Show us on TV or show us the money: Raiders

[skeepe]

Show us on TV or show us the money: Raiders


BY CHRIS DUTTON, RUGBY LEAGUE


Canberra Raiders chief executive Don Furner has asked the NRL to help his club secure more free-to-air television games in future seasons, or compensate it for its lack of exposure.

Furner arrived back in Canberra last night after spending the past two days at the NRL club chief executives' meeting in Sydney.

With the current television deal due to expire at the end of 2012, Furner wanted the Raiders to get their ''fair share'' of free-to-air games to give regional fans a chance to see their team. The Raiders have appeared on Channel Nine in just six of their 72 regular-season games since the start of 2007.

They had only two matches shown on Channel Nine last season.
While Furner conceded that was unlikely to change before the end of 2012 unless the Raiders became a regular top-four side, he hoped a new television deal would change the distribution of free-to-air games.

''We talked about hopefully some parity in the next TV deal and hopefully we can get a fair share of free-to-air games,'' Furner said.

''It's still not guaranteed, I just put our case forward that maybe if we can't get a minimum number of games of free-to-air then maybe we should be compensated.

''We've just got to keep pushing our case because it is important to us.''
The NRL's next television deal is expected to attract a record price tag and will allow clubs to have a higher salary cap.

The forum allowed club bosses to put forward their ideas to improve the competition as it drives into the future.

NSWRL general manager continued his push to make the NSW Cup a stronger competition with the possible inclusion of Canberra and Manly in 2012.

However, Furner said the Raiders wanted to keep their link with Queensland Cup side Souths Logan.

''They would love us to be back in there in 2011, but we've indicated that unless they come up with a plan our preference would be to stay with Souths Logan,'' Furner said.

''I think they are going to try and get us a partner in Sydney, but it has to be an acceptable partner for us.

''We're in a different kettle of fish to teams like Manly and Newcastle ... we haven't got a team to partner up with and Souths Logan has been working for us.''

Clubs also agreed that the McIntyre finals system should be retained in its current form for next season.

There was a unanimous view that the system provided the minor premiers with an advantage of being protected from elimination in the opening week of finals.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/new...-tv-or-show-us-the-money-raiders/1694873.aspx

100% agree with this. It is a tremendous advantage to clubs to be shown on free to air television, especially when it comes to securing sponsorship - the life blood of any club.

For clubs that are unfairly discriminated against by the networks, some form of compensation for loss of opportunities and exposure should be forthcoming, otherwise we will always have teams that are at a huge disadvantage.

Oh and we can put away the old "if you're successful you'll get shown" argument, because even as a top 4 team in 2003 we only had something like 3 or 4 games on free to air.

Since 2007, the median for games shown on free to air is somewhere around 30, while the Raiders have had just 6. Unacceptable.

 

[lturner]

100% agree with this. It is a tremendous advantage to clubs to be shown on free to air television, especially when it comes to securing sponsorship - the life blood of any club.

For clubs that are unfairly discriminated against by the networks, some form of compensation for loss of opportunities and exposure should be forthcoming, otherwise we will always have teams that are at a huge disadvantage.

Oh and we can put away the old "if you're successful you'll get shown" argument, because even as a top 4 team in 2003 we only had something like 3 or 4 games on free to air.

Since 2007, the median for games shown on free to air is somewhere around 30, while the Raiders have had just 6. Unacceptable.

I agree with you. Every club should play roughly equal number of games in each timeslot.

 

[Joker's Wild]

I agree too fellas but as long as TV stations run/dictate our competition things will never be fair in terms of FTA exposure

 

[The Tank]

Gotta agree.

 

[Joker's Wild]

*Double post*

 

[Timmah]

Simple. You don't rate. I don't know what your club can do about that, but other teams rate far more, that's how it gets cut.

 

[Babyface O'reilly]

Simple. You don't rate. I don't know what your club can do about that, but other teams rate far more, that's how it gets cut.

