Fox

[Lock]

I was happy with what Fox did with their coverage last season.

Does anyone know if there is anything different to their coverage for 2007.

With every game on Fox, even if you cant get to Subi at least you can see it "live" which I think is great and not all sports have coverage like this "live"!

[Egan]

Fox do a good job, just imagine the crowds the Force would get, if their home games where on free to air tv.

[Shaun]

not many... or on the other hand more people would be exposed to the force and may come down and see it at Subi????

[Egan]

You got it in one Shaurnmann...greater exposure, leads to more fans.

Free to air TV is what makes the AFL so big in Perth.

[Happy]

correct Egan .. especially when stadiums sell out!!! Maybe Channel 31 could get it ?

[DavidSmithSportFM]

TV coverage is a massive problem. On the one hand Fox does a good job in covering sports. But I've never understood how its allowed to broadcast Live against the gate. Would more people go to the game if they couldn't see it in the comfort of their living rooms?

I think in WA we could do with delayed coverage of games, just as was the case in AFL unless the game is a sellout. The technology is available.

Fox also won't want local free to air coverage as again it might stop people splashing out on their service.

The problem is, sport needs exposure, and without free-to-air coverage the vast majority of people are not exposed to the games we love. Look at Perth Glory crowds and you can see the effect of Live TV coverage and the lack of free-to-air exposure. What happens to Force crowds if the team stumbles in the early weeks. We dont have to worry about the committed fans, but to thrive we have to reach new fans and the only way that can happen is through exposure.

[The EnForcer]

TV coverage is a massive problem. On the one hand Fox does a good job in covering sports. But I've never understood how its allowed to broadcast Live against the gate. Would more people go to the game if they couldn't see it in the comfort of their living rooms?

I think in WA we could do with delayed coverage of games, just as was the case in AFL unless the game is a sellout. The technology is available.

Fox also won't want local free to air coverage as again it might stop people splashing out on their service.

The problem is, sport needs exposure, and without free-to-air coverage the vast majority of people are not exposed to the games we love. Look at Perth Glory crowds and you can see the effect of Live TV coverage and the lack of free-to-air exposure. What happens to Force crowds if the team stumbles in the early weeks. We dont have to worry about the committed fans, but to thrive we have to reach new fans and the only way that can happen is through exposure.

Can't argue with that David but just to add to that a fundamental difference between the Glory, AFL and Super 14's is that the 14's has an international audience which probably means that we will never have free to air coverage.

By thw way David, as you are in the industry, so to speak, what is your view on the stadium issue?

[Egan]

TV coverage is a massive problem. On the one hand Fox does a good job in covering sports. But I've never understood how its allowed to broadcast Live against the gate. Would more people go to the game if they couldn't see it in the comfort of their living rooms?

I think in WA we could do with delayed coverage of games, just as was the case in AFL unless the game is a sellout. The technology is available.

Fox also won't want local free to air coverage as again it might stop people splashing out on their service.

The problem is, sport needs exposure, and without free-to-air coverage the vast majority of people are not exposed to the games we love. Look at Perth Glory crowds and you can see the effect of Live TV coverage and the lack of free-to-air exposure. What happens to Force crowds if the team stumbles in the early weeks. We dont have to worry about the committed fans, but to thrive we have to reach new fans and the only way that can happen is through exposure.

David you raise some interesting points, I would have to tell you the reason why Fox Sports broadcast it live, is that they do not have the technology to stop an event going into one area live.

Eg There programs are the same nationally and News Limited basically own the coverage and the competition.

I think the general aspect that Force has in its favour is strong migration continuing from Rugby loving nations, White South Africans, English and New Zealanders (going to the mines) are coming into the state and thus it will be able to attract new fans.

I think the biggest concern is the stadium and the demands Rugby supporters have for a rectangular stadium and the Force have noted this in a lot of what they say in the public.

In general the crowd levels for the Force are beyond the widest expectations and as with the Melbourne Victory, the crowds that average 28,000 may not be sustainable in the long term - depending on how many of the members stick.

By Super 14 wide standards, A 20,000 average will be more then acceptable and I think the Force have at least 20,000 diehard fans.

The aspect is, you have to build up Rugby in your major markets to attract free to air TV to cover the premier competition. (noting the poor ratings for Rugby in Adelaide and Melbourne)

The new APC does this and hopefully we get an ABC covering this competition as they have been reported to.

