• Join ccmfans.net

    ccmfans.net is the Central Coast Mariners fan community, and was formed in 2004, so basically the beginning of time for the Mariners. Things have changed a lot over the years, but one thing has remained constant and that is our love of the Mariners. People come and go, some like to post a lot and others just like to read. It's up to you how you participate in the community!

    If you want to get rid of this message, simply click on Join Now or head over to https://www.ccmfans.net/community/register/ to join the community! It only takes a few minutes, and joining will let you post your thoughts and opinions on all things Mariners, Football, and whatever else pops into your mind. If posting is not your thing, you can interact in other ways, including voting on polls, and unlock options only available to community members.

    ccmfans.net is not only for Mariners fans either. Most of us are bonded by our support for the Mariners, but if you are a fan of another club (except the Scum, come on, we need some standards), feel free to join and get into some banter.

Socceroos / Electronic media coverage

midfielder

Well-Known Member
Over the last three / four weeks of the Socceroos I have been applauded by the lack of general media interest or reporting.

Before the RL test match against NZ from about a month out it was being talked about on radio and in newspapers with a calling to arms of the RL faithful to go and watch the match.

The Ghana and Iraq matchs had no build up, and even on the night when we went to the matchs the three oclock news did not have the Socceroos their sports  reports.  Even FIFA came with over two thousand delegates and Kevin 07 address the FIFA congress with little to no reporting on the congress aside from the fact that 2018 was probably a no go. Any other gathering of overseas delegates looking at Australia would have been a massive news story in itself.

In prior years the excuse of well there is no product .. well according to many in the media the Socceroos are now Australias leading brand, and I have read that if you count people at live sites / clubs / pubs / number in each household watching, that the Uruguay match and a audience of 8.75 million, and the Italy match on a cold midwinter morning  had 6.85 million. The Australia V Japan match was the biggest pay TV audience by far peaking at 562, 000 boxes out of about a million Australia wide. The Matildas during the womens world cup in their match against Brazil on SBS out rated the Australian Rugby Union world cup match against Fiji on channel ten, both matches broadcast at the same time only 30 mins difference in there starting times.

Other stories IMO news worthy in there own right were the Austrade stories shown the 32 million well spent Austrade issued press releases about the how via football Australian could do a lot with the Socceroos The Australian Trade Commission has organised a series of business breakfasts in the Middle East to capitalise on local interest in the team's qualifying games in Dubai on Saturday and Doha a week later.

Austrade's chief economist, Tim Harcourt, said the popularity of the "world game", the profile of players such as captain Harry Kewell and Australia's World Cup finals success in 2006 provided a springboard into huge markets.

Common interests and cultural ties are an important part of the business potential of football, said Mr Harcourt, pointing to the role of migrants in the development of both the game and overseas trade..


I suppose it proves the wisdom of playing the A-league in summer, but it does make you wonder what football has to do before we get reasonable electronic media. In the print media we have our own journalist but outside fox and SBS (aside from the A-League) there to me seems a long way to go. Channel 7 tonight ran an sports item about a kid from India I think who was now playing AFL and interviewed his Dad 8 mins or whatever latter Channel 7, gave less time to the Socceroos match against Qatar.

I realize it is about the money invested by 7, 9 & 10 in the other codes, but F me I have been disappointed in the coverage. Radio also has been no better at least the TV stations can claim to have heaps invested in the other codes.

Makes me wonder how far off internet down streaming is where you can connect a computer to a plasma display screen easily and if this is the way of the future affectively bypassing existing electronic media.
 

serious14

Well-Known Member
Free to air is a dying concept - whilst it will never truly disappear, the days where it is the dominant form of media are limited.  Of course, Australia being Australia, we seem to take about 5 years longer than everywhere else to grab hold of an idea.  Don't worry mate, the petty likes of Bruce McAvaney with their vested interests and such won't last forever.
 

FFC Mariner

Well-Known Member
FTA = history TBH.

Radio has a part to play when satellite radio gets off the ground but if you are relying on millions of armchair fans watching for free and taking in the ads you sell............

You think Packer flogged off a  chunk of Ch9 for no reason?? He knows the future and it aint FTA
 

Arabmariner

Well-Known Member
F**k FTA.The sooner all sports are on pay TV the better.

If you don't have pay TV ...well you're going to need it in the near future.

No point in whinging about it just go and get it!
 

