show has to be the home of AFL bagging and low-brow AFL behaviour (Sam Newman anyone?). But theyre not sinking the boot in, are they? Of course not!

4 Kerry Packer is not footys saviour, hes just a businessman like anyone else. Hes in it for the money, prestige and ratings, as are Ch 10, 7, Fox Footy and others.
For Eddie to call on Kerry to do something special for the game ignores the fact that Packer has done little to telecast the game decently in non-footy states because of his want to cover the higher rating NRL games. Thats why theres so many earlier games on Sundays now to fit around NRL broadcasts in Sydney and Brissie.
Packers promotion of the game in those non-footy states through Ch 9 over the past few years has been sub-par and lazy because he knows it doesnt rate, and he wants to show NRL instead. Thats doesnt sound like the attitude of a footy saviour to me.
As for the other partner in the present conglomeration - News Corp and Rupert Murdoch - Remember Ruperts role in Super League, which ripped rugby apart? Hmm, no saviour there either.

Eddies spray also ignores the AFLs role in all this maybe because he doesnt want to bite the hand that feeds him and Ch 9 at this time.

But think about it - how nave are the AFL to think something like this wouldnt happen? The last bidding process went way over the top of the mark and raised more than hoped for but what law says that Ch 7/10 are under any obligation to up the bid further?

Ch 7 and 10 will do the best deal they can because they are in the business of doing so, and because the AFL has not in its wisdom set any minimum bid or base price for the rights.

How hard would it be for the AFL to say (or at least strongly hint to anyone interested in bidding for the rights) Well, minimum starting figure is $x million per year thats the minimum we need to make sure we can run the game and keep it a good product for your telecasts.

In the end, Ch 7 and 10 are governed, like any businesses, by the law of supply and demand. If the demand isnt there because Ch 9 and others have a tanty and bow out of the auction, there is no real demand for the rights so Ch 7 and 10 can bid want they want in a free market and the AFL has the right to negotiate, refuse, or accept.

In that respect, the ball will be and is in the AFLs court. It is up to them to protect their interests. And again, lets be realistic Ch 7 and 10 would be hugely interested in ensuring the AFLs interests are protected to a point, given they want a viable sport to broadcast and they want return on their investment.

In short, Eddie and Channel 9 need to stop bagging other channels and start looking at themselves, as well as asking some tough questions of the AFL. And the AFL needs to stop being so petty and doing petty things like banishing Ch 10 representatives from the head table at the season launch as they did yesterday.
Husband and father
Supporter of Richmond
Drinker of coffee
Writer of articles
Handler of cacti
Player of Xbox360
Reply
#2
great post chriss88!
i have been waiting 4 a post like this.
eddie is a sook! he just knows that all the sponsors at the pies have i bet a "tv" clause in it where he has to make sure the sponsors are seen by all on the 9 network, isnt it funny how the "collingwood show" on thursday nites are all about the pies and the sponors of teh show are also spomsors of his club. he knows once 9 is out so are many of his sponsors and and money!

the tigers announced new sponsors last night, 3 year deal with connex and bartarcard, eddie read it out so fast i nearly missed it, if they were new pie spomsors they would have had 15 min or more coverage on the show, directors would have been their on a table and would have been headline news.

f eddie!

i wonder if 7 can sue him for defamation, he really did defame 7 by saying that at least 8 clubs including richmnond will fold if 7 comes back! that is defaming 7 in my bbok, harming their reputation ! he blamed 7 for the afl nearly going bust years ago! how th ef hell is that 7s fault , so it must be 9s fault that the saints are still in debt, the tigers, cats, blues , dogs, dees, and north!.
he said 3 clubs are using the comp balance fund and if it wasnt for 9 that fund would not be there! what a liar and then he put the tigers down! what about the blues u moron! packer saved th epies but he wont in future bec he is interested in casinos more than pies!

eddie is a c###, he is trying to scare ythe ignorant footy world by saying that 7 is holding the afl to ransom! if the afl and 9 did collude at the last deal, well fine 7 has a right to sue u guys, what are u scared of eddie, did u collude ?


the footy show is a joke , i only watch the 1st 3 shows of the year and th efinale, the rest i dont watch, sam last night proved that jim beam is a di-kheads drink! i bet jim beam somehow sponsors th epies to!

its dunny humor not even funny, sam is brain dead, fevola is just a dumb####, and hird should give up that show he is to smart and classy 4 those bums!

