Quote: William Eve "You might help your cause if your first sentence actually contained a fact as opposed to some bizarre, agenda-driven assumption or accusation of an erroneous nature.
It's still an obscure TV channel which isn't watched by very many people. Why can't the Seven network show some of the RLWC games on it's higher profile channel Seven instead?
No different? You are being rather economical with the facts there aren't you? Every game in the RUWC of 2011 was shown live on Fox Sports via Foxtel or Austar, 9 games were shown live on Channel Nine itself whilst they showed some on GEM. That is a very different situation to the coverage of the RLWC of 2013 which is being broadcast in it's entirety on an obscure blokey/matey/bogan TV channel whose TV audience usually hovers around 2% to 3% of the total TV viewing population.'"
Don't be so defensive, it's not a good look.
Let's be honest here. If Fox Sports had picked up the rights you'd be whinging and saying it's terrible since it only has a penetration rate of ~30%. As it is we get every game in HD and everyone in the country has access to watch it.
I'm not sure why you think they're obscure channels either. The Ashes on GEM and the one-off soccer game between Liverpool and Melb Victory on 7Mate out-rated the main channels. Channel 7 is already promoting the WC in ads to let people know it's on 7Mate.
If the worst thing you can complain about is that the FTA HD sports channel is 'blokey' then you're really moaning for moaning's sake...