But at the moment, the aspect is Fox basically owns the competition (Foxtel is 50% owned by News Ltd) and the demand for free to air networks nation wide would not be there to buy out the contract for a higher fee.

I think Perth Glory has more complex issues then Live TV coverage, so personally I don't see the huge links between live tv and the poor crowds (especially on a 4pm Sunday when most people would be socialising, or down the pub).

I think it has more to do with the marketing.

Anyways this issue is much like the ongoing debate in Australia between Free to Air and Foxtel, this debate has positives and negatives on both sides.

And each has some good information that they possess.

[DavidSmithSportFM]

I've been in the Broadcasting industry for the past 27 years but I think the 6 years i've spent in Australia have been a real eye opener in regards to the waytelevision deals with sport. I really feel TV stations have missed a trick of two. Why delay out of state coverage when its available on the radio?

I think there is a massive difference between what should be done with coverage of sports played in WA and those outside of the state.

Eastern States coverage should always be live. WA coverage always delayed unless its a sell-out.

The whole News Limited/Foxtel aspect is of course a massive reason why it won't be easy to have free-to-air coverage in WA. Fox ploughs large sums into sport and has every right to protect its investment.

We saw with the fox footy channel how Foxtel was able to cater sports coverage to different markets. Each state had a different channel number on the digital service. So if the desire was there Fox Sports Three could be a state service with alternative programming built in when a live event was on.

Naturally there is no desire on Fox's side for this to happen as they want people sitting in front of their TV's and live sport is the draw card. So it has to come from the Sport's themselves. For reasons explained by Egan that won't happen in the case of Super 14.

The Force fan base looks healthy but memberships are down at this stage. The take up of Fox in WA is still not wide and I believe all sports thrive from exposure.

In the UK all big-time boxing moved from ITV and the BBC to Sky TV. I'd wager the vast majority of people in Britain have no idea who the British Heavyweight champion is. So sports which are exclusive to pay-per-view don't always thrive.

As far as the stadium issue is concerned, of course WA needs a purpose built rectangular stadium like Suncorp. Sadly the political will is absent as everyone in WA in positions of power are too focussed on the needs of AFL. For fans Subi as we know is far from ideal. Rugby is a sport meant to be viewed up close and personal, lets face it its hard enough to see what's going on in the front row at the best of times but from 150 metres away!!!
Should we really need binoculars just to watch from the stands?

[Egan]

We saw with the fox footy channel how Foxtel was able to cater sports coverage to different markets. Each state had a different channel number on the digital service. So if the desire was there Fox Sports Three could be a state service with alternative programming built in when a live event was on.

Politics is also influenced, by experiences with Perth Glory and Western Reds, which have since faltered despite having initial hype, but the Major Stadia Taskforce is looking at sport as a whole, rather then just football.

In regards to Fox Footy David, the Fox Footy Channel was actually a seperate entity to Foxtel and was done because there was incentive to do it. They would not have got the rights if they had broadcast games in Perth live on a Friday Night, just because it was delayed into Perth until 8:30pm.

Fox Footy was a seperate entity to Fox Sports.

Thus, the key aspect is 'incentive' until we have a desire by the networks to have an incentive to broadcast these matches, Foxtel will continue to be a monopoly that seeks to broadcast live against the gate.

I really feel TV stations have missed a trick of two. Why delay out of state coverage when its available on the radio?

It is highly frustrating for me, but the evidence that Channel 10 and Channel 9 often go by, is that they will get better ratings for a Friday Night at 8:30pm for AFL then covering it at 5:40pm on a Friday Live.

Thus economics play at it and they are probably right...peak Friday Night football at 8:30pm has more viewers then 5:40pm Friday Night.

The Force fan base looks healthy but memberships are down at this stage

After an inital membership expectation of 4400, the perspective is that a downfall should be expected after they hype of the first season and all reports from the Force camp is that they have a heap of new members wanting to sign up and that they should have about the same amount of members as last year...the figures reported are the amount of members last year who have resigned.

[Lock]

I think Fox is a very good coverage and assists the promotion and development of the game which has lacked in Perth for many years.

WHo cares about perth glory.
I bet Fox pay big money to broadcast those soccer games "live" so I presume that perth glory benefit anyway!

The "live"coverage of Fox can only be for the better of Rugby in this state.