That’s just my opinion. I tend not to watch simulcast sports and prefer exclusive coverage.
I hardly watch the normal rounds of AFL or NRL these days. And I don’t watch the BBL anymore at all. I just prefer that model and tailor my viewing to that. Alternatively I just follow scores online.
But whats the actual difference? Seven is on digital channels 7,70 and 71 so I take it you dont watch 7?
Very strange to me not to watch something just because its on two channels.
I tend not to. I just don’t like the quality or the prestige associated with simulcasts. They’re tacky. I’m able to watch whatever I want how I want. There’s nothing for you to understand.
For me, simulcasts dilute the quality of the broadcast and take away from the prestige of an event. It’s subordinate to a quality event that attracts exclusivity.
Says who?
If Buzz Rothfield is to be believed (ha, I know) - it looks like this might be the case
SEVEN WANTS TO USE FOX SPORTS CALLERS
Channel 7’s long-term bid to pinch State of Origin TV rights from Channel 9 will be very much geared around using Fox Sports’ commentary teams.
The network’s chief James Warburton is a huge fan of the Fox League channel and will have talks with Foxtel boss Patrick Delany and Fox Sports chief Steve Crawley around a broadcast joint venture and production cost sharing if they can outbid Channel 9.
The likes of Andrew Voss, Mal Meninga, Cooper Cronk and Michael Ennis would be used on both channels.
Warburton has met Commission chairman Peter V’landys and NRL boss Andrew Abdo to launch Seven’s bid for the TV rights.
Seven being cheap and nasty as usual with sports? That’s their modus operandi.
Just lazy and stupid in this day and age when they should really be setting up for a future of Subscription VOD which they look to be deliberately avoiding. And of course they want to hook up with Foxtel 
I don’t mind it - we’ve already seen with Rugby League and Cricket (and likely the AFL next year) that broadcasters having their own commentary teams thins the soup considerably and results in a pretty mediocre outcome all round.
Sharing commentary might actually encourage broadcasters to lift their efforts
Due to Seven also hunting for it, even their CEO speaking to the media and admitting. While possibly an element of tactical play, I’m sure if they didn’t find the required $$$, Seven would’ve been in with a big chance and might’ve scored one or both (heritage brands for them anyway) and most likely to the ratings, ad revenue and Q1 and Q3 respectively detriment, as seen so frequently over the OzTAM era.
I’ve read some truly bizarre posts on this forum over the years. However, reckon this is right up there for being utterly illogical.
Taking your argument to its logical extreme, the start Sydney to Hobart yacht race (for example) is a more prestigious event than the Olympics by virtue of the former only airing on one channel whereas the latter airs on multiple channels in some countries (e.g., the BBC & Eurosport in the UK). That just doesn’t make sense.
So if let’s say the Aus open, Olympics etc become simulcast then you wouldn’t watch them? What ‘exclusive’ sports do you watch then?
For me this not watching simulcast sports argument makes no sense
7 paid for a huge 6 Olympic Games package from 1998-2008 which included Sydney 2000 and had to sacrifice the AFL rights from 2002-2006 shortly after the Sydney Olympics.
Nine paid for 5 Olympics from 2024-2032
The TV landscape might change in 3.5 years time. But if things are to magically remain the same until then, and Seven end up getting the rights to the NRL, then good on them. Nine has had the rights for too long.
The Logies were once a huge feature on Nine. Now, its on Seven.
I too initially hate change. But then get used to it fairly quick
Interesting that Seven and Fox are seemingly increasing their ties. They seem like logical partners given that Nine and Ten have their own subscription arms, however it will be interesting to see whether the relationship stays at a ‘preferred partner’ level like it appears to be now or if they try and merge down the track (pending ACCC approval of course).
I think that a hypothetical merger would be accepted on the proviso that the satellite arm of Foxtel was opened up to competing providers such as Stan and Paramount (i.e. they are able to have linear channels carried on the satellite platform).
Foxtel have to cosy up to seven or they aren’t in the picture as nine or 10 don’t want to deal with them. This is a precarious position for Australian sport to keep signing these simulcast deals.
One thing to remember - the NRL were annoyed when Nine bid for the AFL and also accused the network of promoting Union more than the NRL.
How do you think they’ll cop being a secondary priority to the AFL on Seven?
Not really true, especially as the insinuation seems to be Seven are the ones wanting to partner with Fox.
Fox have maintained AFL and NRL rights for the coming years and it’s doubtful Nine has the ability to fund an all-of-competition rights deal for the NRL with Stan.
As for 10, no sports want to deal with them in the first place so it doesn’t really matter what they think about Fox at this point.
Similar situation happened in 2000 when Nine teamed up with Ten and Foxtel to bid for the AFL broadcast rights. Did the AFL complain at the time of the sport being a secondary priority to the NRL on Nine in Sydney and Brisbane?
Nine/Stan reportedly bid $500m pa for AFL rights and have indicated they’ll bid for all NRL rights
They’ve also got the Olympics now to worry about - as well as a tightening/restricting media market. Whether they can come to where the NRL wants is another matter.
You keep banging on about these terrible simulcast deals that involve Foxtel, but going with Nine or Ten gives you exactly the same kind of deal, it’s just that currently the subscription provider has shared ownership with the FTA provider.
Its easy to say it was the NRL, but it realistically was V’Landys who made the comments, who also has a poor relationship with Nine. He’s reportedly got a much better relationship with Seven