EDDIE BE GONE!
The only good magpie, IS A DEAD MAGPIE!
Reply
#3
Nice rant. Could you make this a weekly effort?
Reply
#4
Very good critique there Chris, and Eddie's comments were certainly 'scaremongering', and I'm not too sure what good they would do anyway, it's not a popularity contest with the fans, it's an afl decision.

My only concern from what he brought up was the ongoing lawsuit between 7 and the afl, I'd hate to see that being a determing factor in who to award the rights to.

Right now 9 are stuffed, they can not win the rights without another channel involved because we all know the afl will be more focused on providing the best coverage (especially into developing markets) than who has the most money. 9 simply can't have afl and nrl exclusively, not enough time in the day.
LGANTPR
Reply
#5
Good reporting there Chris, maybe Heady Eddie should remember the days when he was "just a reporter" and watch the whining and silly threats he displayed last night.

X, u r the yellow&black spokesman.
Run Tivers Run !!
Reply
#6
Tiv32 Wrote:Good reporting there Chris, maybe Heady Eddie should remember the days when he was "just a reporter" and watch the whining and silly threats he displayed last night.

X, u r the yellow&black spokesman.

thanx tiv32 but i think my temper and attitude may get the club in trouble if i was!
The only good magpie, IS A DEAD MAGPIE!
Reply
#7
I guess the other thing that I didn't put in my rant was the point of view about what 7 and 10 are planning re showing more games on free-to-air TV and live on TV.

Surely having 6 or 7 (or eight, if some reports are to be believed) free to air games each week is better than having to pay for them through Fox Footy. Better for the fans and better in exposure to more people for the AFL. Where's Eddie's scaremongering on that one.

Jezza - Its interesting re this legal case as well concerning 7 and the conglomeration who currently own the media rights. My impression would be that Ch 7 would very quickly drop the case after negotiations with the AFL if they got the TV rights.

Again, I would say to Eddie and others, why shouldn't Ch 7 protect its rights and investments through the courts if they reckon they have been dudded? Its a free country, to use a cliche, and if the boot was on the other foot, Ch 9 would surely do the same.

And X - you're on the money re the defamation of Ch 7. Eddie would want to watch what he says very carefully. While he might be doing his masters' bidding, and avoiding any slagging of the AFL, Ch 7's legal department could well look closely at anything he says regards slander or defamation.

As for making this a weekly feature of this site ... hmm, you never know, I might feel inspired or riled up enough each week to do so!!!!
Husband and father
Supporter of Richmond
Drinker of coffee
Writer of articles
Handler of cacti
Player of Xbox360
Reply
#8
Would be interesting to see a public debate on the matter, Eddie certainly wouldn't get away with many of the outlandish comments he made last night.
LGANTPR
Reply
#9
how was his macho crap, from "broadie" we have a saying! its not who punches first , but who punches last! too bad if the first punch is a knockout blow!!
The only good magpie, IS A DEAD MAGPIE!
Reply
#10
jezza Wrote:Right now 9 are stuffed, they can not win the rights without another channel involved because we all know the afl will be more focused on providing the best coverage (especially into developing markets) than who has the most money. 9 simply can't have afl and nrl exclusively, not enough time in the day.

Actually they can, just get channel 2 involved. Let them televise the 2-3 least watched games. Channel 9 & foxtel televise the remaining 5-6.

Channel 9 can "gift" the games to ABC because we all know ABC hasnt the finance.(televising games is important here) Then Channel 9 can televise the most watched games and not have someone like channel 10 wanting Saturdays, finals or Grand Finals.

If I was channel 9 I would try and bid as high as practically feasible. Two reasons why.
One you minimise channel 7 & 10 profits so in a sens e "you stick it up them".
Two, you may just outbid them and knock them out for good (psychological scarring) or for many years. It may be a substantial figure, where no profit is forecasted, but in the end channel 7 know you mean business...
Run Tivers Run !!
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)