18 replies to this topic

[BelgradeRobin]

Could someone please explain to me why only two SL games per week are televised?
Why aren't the rights to other matches offered to other broadcasters after Sky has cherry-picked its two?
If Sky has exclusive rights, why aren't they offering the games they don't want to other broadcasters for a fee?
Why is every game in the NRL televised?

Our sport sells itself as a spectacle. If people don't see it, we're doing all of this for nothing.

[Padge]

Could someone please explain to me why only two SL games per week are televised?
Why aren't the rights to other matches offered to other broadcasters after Sky has cherry-picked its two?
If Sky has exclusive rights, why aren't they offering the games they don't want to other broadcasters for a fee?
Why is every game in the NRL televised?

Our sport sells itself as a spectacle. If people don't see it, we're doing all of this for nothing.

If you sell the other games then Sky lose exclusivity, they loose that they will offer less.

What's best £80m from one broadcaster or £10m from one and £60m from another?

[gnidir]

I agree completely. There is another thread on here about how you would grow our game, and I think at Superleague level, we really need to build the game around TV exposure, this is the responsibility of Superleague, I would then encourage clubs to develop community ties in thier catchment area.

I would take less money for more exposure every time. With the advertising model that superleague is moving to, with multiple commercial partnerships, more exposure brings in oppurtunities to increase money from other streams.
Having moved to Auckland a year ago, and being around the warriors set up, it really does make superleaague look second rate. The product on the field is as entertaining, but superleague sells itself short time and time again.

They are giving some big coverage to heinz at the minute, but i struggle to see where this partnership goes beyond advertising, likewise the move with Stobart has the right intentions, but if you are going to give away naming rights for exposure, surely you target a media company with multiple platforms, the NRL Telstra deal is exactly this, they run on telstras internet platform, cross promote advertising, its a partnership which benefits both parties. I tend to think that Stobart are doing better from the deal than superleague. Yes, they are a well recognised brand, a great company, and its great that they want to work with us, but when you see a poster on the side of a wagon, does it really make you want to go and watch rugby league? will you remember the website link whilst travelling down the motorway? If you happen to be sat infront of your tv in europe and need a logistics company for something, they are in the picture, plus the loyalties that come from rugby league loyal business owners

Which brings me back on point, I think sky give us great coverage, though the presentation leaves something to be desired. Another thread on here talks about Superleague not working, and I think we actually need a revamp of the TV presentation, not the product on the field, opening games up to more exposure, even by signing an internet deal for pay per view games would improve earning potential and viewer base around the world.

[bazza_merged]

If you sell the other games then Sky lose exclusivity, they loose that they will offer less.

What's best £80m from one broadcaster or £10m from one and £60m from another?

If you can get £10m or more in sponsorship or other revenue from the greater exposure than the second offer is better

[keighley]

I agree. Speculate to accumulate. If the game is as good as we think, then the 10 million becomes 20 million in the next contract and Skye, thinking they might lose one of their biggest viewing sports outside football up their offer to 70 or even 80 million. Not only that I would like to split off the international scene, 4 nations, world cup, mid season internationals etc from cable and put them on terrestrial TV, BBC preferably . The exposure to the greater audience couls seriously rattle RUS Six nations cage..

[Didgi]

Every game televised somewhere is the first major step to being recognised. There's a few options though, choosing the right one might be tricky. Encourage SKY to show more games (hence increasing rights $), even if they're not necessarily live or in the prime timeslots. Encourage SKY to sell off rights to the other 5 games after they've picked the best two. If they're worried about ratings write in clauses that any clashing games cannot be played at the same time as a SKY game. Hopefully this option would get SKY more money and hence they'd pay more for the rights (even if they don't, extra exposure is worth it). Finally, sell SKY only the rights to the top 2 games and another channel the rest. Ideally this wouldn't be detrimental to SKY's offer as they're still getting the same thing, but even if it is decreased by a little the sale of up to five other games elsewhere should make up for it.

From my limited understanding it looks that it may not be worth it to League or SKY at this point of time, because of the effort involved in broadcasting all the games each weekend - the multiple cameras and staff needed, production staff and extra commentators, even video referees - may not be viable at present.

[cookey]

Its not just viewing figures though.In other sports,such as tennis,golf,darts,cricket,there are many advertising breaks,allowing Sky to recoup money and therefore offer more in the first place.

[Didgi]

In Aus Channel 9 play the 2nd Firday night game delayed and pump it full of as many ads as humanly possible, SKY could do the same with games on delay.

[Grinner]

Few points:

- In the UK, not even every Premier League football game is shown on telly, so expecting every SL game to be shown is wishfull thinking.

- If we could get £60 m from Sky and £10 m from someone else I;d be all up for it, but in reality Sky play top money for exclusivity. Think more like two or three deals for £10 m each for non-exclusive coverage.

- The international / World Cup contract is seperate, and hasn't (as far as I know) been announced. Internationals have a much wider reach, and these are the games that we really neeed to have on terrestrial telly (i.e. realistically the BBC). We're going in the right direction with that one, as the last contract had live games on the BBC (e.g. England Aus at Wembley).

Edited by Grinner, 13 April 2012 - 08:15 AM.

[Futtocks]

Few points:

- In the UK, not even every Premier League football game is shown on telly, so expecting every SL game to be shown is wishful thinking.