Jesus

Jesus
Pay TV has forced a drastic drop in media coverage on fta chanels. But FTA is where the money is. If the game was on FTA it would recieve much more coverage
 

dibo

Well-Known Member
midfieldermacriboyqk1.jpg


anyway...

if *anyone* on here thinks the FFA wouldn't leap at an FTA deal if there was competitive money attached then they're dreaming.
 

BrisRecky

I'm an idiot savant without the pesky savant bit
Arabmariner said:
F**k FTA.The sooner all sports are on pay TV the better.

If you don't have pay TV ...well you're going to need it in the near future.

No point in whinging about it just go and get it!

I aint got what foxtel are asking, subscription wise, just laying around you know...maybe if they bring there prices into line with the rest of the known universe, more people could get it, cause i can tell ya that pay t.v in holland for instance aint even close price wise to what we get slugged
 

marinermick

Well-Known Member
RECKY said:
Arabmariner said:
F**k FTA.The sooner all sports are on pay TV the better.

If you don't have pay TV ...well you're going to need it in the near future.

No point in whinging about it just go and get it!

I aint got what foxtel are asking, subscription wise, just laying around you know...maybe if they bring there prices into line with the rest of the known universe, more people could get it, cause i can tell ya that pay t.v in holland for instance aint even close price wise to what we get slugged

conversely pay-tv in the UK is much more expensive
 

scottmac

Suspended
pay tv here is $25 - $30 per week at the most and $10 - $15 at its cheapest. I reckon its not that far away from the average family. The only thing expensive is the mainevent at 50 bucks a pop. As for me, bring on FoxtelHD.
 

dibo

Well-Known Member
scottmac said:
pay tv here is $25 - $30 per week at the most and $10 - $15 at its cheapest. I reckon its not that far away from the average family. The only thing expensive is the mainevent at 50 bucks a pop. As for me, bring on FoxtelHD.

that's not that cheap, which is one of the reasons that even by the most optimistic estimates, *only 30% of households have fox*. there's no getting around the fact that 70% of people are choosing not to get fox, and this number is hardly shrinking in a hurry.
 

~Floss~

Well-Known Member
scottmac said:
pay tv here is $25 - $30 per week at the most and $10 - $15 at its cheapest. I reckon its not that far away from the average family. The only thing expensive is the mainevent at 50 bucks a pop. As for me, bring on FoxtelHD.

Sorry, I was just about to correct you when I realised you did say per week (not per month)

Agree with Dibo: that is NOT cheap!
 

midfielder

Well-Known Member
dibo said:
scottmac said:
pay tv here is $25 - $30 per week at the most and $10 - $15 at its cheapest. I reckon its not that far away from the average family. The only thing expensive is the mainevent at 50 bucks a pop. As for me, bring on FoxtelHD.

that's not that cheap, which is one of the reasons that even by the most optimistic estimates, *only 30% of households have fox*. there's no getting around the fact that 70% of people are choosing not to get fox, and this number is hardly shrinking in a hurry.

Of the 30% that have fox not all have the sports channel, read the other day but not from an official site that the sports take up on fox was 792, 859 boxes at some point this year. As I said this was not from an official site but it does pose the question how many people with fox do no have the sport channels.
 

serious14

Well-Known Member
Dibo - massive props for that pic, that's just damn funny.

Gotta disagree with your sentiments though.  When the idea/concept of "Pay TV _is_ the way of the future" makes its way down the SE Asian domino and finally gets to Australia, free-to-air won't die off entirely, but it will be reduced to the point of semi-irrelevance when compared to Pay TV.  If people want to see their favorite sports, the best quality television shows, blah blah etc., Pay TV will be the only option on which to see them.

Oh, and to get Foxtel with the sports channels comes in at around the $60-ish mark, yes??  (couldn't be bothered looking it up)  Surely it's not that hard to scrape up $15 a week, honestly??  I know shit is more expensive these days, but here's an idea - have one less bottle of wine, or don't buy brand name food at Coles.  The no-name/'Coles is best' brand is _exactly_ the same as the name brand stuff, but half the price.  It's all about being a discerning consumer these days.
 

dibo

Well-Known Member
serious14 said:
Dibo - massive props for that pic, that's just damn funny.

