Jump to content


Rugby League World Issue 402

Try our Fantastic 5-Issue Bundle Offer! For just £18, a saving of 10% on the regular cover price, you’ll get:
The Play-offs Issue - pictured (out 12 Sept) – Covering the climax of the Super League & Championship seasons
The Grand Finals Issue (out 17 Oct) – Grand Final excitement from both sides of the world plus Four Nations preview
The Four Nations Issue (out 21 Nov) – Fantastic coverage of the Four Nations tournament down under
The Golden Boot Issue (out 19 Dec) – A look back at the 2014 season plus the big reveal of the winner of the Golden Boot
The 2015 Season Preview Issue (out 23 Jan) – How will your team perform in 2015? We preview every club.


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

The SKY contract for RL - good or bad?


  • Please log in to reply
299 replies to this topic

#1 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,159 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 08:30 AM

A significant number of people have argued on here the SKY contract we signed to get at TV money has been bad for the game and has had many detrimental effects.

There's arguments that it hasn't really boosted crowds, that it has destroyed the challenge cup, that it is killing championship clubs, that it has brought down the quality of the GB/England international side and ruined international attendances.

AFAIK we had a choice.

1. To take the SKY money in return for creating a small professional elite league.

2. Take well under a quarter of the sum offered by SKY from the BBC and have more control of what we do with our game but remain semi pro.

Where do you think our game would be today if we had remained semi professional??

#2 walter sobchak

walter sobchak
  • Coach
  • 1,862 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 09:12 AM

Can't say that I'm an expert when it comes to the fine detail of the sky contract but does sky have a say in whether there's promotion and relegation and the number of SL clubs?

#3 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 20,042 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 09:19 AM

Without Sky, I reckon that rugby league would now be as big as...lacrosse, real tennis, dwile flunking. Clearly the number of paying spectators has gone up, but the big win comes from the huge amount of money that has been injected into the game by the 150000 to 200000 viewers of the game on Sky.

#4 shrek

shrek
  • Coach
  • 5,858 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 09:31 AM

My tuppenceworth would be that its not been bad for the game, but then I don't think we've made the most of the money coming in and that for me probably stems back to the initial rampant wage inflation as we secured the contracts of our star players who could have been tempted to the newly professional code of Rugby Union or onto either side of the Australian "Super League War". I bet our top earners now don't earn much, if anything more than our top earners then and the reality is some clubs income are still playing catch up.

As an outsider looking in I think the split caused by the initial contract has probably hamstrung the RFL, I stand to be corrected, but it must be hard for the governing body to put in place long term strategies when your flagship clubs have walked away and could do again taking the flagship competition with them.

I'd have thought the drying up of Union converts did as much to "weaken" the GB team as much as the Sky contract no longer seeing the likes of Davies, Tait and Offiah landing in the game.

Not sure the Challenge Cup has/is been/being destroyed, I'd have to dig out the crowd figures but my gut feeling is that crowds are probably much of a muchness but don't look as favorable these days as corresponding league fixtures now attract larger crowds than they did. Plus our major partner in Sky have probably been guilty of talking down/ignoring the comp as it wasn't one the covered, I expect now it's the best thing since sliced bread and they'll big it up throughout the season!

Ultimately we the fans are as bigger issue as the Sky contract when it comes to crowds in the Challenge Cup, we seem reluctant to support anything outside of our season tickets and finals involving our teams!

The leagues below Super League are a mess, there's tough decisions to be made with regard structure and its future that I don't think have been made yet. I don't think the current set up (which to be fair has been covered to death) does anyone any favours and in my opinion is guilty of trying to be all things to all people.

I'm fully aware of your opinions on clubs building in the Championship, but to me this one of our biggest weaknesses for two reasons. Firstly if we can't sell the game in towns such as Oldham that have played the game in one form or another since day one how can we expect to come up with a formula to sell the game outside of the heartlands? Secondly, clubs need somewhere to build momentum, build fanbases structures, cultivate players and grow, forgetting our existing sides, I just don't see how top down expansion in the UK is ever going to work, so for the sake of expansion in my mind the Championships have to provide a solid foundation that clubs can progress through.

Without the Sky contract, I suspect we'd probably be in a similar position today than we are now, the grounds might be shabbier, more players may have been picked off by the RFU and NRL but we'd still be a game focused to much on infighting and divisions that do the game no good with an underlying feeling that we have "the greatest game" but the next crisis is only a copy of League Express away!

Wasn't mean't to be such a long winded reply sorry - guilty of quantity over quality!

#5 Ackroman

Ackroman
  • Coach
  • 1,883 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 10:53 AM

In principle it was good for the game but time is proving otherwise.

#6 Ackroman

Ackroman
  • Coach
  • 1,883 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 10:58 AM

2. Take well under a quarter of the sum offered by SKY from the BBC and have more control of what we do with our game but remain semi pro.