Correct. RL is not in a position to warrant that at present. But getting more televised matches is something the game must aim for - 4 a week would be good, I feel.

[Blotto]

In Aus Channel 9 play the 2nd Firday night game delayed and pump it full of as many ads as humanly possible, SKY could do the same with games on delay.

The Ch9 is also shown delayed on Sundays and if you don't have Fox, you can watch all the matchs later in the week on Telstras Big Pond Internet and the quality is pretty good for broadband

As far as the Ads on the delayed matchs go, thank goodness Ten don't show them they would add another 30mins in Ads on top

[DeadShotKeen]

The sensible thing would be to allow Sky to continue as currently but look to launch a more expansive 'Super League TV', most likely via the internet. This is how a lot of people watch sport these days and it offers the customer more choice.

With the NBA, for example, you have 2 broadcasters (ESPN & TNT) showing games live but it's by no means every game - maybe 5 each per week per channel. But the NBA itself offers "NBA league pass" - a broadband TV station allowing access to EVERY game via the internet for a weekly/monthly/all season etc. subscription fee. Thus most fans probably make time for TV games firstly but will watch their own team via the internet when they're not on TV if they're ardent enough. Some of the more savvy, hi-tech types will just take the internet channel, those old-fashioned types (like me) or those on a tight budget just settle for the TV stuff. The TV channels don't seem to mind as it doesn't eat into their territory too much and the 2 media probably help each other drive demand so I don't see why Sky should have a serious issue with it.

The key underpinning all this, though, is ensuring that the league is competitive enough to warrant it, which again brings us back to the arguments about who should be in SL, how we get "franchise" players across all teams etc. It's hard to imagine too much internet TV demand for Widnes v London, say, via the net right now but this doesn't mean that would be the case a little further down the line. As we seem to be doing a good-ish job in those departments, there's no reason this shouldn't come into play sooner rather than later.

[Didgi]

The 'soccer doesn't do it so we can't' excuse is really weak. Who gives a ###### what they do/don't get? They have more games for starters.

[DeadShotKeen]

Soccer's TV coverage is so top-ended anyway, hence Sky's 'Super Sunday' approach and ESPN just getting the games involving 1 (but not both) of the big 6. The idea of them bothering with Wigan v Bolton etc. seems beneath them. It's all down to the rigid hierarchy within the sport, which doesn't lend itself to an all inclusive TV model.

It's a hideous model, the exact antithesis of what SL should be aiming for.

[shrek]

The sensible thing would be to allow Sky to continue as currently but look to launch a more expansive 'Super League TV', most likely via the internet. This is how a lot of people watch sport these days and it offers the customer more choice.

I'd agree, the American sports seem very good at getting there highlights etc out there on Apps, be it on smartphones or internet enabled tvs, the contents all there. The NHL app is great, £6.99 a season and whilst I'd never find time to sit and watch a full game extended highlights are a good option.

The 'soccer doesn't do it so we can't' excuse is really weak. Who gives a ###### what they do/don't get? They have more games for starters.

True, and to be fair, if you wanted to watch any English Premier League game on the box you could pubs the length and bredth of the country do it and there seem to be plenty of legitmate (certainly look it anyhow!) online options.

[Didgi]

In the age of technology there's so many options. Recently my Qld Cup team the Northern Pride have set up online streaming (reportedly of a decent quality) of all matches. Access is included in membership packages, or can be purchased (about $5, maybe 3 pounds) individually. It's a terrific initiative and if worked correctly can turn into a neat little cash cow for the clubs.

[Dave T]

Costs are, I would suspect, a major stumbling block.

The NRL and the FA Premier League both have a full set of cameras at every game, meaning that providing extended highlights, delayed coverage, or even full coverage of all games is easy.

The FA can have cameras at all games because of the high demand for live games, both within the UK and abroad, and demand for extended highlights, shows like MoTD get much higher viewing figures than things like our Challenge Cup Final.

The NRL have the demand for their games live and recorded because their culture is completely different. The level of sports coverage on terrestrial TV is staggering, and just wouldn't be replicated over here.

I'd like three games, possibly split over two broadcasters, or maybe just one extended highlights - I actually think that at the SL Launch that is what Sky provided, Live games on Friday and Saturday, plus extended highlights of a game on Sunday evening.

[Spookylish]

Thus most fans probably make time for TV games firstly but will watch their own team via the internet when they're not on TV if they're ardent enough.

That only applies to fans that don't live in that area though. Most fans are local and the local sports channel will broadcast every single one of it's home team(s) games so it's not really comparable to the situation in the UK.

I agree that the internet route might be a good bet for extended coverage or even highlights, especially when you consider that the games can also be viewed via games consoles/Apple TV etc. MLB.tv appears to be having massive success and the annual cost for what you're getting is extremely reasonable.

Edited by Spookylish, 13 April 2012 - 05:10 PM.

[Sir Galahad]

Its not just viewing figures though.In other sports,such as tennis,golf,darts,cricket,there are many advertising breaks,allowing Sky to recoup money and therefore offer more in the first place.

Is there not an argument then to increase ad breaks during the game? I know they do this in Aus at certain points (say for 30 seconds) or perhaps divide the game into four quarters a la American football to maximise advertising revenue?