Agreed. That team they had in the late 80's rated and until they get a quality side like that again, we're not going to see too much of them.

 

[Simo]

Its a fair point but Canberra need to go back to being a team people want to watch. You can continue to be 'building' forever, I hope your management can sort things out for the club, I miss the Green Machine of the 90's.

 

[skeepe]

Simple. You don't rate. I don't know what your club can do about that, but other teams rate far more, that's how it gets cut.

But they do rate. The f**kwads at 9 just never give them a chance. Meanwhile, Fox love the ratings that the Raiders bring.

The point is though that it's a massive commercial benefit to the clubs that receive more than their share of coverage. As a result, those that do not receive the benefit should receive compensation.

 

[Baron Vo Mandor]

Why would FTA channels pay us more and be forced to put on teams that don't rate as much????

Can someone please explain?

 

[[FKN-SIK]]

How about getting a decent team first and being competitive?

 

[Timmah]

But they do rate. The f**kwads at 9 just never give them a chance. Meanwhile, Fox love the ratings that the Raiders bring.

The point is though that it's a massive commercial benefit to the clubs that receive more than their share of coverage. As a result, those that do not receive the benefit should receive compensation.

If they rated, they'd be on more. They only rate on Pay TV because there's no other option and often that's opposition fans watching.

 

[E.T.D]

If teams get little or no free to air coverage, wouldn't it make sense that their financial distribution from the NRL is boosted whilst teams that get most games on free to air gets reduced.

 

[Russell Crowe's Band]

theyre quite an exciting team the young raiders.

id much rather watch them than many teams in the comp.

they dont rate in battlerville. big deal. the FTA should be fair

 

[Scarves]

It's simple, either get Canberra on TV with the same exposure as over exposed clubs like Parramatta and Brisbane, or subsidise what they are losing for not having the equal exposure. It's no good having a fair comp with "equal" salary cap but then keeping these guys down.

 

[Paullyboy]

Simple. You don't rate. I don't know what your club can do about that, but other teams rate far more, that's how it gets cut.

You do realise that the only way you will ever rate is if you are given a fair chance in the first place dont you?

If you are new to a sport, and the same team is always on TV, you are naturally going to watch them because you associate with them. Take the premier league for example, I know bugger all about soccer but if I had to pick a team it'd probably be one of the big ones because they are on TV, and lets face it - I dont like soccer enough to go out of my way looking for some abandoned team on an internet forum.

If the Raiders (or any team) were shown consistently, they would rate more and more as time progressed.

 

[Paulie Jay]

Just from a viewer's perspective I do get sick of seeing the same teams every week on the TV. To be honest I wouldn't mind watching the bottom two teams play each other just for the variety. But I do also understand that when it comes to television it's the number of viewers that is important, and regardless of the Raiders' actual pulling power it is the perceived lack of pulling power that is sinking them with Channel 9.

 

[Bulldog Force]

It's quite sad when you think about it, that there are other teams on the ladder well below the Raiders who get more time on tv that the Raiders themselves.

 

[ozjet1]

the league needs to introduce a fixed schedule rather than the BS flexible scheduling policy that's essentially determined by C9.

contrary to what many people think, the ratings wont be worth less. proper planning , foresight, and consultation to ensure potentially massive games are scheduled in the primetime Friday night slot can still be achieved. the AFL have successfully done this over many seasons, and the NFL do it too with their Sunday night and Monday night football concept over in the US.

the added benefits for season ticketing make fixed scheduling a no brainer. the current setup is convenient only to no-lifers who plan their life month-to-month around the networks schedule. having the schedule set at the beginning of the year will ensure that fans know when games will be on and make a season ticket purchase a much more viable option.

 

[Bulldog Force]

I've had enough with Monday night football to be honest. I don't understand how low crowds at games is something the NRL are persisting with. They will get much bigger attendance on Sunday afternoon. Hell Saturday afternoon or Sunday night will be better.