Slight issue with this in that you assume that is what would have happened. Sky have exclusive rights for RL which prevents the RFL collaborating with anyone else. Without an exclusive arrangement in place you have the ability to look at other formats and revenue streams. Since 1995 there's been an explosion of TV channels and on-line media that RL could exploit.

One could argue that the RFL may have been able to build a broader portfolio for the game. Instead of focussing just on SL, they could have sold different competitions, different packages on different formats. In the long run they may have had more money.

Simply RL would have had to have fallen in a bucket of #### and come out sucking it's own thumb.

Edited by Ackroman, 09 December 2012 - 11:03 AM.


#7 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 5,375 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 10:59 AM

It's been good for the top half of the SL. Everybody else is still struggling.

It's been bad for the national profile of the game as very few people watch Sky as compared to the BBC when they had the TV rights.

The money, whilst good, was clearly inadequate to sustain the full time professional league that Sky wanted. This is the next crisis as contraction of SL seems to be on the agenda due to it's basic unsustainability on the Sky money.

It was unfortunate that Sky bypassed the RFL and signed directly with SL and those complicit in setting up an independent company divorced from RFL control and the susbsequent attempts to successfully freeze out the rest of the senior clubs have a lot to answer for from the perspective of the progress of the whole game rather than of SL in particular.

Even when they did accept new members to SL they still wanted their lions share of the money. It's a miracle that Wakefield survived as long as they did following their promotion when they were denied Sky money at the beginning of their SL extistence. The admission of Gateshead was a bold expansionary move but let's be real here, it was a gamble, as are all expansion clubs, and they denied them SL money.If the RFL had been in charge Gateshead might now be a thriving successful SL club. I suppose though that Hull would not so once again the Sky money was not big enough for what was wanted by Murdoch.

So, whilst no one can doubt that the Sky money was helpful and tthe game was in no position to refuse such a gift horse it was 1. Not enough to sustain the desired league and 2. Created a split within the game and the tail now wags the dog. The RFL are toothless tigers.

I think even the movers and shakers in the SL cabal have come to realise the impasse that has developped as regards future sustainability and this is the reason for the wholesale review of thwe game presently being undertaken.

Not only do we have problems with the Sky money not being enough but we have been hit with a double whammy in that the Sport England money which has done so much to kick start the expansion of the game at grassroots level throughout the country has been drastically cut and these new leagues are shinking ominously as a result.

Yes the Sky money has been good but it has been not been the huge success that many claim.

#8 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 14,746 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 11:23 AM

When did the BBC have the rights to the top division?



#9 Johnoco

Johnoco
  • Coach
  • 19,982 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 12:15 PM

How much was the offer from the BBC? Were the BBC planning to show 2 live games a week?

No I don't care if you're if you're into different bands

No cause for so much hatred, I'm just a different man

Pull off that cover, I will too, and learn to understand

With music deep inside we'll make world unity our plan

 

7 Seconds -Walk Together, Rock Together


#10 shaun mc

shaun mc
  • Coach
  • 1,660 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 12:18 PM

And those RL followers that have a Sky Sports subscription are paying too much and are subsidising Premiership football.
Its about time there was more choice within Sky. Surely, paying for what you watch is more likely with the technology that is around, and with that it may provide an opportunity to negotiate with Sky in a different manner. A RL only channel?
It should cost at least 3 times as much to watch football as it does anything else, but the present set-up does not allow any of this to happen.

I don't have Sky Sports because 1. I really dislike Sky as a company and how they go about their business and 2. I can't justify spending another £250 per year to watch a few RL games as I certainly wouldn't be watching every Friday/Saturday night.

#11 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 5,375 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 12:18 PM

When did the BBC have the rights to the top division?


Back in the mists of time, the BBC used to show league matches, Cup matches, internationals, and the Wembley Final.They didn't show Keighley or Batley but the top fixture of the week. The coverage was rotten and was shoehorned around the racing etc on Grandstand, their Saturday afternoon sports show. The whole country knew about RL from that though and they made a star out of Eddie Waring, the commentator.

They also used to sponsor a show called the BBC floodlit competition which was shown on, I think, Tuesday nights. As you can imagine only clubs with floodlights could enter but seeing as how they were mostly the big teams they would feature what you might call the First Division teams, although, perversley Bramley won their one and only trophy when they beat Widnes in the final one year.

Needless to say, at the time there were only two TV channels, the game was broadcast to many many millions of fans instead of the couple of hundred thousand who watch Sky.

#12 Johnoco

Johnoco
  • Coach
  • 19,982 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 12:24 PM

And we can do what about the change in TV viewing demographics exactly? Pretend everyone watches the BBC ?

