TOPIC:

Bronte keeps Swans afloat ?

I have heard that the WAFC/WAFL will actually PAY 9 to show the games? Now how can they do that if they are running at a loss. Why should we pay a TV network when usually it is the other way around involving big buck.
Can they put it up for Tender?
If the above is the case It wont happen. If it was the case and we paid to show the game why not give it to the ABC who would certainly be a LOT cheaper than a commercial station?

Cant see it happening. So where does that leave us? NO WAFL ON TV or internet etc. Work in progress.

Gotta get GRASSY on here. He rang me re this subject last night. Would be great to see his input in plain English and upper case when angry

He sends his regards to all the OZFOOTY GUYS and your posts that give him something to read.

anchorman wrote: Heard Karl say on PR Saturday that the WAFL already have two sponsors who are ready to cover the costs of Nine broadcasting the WAFL.
I would have thought that this would have been posted here as I am sure that it was an angry ozfooty poster who rang and asked.
hiding the truth about it fellas.
It wont cost he WAFL,that have sponsors for it.

Fair Call and sounds logical.. Now let me get this straight.. These 2 sponsers will cover all the costs and also pay for their advertising during the game. Sounds a bit costly to me? Usually advertisers only pay for their advertising and dont pay for the broadcast? So Nine will obviously want more that 2 advertisers and will most probably get them yet with all other sports the organisation concerned puts out a tender for the games over a certain period and take the biggest offer if it suits their arrangements.

Advertising is a side product besides what they pay to the E.G AFL for the rights and helps them recoup what they have paid for the broadcasting rights

did he mention covering the costs of clubs if they have to shift home games to the WACA to suit Ch 9 ?

Cardy wrote: I have heard that the WAFC/WAFL will actually PAY 9 to show the games? Now how can they do that if they are running at a loss. Why should we pay a TV network when usually it is the other way around involving big buck.
Can they put it up for Tender?
If the above is the case It wont happen. If it was the case and we paid to show the game why not give it to the ABC who would certainly be a LOT cheaper than a commercial station?

Cant see it happening. So where does that leave us? NO WAFL ON TV or internet etc. Work in progress.

Gotta get GRASSY on here. He rang me re this subject last night. Would be great to see his input in plain English and upper case when angry

He sends his regards to all the OZFOOTY GUYS and your posts that give him something to read.

The WAFL are already paying the ABC a contribution each year to cover the WAFL.

and the ABC only want to cover games at Leederville or Freo for technical reasons so its not really a perfect world whatever way we go as whoever broadcasts it wants it done the easist way to cut costs..

MarkOlsen wrote: and the ABC only want to cover games at Leederville or Freo for technical reasons so its not really a perfect world whatever way we go as whoever broadcasts it wants it done the easist way to cut costs..

Yeah the ABC will work on a shoestring, actually I thought it was 9 as well that said they would only cover two venues.

Bazza wrote:

MarkOlsen wrote: and the ABC only want to cover games at Leederville or Freo for technical reasons so its not really a perfect world whatever way we go as whoever broadcasts it wants it done the easist way to cut costs..

Yeah the ABC will work on a shoestring, actually I thought it was 9 as well that said they would only cover two venues.

Hey they might only cover 2 teams being Peel and EP because of the AFL players


Then again not as silly as it sounds

anchorman wrote: I heard that Nine want to use the WACA ground to play games every week and sometimes double headers.Playing at the one venue saves them moving their gear out every week.Saves on transportation costs.

YES sounds like that is what they would do as they do the cricket and everything would be practically in place for those games except for just the cams and commentators

So teams would have to play at WACA instead of home and away.. Shit that would be good for Peel and Joondy home games Nah only joking.
I suppose the country games would be cancelled due to the teams having to play away from home at the WACA and considering the revenue they would LOSE at Swans and other clubs it would hurt their bottom line

SHIT IT GETS WORSE

anchorman, i havent been to the WACA for a long time. i was under the impresison the venue had removed thousands of seats and replaced them with grassed banks. i guess that would make it very attractive for wafl supporters, unlike the previous arrangement 18 years ago.

perhaps they will play neutral games there like they did with subiaco oval in the 80's

just a thought but the WACA's capacity it barely 20000 these days. would that be a better venue for grand finals rather than subiaco oval that looks empty of GF day? and its only a matter of time before subi gets the bulldozers i think. considering burswood and all.