maybe we should line up all the different colour powerade bottles behind him and different lengths of grass in front of him
The article contains a yes/no poll for readers, asking if you were disappointed there was no Roamin Brian segment on Friday. Currently running at a resounding 62% not disappointed. Cop that Brian (and barry).
The article includes the mustachoied nuff nuff saying:�Buddy has been kind enough to give us a couple of minutes as you just saw, but that is it from the Sydney Swans � no-one else, they can�t answer the questions like �how do you think you went today? How did you pull up? Gee, how do you think the young guys went?�
�None of those questions for Sydney, far too hard, don�t want the eight or nine minutes exposure for their sponsors."
Frankly, if that's the calibre of questions then we learn absolutely nothing from the segment anyway. A pointless waste of time that is about, and really only about, placating one man's bloated, voracious and ever-demanding ego. Somehow I'm not buying that altruistic and magnanimous Brian is primarily concerned about the Swans' sponsors getting full value for their dollar. And if he actually cared about Swans fans he wouldn't say about 97% of the crap that he does.
My opinion is objective truth in its purest form
Perhaps the club should adopt a public position along the lines of: well, we don't really mind Channel 7 doing their thing in the rooms after the game, but we'd just prefer it if the person asking the questions wasn't a dickhead, as we've had a long standing policy of "no dickheads". As a solution, is it possible that Daisy asks the questions?
Seems a perfectly reasonable compromise to me.
So spot on!
Brian Taylor should watch the after match interview of Jake Lloyd on Swans TV.
Lloyd post match - Rd 14, 2017 - sydneyswans.com.au
First thing you notice is the questions are vastly superior to what Taylor would ask. And they're asked by someone who knows so much more about the Swans than Taylor does.
Secondly, during the Lloyd interview, you see Gary Rohan in the background being prepared for an interview with Fox Footy. Rohan is prepped with an ear piece and microphone by a Fox employee who treats Gary with respect and shares a joke with him. After being prepped, Rohan has to wait until they cross to him. He is still waiting patiently when the interview with Lloyd ceases.
Our players were available to talk to and would treat any media representative with respect. It would be nice to think that when approaching our club for contact, the media reps would show us the same courtesy.
Regarding our sponsors' value for money, they obviously got it on Friday night when Fox - not Channel 7 - spoke to the guy who kicked the winning goal. And with our record over the last 15 years, I'd imagine our sponsors are fairly happy with the exposure they've received.
Last edited by Sandridge; 25th June 2017 at 01:13 PM.
In regards to sponsors it's not Sydney sponsors that miss out its ch7 sponsors every single week that miss out. I watch Foxtel but if the roaming interview was professionally done with good questions I'd switch over at the end of the game to watch it but with BT performing what is basically 1990's footy show comedy I have no interest in it. That type of comedy routine is dying just like the footy show
Our famed "no @@@@@head" policy obviously extends to commentators too!
Shame on the swans! Obviously someone from our club ducked out and watered the ground at the NRL match that was playing at the same time, too. Players were slipping there as well.
Still, BT has the microphone so I know what all of my workmates here in Melbourne will be thinking. It will be COLA and academies all over again...
BT is spewing. Whingeing that he missed the scoop that Reg loves blue Gatorade and that JPK doesn't like pretzels. The AFL community is outraged.
Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk
I hear you but what's this "required to broadcast"? Don't they pay enormous amounts for the right to broadcast because it rates? Surely with the amount they are paying they can have all the content they want? I would have thought this but clearly I'm wrong because you're explanation makes sense. Also, the 'broadcast deal' - is that with Channel 7 or Foxtel or both? Maybe Foxtel has the greater rights and Ch7 only gets a minimum amount (which is protected to some extent by anti-siphoning laws)?
Bookmarks