TOPIC:

Cesspit wrote: All I know is that Perth were only on tv twice last season, and that will be 2 more times than this season.

If what I was told is true cesspit you will be happy. All clubs will be evenly broadcast. I hope so.

I'm with you winger. Doesn't matter who the club is. All clubs work hard to attract sponsors. Channel 7 and the WAFC knew that 9 is a major sponsor of WP so they have know right to dictate to WP. Just another example on how screwed up the WAFC is.

How come there's only 18 qualifying rounds being broadcast I wonder? Why not go the remaining 4% and broadcast all the rounds?

Singha wrote:

Cesspit wrote: All I know is that Perth were only on tv twice last season, and that will be 2 more times than this season.

If what I was told is true cesspit you will be happy. All clubs will be evenly broadcast. I hope so.

Should be picked week by week. Yeah it would suck if your team is down the bottom and gets bugger all but let's do it properly and show match of the round or thereabouts every week

westaussieguy wrote: How come there's only 18 qualifying rounds being broadcast I wonder? Why not go the remaining 4% and broadcast all the rounds?

Most likely due to non telecast of country rounds and avoiding telecasting on those ffew rounds when the Eagles & Dockers play in 2 different games on the same day

No Compensation for the Cardies when Ch7 force the removal of their sponsor's logo

Sorry for the epic length of this:

West Australian Football Commission chairman Frank Cooper says he sees no reason why West Perth should be compensated for a sponsorship clash which has cast doubt over their three-year deal with Channel 9.



Rival network Channel 7 will begin broadcasting WAFL matches this season, putting the Falcons - who have a Channel 9 logo on their guernseys - on a collision course with the WAFC.



West Perth's deal with the broadcaster, which began last year, is due to run for two more seasons and is thought to be worth around $100,000 per year, making Channel 9 the club's biggest sponsor.



Channel 7 does not want a rival network advertised on televised games.



The conflict has raised questions over whether the Falcons would be compensated for a drop in the value of their sponsorship if it is not advertised on television.



But when the question of compensation was put to Cooper this week he responded: "I don't see why."



"At the time they were negotiating with Nine we told them we were dealing with Seven and we asked them to leave it out," he said.



"They refused on the basis that we couldn't make them, saying 'you don't have a deal with Seven so you can't stop us'.



"As far as I am concerned you make your decision, you deal with the consequences."



Channel 7 will telecast 18 WAFL games, plus finals, this season.



If the games were allocated evenly across the competition, West Perth would likely be on television four times during the home and away season.



Cooper said the WAFC had not set conditions in the broadcast agreement forcing Channel 7 to show West Perth games if the Falcons insisted on wearing the Channel 9 logo.



He said it was for Channel 7 to decide if they would show their rival's logo.



He also said it was up to West Perth and Channel 9 to decide what to do with their sponsorship arrangements if Channel 7 refused to show Channel 9's branding.



Cooper and West Perth president Brett Raponi confirmed talks were continuing between the Falcons and WAFC chief operating officer Nick Sautner in a bid to resolve the issue.



"From our point of view the best for the competition is what we have to aim for and that means having the competition on television and that means Channel 7," Cooper said.



"As far as I am concerned West Perth entered into their transaction with Nine knowing the risk.



"We didn't have a deal with Seven at the time but they knew the risk, we discussed that with them at the time and they chose to take the risk."



Raponi said the Falcons were committed to Channel 9.



"They have shown great faith and supported many initiatives set by the club in our attempts to grow Australian Rules football in the northern suburbs," he said.



"As far as I am concerned you make your decision, you deal with the consequences.""WAFC chairman *Frank Cooper *

The simple question is why should Frank Cooper be anything other than the rest of those who purport to be interested in the WAFC. I have no great love for West Perth; however, they should not move one nanometre with respect to their deal with Channel 9. So according to his comments as outlined in this thread the WAFC have no agreement with Channel 7 to ensure that West Perth will be shown on TV if they continue with their Channel 9 sponsorship.

Could be very interesting if West Perth were to appear in 2 or 3 finals.

I think the question should be, how is the broadcaster and this so called commission both immature pratts!
Are not the Wafl clubs contributing to the broadcast costs? If so, they are the customers and would expect value for their dollars.
Forget the broadcaster - they are simply the broadcaster and nothing more.
cooper and the so called commission should be supporting the Wafl clubs, but often I wonder if this being the case?
Then how is it the broadcaster is now throwing it's weight around even before the bloody season starts? I would have thought the Wafl clubs would be supported, but obviously one of them being pushed around. Why was there not a problem with Guernseys when abc tv were broadcasting? ABC tv simply got on with the job and provided a good telecast. Why is the commission filling the news up with all this silliness, whilst BIGGER issues and questions remain ignored?
This commercial deal is very questionable already!

If what Cooper says is correct, that WP knew that they negotiations were on going with 7 to be the replacement broadcaster it then beggars the question as to why Raponi would continue to negotiate with 9.

I too have not great love for WP and but I support fully their right to have whatever sponsors they can sign up but I would wonder at the business sense of the decision.

I also wionder at the issue when we have AFL games broadcast by 7 at stadia named by companies that are direct opposition to the owners of the broadcasting rights with hoarding that also flies in the face of the rights holders.

seems like a bit of 'any publicity is good publicity' to me!

Seems WP got in first and Cooper has his feathers ruffled. Storm in tea cup now