TOPIC:

Spot on mikeh.
That is true Southerner, at least West Perth get to put that eight grand back in their pocket. Should not pay for something, they've been banned from!

If West Perth still have to contribute the 8 thousand figure, then you're venturing into the murky world of scamming! That is what scammers do- taking money off people and companies under false pretences. Isn't that against the law?

mikeh wrote: If West Perth are not included in the TV broadcasts it is not a true coverage of the WAFL competition and is a sham as far as I am concerned.

The comp is already a sham with the alignment- Period!

Swandog wrote:

mikeh wrote: If West Perth are not included in the TV broadcasts it is not a true coverage of the WAFL competition and is a sham as far as I am concerned.

The comp is already a sham with the alignment- Period!

Yeah it's a scam Westaussie & 'dogs

Swandog maaaaaaaate - that is a great Avatar picture you have there - memories !!!

Leedy wrote:

pjaye wrote: When West Perth were negotiating with ch9 over sponsorship they were warned by the WAFC about pending talks with ch7 over televising the footy . They went ahead anyway and now are not going to be televised this season . Hardly suprising . Good publicity for ch9 in the media but I think West Perth have hardly done the right thing by there other sponsors who wont be exposed to the tv audience . If ch9 had won the tv rights and refused to televise East Perths matches due to ch7 being on their shirts I wonder how many of you would be jumping up and down at the disgraceful actions of the tv company .

PJ,

That may have been the case but I would be buggered if I was a WP official to tell CH9 who are offering $100k per year for 3 years that " No thanks, we think that the major sponsors of our greatest rivals may be televising the games in a couple of years ". Need I remind you and your cronies were still rooting around in making a decision until just 6 weeks ago ! Its a f*cken shambles and every body knows it.

Leedy there is no me and my cronies . There is only me a fellow WAFL supporter . I don't blame West Perth for their stance . But it has consequences , whichever way they decide to go down . Its a pity that WAFC couldn't get the $1million sponsorship to keep the ABC broadcasting the footy .

Winger wrote: The commission only warned West Perth after the Channel Seven deal was finalised.

Are you sure Winger ? If I remember what was written in the newspaper a WAFC commissioner said they were warned about the possibility when they were negotiating with ch9 .

Frank Falcon wrote: Sorry pjaye, have to disagree.

There are a few questions that need to be asked here.

The Commission is there to promote footy in an unbiased way. This is not happening.

Why would you go into as sponsorship when only 17-18 games will be televised?

West Perth played all last season with the Channel 9 logo on there jumpers. This was not an issue for the ABC.

Channel 7 and The West are major sponsors of EP. I think thats a conflict of interest therefore the WAFC should have taken that into account.

The WAFL clubs had to pay for Channel 7 to televise the games, so therefore they have no right to dictate on what sponsors other clubs have.

Unfortunately the Commission has lost the football supporters confidence in them.

Frank I agree with some of what your saying . The WAFC has been a joke since it started . It is biased towards the AFL clubs . Negotiating a deal with only 18 rounds televised makes the WAFL competition look a joke . And for $1 million a year I would expect at least a half hour WAFL show leading into the matches .
However , ch7 have the right to dictate what sponsors they show on the matches they cover . The ABC chose to allow all sponsors on the coverage as was there rights .
How does the fact ch7 and the West sponsoring East Perth create a conflict of interest ? Considering ch7 have barely mentioned any WAFL football for the past 20 odd years proves where there heart is .

Channel seven do not have the right to dictate what sponsors they televise because they wanted to televise the games so they must take the rough with the smooth.

pjaye wrote:

Frank Falcon wrote: Sorry pjaye, have to disagree.

There are a few questions that need to be asked here.

The Commission is there to promote footy in an unbiased way. This is not happening.

Why would you go into as sponsorship when only 17-18 games will be televised?

West Perth played all last season with the Channel 9 logo on there jumpers. This was not an issue for the ABC.

Channel 7 and The West are major sponsors of EP. I think thats a conflict of interest therefore the WAFC should have taken that into account.




The WAFL clubs had to pay for Channel 7 to televise the games, so therefore they have no right to dictate on what sponsors other clubs have.

Unfortunately the Commission has lost the football supporters confidence in them.

Frank I agree with some of what your saying . The WAFC has been a joke since it started . It is biased towards the AFL clubs . Negotiating a deal with only 18 rounds televised makes the WAFL competition look a joke . And for $1 million a year I would expect at least a half hour WAFL show leading into the matches .
However , ch7 have the right to dictate what sponsors they show on the matches they cover . The ABC chose to allow all sponsors on the coverage as was there rights .
How does the fact ch7 and the West sponsoring East Perth create a conflict of interest ? Considering ch7have barely mentioned any WAFL football for the past 20 odd years proves where there heart is .

PJ,

Your fighting a good fight for CH7 for just a WAFL supporter ?

Cardinal Forever wrote: Thanks MikeXU1
Your support carries more value than I think you realise. Would be good if ALL clubs got behind this and we turned it into a campaign against 7 and FOR West Australian Football as a WHOLE.

Several West Perth members are already preparing to speak to our Directors to negotiate with 9 for the printing up off t-shirts.

We are also going to write to 7 to make our complaint FORMAL and once that is done we can approach the ACCC.

Banners at televised games can & probably would be confiscated, however, security or others cannot remove someone's clothing from them. They might be able to expel people from the ground, though that would be good reason for giving ACA a call. They would also have to refund any ground entrance money.

The groundswell of support on this issue is very heart warming and appreciated.

Lets see if they'll kick me out of the stadium for wearing an old Ch 9 Appealathon shirt whilst casually positioning behind the boundary rider during qtr time break reports. Will attempt to do my bit at SD televised games. Can only hope our scoreboard attendant down at Basso still has his sense of humour available for our one televised home game.

[quote="pjaye" However , ch7 have the right to dictate what sponsors they show on the matches they cover.

Well no, that's not quite right. The broadcaster is simply the broadcaster and there to televise. Nothing more and nothing less. What gives them the right to start throwing their weight around? The broadcaster is there to do a bloody job, not there to behave badly! They wanted to become involved and knew what they were getting into! When at work with my little public service job, I don't stand around telling customers what to do or ignoring them. I would get shot if that happened! So what gives the broadcaster the right to ride roughshod over their customer (Ithe Wafl)? If the broadcaster refuse or can't be bothered to do the damned job properly, piss them off.
And yes, considering stupid7 have barely mentioned any WAFL football for the past 20 odd years should be proof enough for any-one I would have thought!