Gotta disagree with your sentiments though.  When the idea/concept of "Pay TV _is_ the way of the future" makes its way down the SE Asian domino and finally gets to Australia, free-to-air won't die off entirely, but it will be reduced to the point of semi-irrelevance when compared to Pay TV.  If people want to see their favorite sports, the best quality television shows, blah blah etc., Pay TV will be the only option on which to see them.

Oh, and to get Foxtel with the sports channels comes in at around the $60-ish mark, yes??  (couldn't be bothered looking it up)  Surely it's not that hard to scrape up $15 a week, honestly??  I know shit is more expensive these days, but here's an idea - have one less bottle of wine, or don't buy brand name food at Coles.  The no-name/'Coles is best' brand is _exactly_ the same as the name brand stuff, but half the price.  It's all about being a discerning consumer these days.

james - it's a very simple idea. only 30% of the population have chosen to take up fox at all, less than that again have taken up the sport package *because it's not that cheap*. if pay tv were the way of the future, everyone would get it. even merely having a majority of households would be an indicator that you might be right. but less than a third of families do.

the other point i'd make right about here is that for the good of football, we don't want it to be a product restricted to 'discerning consumers' - we want every bugger to be able to enjoy it.

i for one have well and truly had jack of following football being a minority pursuit restricted to those who stay awake into the wee hours watching a world cup every four years or those who fork out for expensive cable.

it should be something that the kids can watch on a sunday arvo, regardless of whether their parents are 'discerning consumers'.

working class families with four kids all playing football (and hence laying out a lot of wedge on the game already) can watch without having to hand over extra. of course, the kids could stop playing which would save a lot of cash, but i think that'd be missing the point.

everybody should be able to see at least *some* football without having to line rupert's pockets for the privilege.
 

FFC Mariner

Well-Known Member
Not having to invest in 2 sets of infrastructure would have reduced the start up costs in the 1st place and the pay back period for investors would have been shorter (and hopefully lower prices).

Way to go Keating and that knobhead responsible for it (ex Wyong MP??)

Sorry, memory fuzzy
 

dibo

Well-Known Member
Greenpoleffc said:
Not having to invest in 2 sets of infrastructure would have reduced the start up costs in the 1st place and the pay back period for investors would have been shorter (and hopefully lower prices).

Way to go Keating and that knobhead responsible for it (ex Wyong MP??)

Sorry, memory fuzzy

a monopoly would have meant that prices would have been higher and takeup lower, for a net loss of consumer welfare.

[/microeconomically correct snipe]
 

Bex

Well-Known Member
I listened to the sports show on 2UE on monday night and they discussed a very trivial point about a Tongan based player's elegibility for state of origin/international duties for at least half an hour. At that time, they had only made passing mention of the 1-3 of the Soccoroos over Iraq.

Those guys often have listeners ring and complain about their bias toward Thugby League and I often think the listeners are a bit deluded. However, in this case, I was so close to phoning them myself.

How can such a stupid discussion about elegibility for one team or another be more important than our world cup qualification bid; especially in a context where our prime minister has been involving himself in world cup issues lately? If it were a Thugby League international game they would have spent virtually the whole show discussing the match.
 

serious14

Well-Known Member
I el-oh-el at a game where you can be eligible for both Tonga and NSW...... honestly, that's so stupid as to almost not be funny.

Almost.  ;)
 

dibo

Well-Known Member
serious14 said:
I el-oh-el at a game where you can be eligible for both Tonga and NSW...... honestly, that's so stupid as to almost not be funny.

Almost.  ;)

harry kewell and many others were eligible for both england and australia.
spiranovic and many others were eligible for croatia and australia
cahill wasn't just eligible but has played for both samoa and australia, ditto bouzanis for greece and australia.

rugby league is still popular, people are still calling in because they like the game. there's no use in pretending otherwise.
 

serious14

Well-Known Member
Dibo - England and Australia are separate countries............. Tonga is a country, but New South Wales is a _state_ of another country.  The whole situation regarding Origin eligibility rules is f*cking ludicrous.  Rename the series to "State of Where You Played Your First Game When You Turned 16", because calling it "State of Origin" is a lie.

I'm not debating that RL is popular........... in NSW.  And Brisbane.  And some parts of the North of England.  And, ummmm......... Auckland??
 

Online statistics

Members online
39
Guests online
282
Total visitors
321

Forum statistics

Threads
6,746
Messages
384,377
Members
2,715
Latest member
ForzaFred
Top