No I don't care if you're if you're into different bands

No cause for so much hatred, I'm just a different man

Pull off that cover, I will too, and learn to understand

With music deep inside we'll make world unity our plan

 

7 Seconds -Walk Together, Rock Together


#13 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 5,375 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 12:30 PM

I forgot to mention in post #11, the BBC also used to televise the the Players No6 knockout trophy and it's subsequent renamed versions, which was a big competition, back in the 80 s and 90 s. Sponsorship and national TV coverage, not bad for a semi pro game.

#14 Griff

Griff
  • Coach
  • 7,762 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 12:30 PM

Bramley won their one and only trophy when they beat Widnes in the final one year.

.

....ironically, in daylight ... :lol:

Needless to say, at the time there were only two TV channels, the game was broadcast to many many millions of fans instead of the couple of hundred thousand who watch Sky.


No, there were three by that time. The Floodlit Trophy was on BBC2.
"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

#15 Griff

Griff
  • Coach
  • 7,762 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 12:32 PM

Sponsorship and national TV coverage, not bad for a semi pro game.


Sky's not just national. It's international. So is that better ?
"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

#16 tonyXIII

tonyXIII
  • Coach
  • 4,982 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 12:37 PM

Back in the mists of time, the BBC used to show league matches, Cup matches, internationals, and the Wembley Final.They didn't show Keighley or Batley but the top fixture of the week. The coverage was rotten and was shoehorned around the racing etc on Grandstand, their Saturday afternoon sports show. The whole country knew about RL from that though and they made a star out of Eddie Waring, the commentator.

They also used to sponsor a show called the BBC floodlit competition which was shown on, I think, Tuesday nights. As you can imagine only clubs with floodlights could enter but seeing as how they were mostly the big teams they would feature what you might call the First Division teams, although, perversley Bramley won their one and only trophy when they beat Widnes in the final one year.

Needless to say, at the time there were only two TV channels, the game was broadcast to many many millions of fans instead of the couple of hundred thousand who watch Sky.


Mostly correct. It was on Tuesday evenings. However, they only showed the second half of the game. Still, it was TGG on terrestrial TV - brilliant! Oh, there were three channels at that time - BBC1, BBC2 and ITV.

edit to add: I see Griff beat me to the three channels.

Edited by tonyXIII, 09 December 2012 - 12:38 PM.

Rethymno Rugby League Appreciation Society
Founder (and, so far, only) member.


#17 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 5,375 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 12:38 PM

And we can do what about the change in TV viewing demographics exactly? Pretend everyone watches the BBC ?


I don't know about the TV viewing demographics but I would hazard a guess that the BBC still has many millions more viewers than Sky. The money comes from Sky and the national exposure comes from the BBC. I think that why the RFL, who still control the Cup and internationals, keep them of the BBC, to keep the game in the national consciousness. In an ideal world both Sky and the BBC would regularly televise the game with just enough coverage on the BBC to whet the puiblic's appetitie to subscribe to SKY.

Do you not think the size of the viewership reduction from the BBC coverage to the Sky coverage is a negative from the Sky deal. I do and that was what the OP was asking for comments about, i.e. is Sky good or bad for the game.

#18 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 5,375 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 12:39 PM

.

....ironically, in daylight ... :lol:



No, there were three by that time. The Floodlit Trophy was on BBC2.


Thanks for that, your memory is better than mine.

#19 John Rhino

John Rhino
  • Coach
  • 2,501 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 12:41 PM

A significant number of people have argued on here the SKY contract we signed to get at TV money has been bad for the game and has had many detrimental effects.

There's arguments that it hasn't really boosted crowds, that it has destroyed the challenge cup, that it is killing championship clubs, that it has brought down the quality of the GB/England international side and ruined international attendances.

AFAIK we had a choice.

1. To take the SKY money in return for creating a small professional elite league.

2. Take well under a quarter of the sum offered by SKY from the BBC and have more control of what we do with our game but remain semi pro.

Where do you think our game would be today if we had remained semi professional??

A significant number of people have argued on here the SKY contract we signed to get at TV money has been bad for the game and has had many detrimental effects.

Where do you think our game would be today if we had remained semi professional??


Quite simply it wouldn't exist. Union would have gone pro, maybe not when they did, but certainly before 2000, and they would have wiped the floor with us.

Change happens every minute, forget the "what would have happeneds" and lets get this game together!

Derby City - proud to be flying the flag for Rugby League in the Midlands for over 24 years.
 

Visit:  http://www.derbycityrlfc.co.uk and see the progress being made.

 

Follow us on Twitter: @derbycityrlfc


#20 Doghead

Doghead
  • Coach
  • 1,047 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 12:49 PM

Without Sky, I reckon that rugby league would now be as big as...lacrosse, real tennis, dwile flunking. Clearly the number of paying spectators has gone up, but the big win comes from the huge amount of money that has been injected into the game by the 150000 to 200000 viewers of the game on Sky.


So would football, apart from the top 6.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users