Jump to content


Rugby League World - Grand Finals Issue

RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD - THE GRAND FINALS ISSUE - OUT 17 OCT OR DOWNLOAD IT NOW!
Try our Fantastic 4-Issue Bundle Offer:
For just £14, a saving of 10% on the regular cover price, you’ll get:

The Grand Finals Issue (out 17 Oct) – Grand Final drama from both hemispheres 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

#21 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 5,613 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 12:57 PM

Sky's not just national. It's international. So is that better ?


I can't answer that as I don't know what revenue RL gets from being shown internationally but I would suspect it's not a lot. I also don't know if any of the BBC coverage was shown abroad. I suspect the internationals were probably seen in Australia and France, but I don't know.

I am not arguing against Sky televising our game, the money is a great help, merely that a negative of their coverage is the relatively small profile the game has on the national consciousness because of the small njumber of Sky customers when compared to the BBC.

#22 Doghead

Doghead
  • Coach
  • 1,049 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 01:14 PM

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!


Been listening to this scenario for 60 years, of course the game would exist, both codes would, what the TV money has done is kept the codes apart. Sky is quiet happy "drip feeding" both codes with small contracts, giving them a year round product to fill their screens with.
Semi Pro rugby league (which would be the way the game would go) is and was a great product, no it wouldn't die eve if Union "wiped the floor with us" as you say, It certainly cant wipe the floor with us as a specticle, never will, no matter how many rules they change or how many "sugar daddies" they have willing to to loose £millions.

#23 EastLondonMike

EastLondonMike
  • Coach
  • 4,225 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 01:15 PM

when the Superleague first came about RL was everywhere, in the news on TV, in the papers, on the radio.. that was because Murdoch had an interest in it being successful and pushed it through all his media outlets, which is exactly what happened with premier league football, blanket coverage across all of Murdoch's media assets, and look where Football is now?.. its always been the most popular sport in the country, but now its at ridiculous levels, all because the Murdoch empire pushed its prized asset. RL could have enjoyed a similar surge, though highly unlikely to those heights, but was held back by the decisions made from within the game..

Sky has been good for RL, as no other broadcaster would have given us anywhere near what we currently have in terms of coverage, but at the same time Sky have often neglected to push and promote the sport to the non RL fans (unlike other sports) and help grow the game. And obviously being exclusively on Sky has mean't our visibility has dropped even more.

The RFL need to push to get every game in a SL round shown on TV, with some games on Sky and some on terrestrial TV.. how and why Sky would agree to that at the moment i do not know.

Newham Dockers - Champions 2013. Rugby League For East London. 100% Cockney Rugby League!

Twitter: @NewhamDockersRL - Get following!

www.newhamdockers.co.uk


#24 Johnoco

Johnoco
  • Coach
  • 20,103 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 01:47 PM

The BBC showed RL for many decades and mostly treated it as a joke event. Why was there a petition in 1976 against the BBC and their treatment of the game (and Eddie Waring) if it was all as great as some people are making out? Yes many people were aware of RL but only in the same way they were aware of Kendo Nagasaki or Mick McManuss...almost a novelty thing.

And I'll ask again, how much money were the BBC offering and how many live league games per week?

#25 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 5,613 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 01:52 PM

when the Superleague first came about RL was everywhere, in the news on TV, in the papers, on the radio.. that was because Murdoch had an interest in it being successful and pushed it through all his media outlets, which is exactly what happened with premier league football, blanket coverage across all of Murdoch's media assets, and look where Football is now?.. its always been the most popular sport in the country, but now its at ridiculous levels, all because the Murdoch empire pushed its prized asset. RL could have enjoyed a similar surge, though highly unlikely to those heights, but was held back by the decisions made from within the game..

Sky has been good for RL, as no other broadcaster would have given us anywhere near what we currently have in terms of coverage, but at the same time Sky have often neglected to push and promote the sport to the non RL fans (unlike other sports) and help grow the game. And obviously being exclusively on Sky has mean't our visibility has dropped even more.

The RFL need to push to get every game in a SL round shown on TV, with some games on Sky and some on terrestrial TV.. how and why Sky would agree to that at the moment i do not know.


I agree with that. You have summed up the situation exactly as it is.

The only thing I can think of as to getting some traction from Sky is to approach all other TV channels, BBC, ESPN, ITV, Premier Sports, Al Jazheera, anyone out there, and see if they would be interested in televising the game and if so, the RFL negotiating team could then go to SKY and have some bargaining chips, i.e. if you don't bend a little we will give the contract to a,b or c, and see if we can still get Sky but without the exclusivity clauses we currently have. If they played ball, then we could approach the BBC to offer them some RL coverage to boost our popularity by exposure to their more extensive viewer numbers.

Will it work ? I have no idea. That's just my suggestion and I have no influence on anything.

#26 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 20,318 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 02:00 PM

So would football, apart from the top 6.

I am afriad I don't see the relevence.


#27 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 5,613 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 02:00 PM

The BBC showed RL for many decades and mostly treated it as a joke event. Why was there a petition in 1976 against the BBC and their treatment of the game (and Eddie Waring) if it was all as great as some people are making out? Yes many people were aware of RL but only in the same way they were aware of Kendo Nagasaki or Mick McManuss...almost a novelty thing.

And I'll ask again, how much money were the BBC offering and how many live league games per week?


Yes they did patronise us as Northern Oiks etc BUT the game spoke for itself and got into millions of living rooms from John O Groats to Lands End and all stops in between. Everybody knew it was a real, genuine sport, not like the fixed and futile wrestling. It was the exposure of the sport to millions which was of value.

What were the BBC offering.? I don't know. In fact that post was the first time I knew they were competing with the Sky offer

Jumping to the present though, if we could get Sky to agree to both their coverage and some terrestrial prime time coverage it would be great for the game..

#28 Johnoco

Johnoco
  • Coach
  • 20,103 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 02:11 PM

Everyone knew it was a sport but they knew wrestling was too. And not many people regarded that as anything other than a bit of mucking about.

#29 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 20,318 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 02:22 PM

And I'll ask again, how much money were the BBC offering and how many live league games per week?


and how many watched..and how many did not go to televised games because it was free on TV.

The naysayers on here seem to me to be unable to come to terms with the changes that have happened in the last 30 years...changes to living patterns and places, working patterns and places, competition for leisure time and money, competition from other sports, new technologies. People no longer live in huddled roews of terraced houses with tin baths and outside lavvies. No longer do we hear the mill hoter nor do we hear the merry banter of mill workers and the sound of their clogs as they skip to work for the early shift at the Acme mill. There never was a golden age for the game. It has always lived a hand to mouth existence, and even during Wigan's dominance in the 1990s, it was still a game run by amateurs in every sense of the word. No one really knows what would have happened had Sky not come along when it did but to imagine that the game would have thrived and survived is self deception of the highest order. Sure, things could be better but in this age of central heating I know of no one advocating sending chidren up chimneys

#30 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 20,318 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 02:31 PM

Keighley' the game spoke for itself and got into millions of living rooms from John O Groas End and all stops in between. Everybody knew it was a real, genuine sport, not like the fixed and futile wrestling. It was the exposure of the sport to millions which was of value.


what value? Even if it were true, no one put any money into the game, not least the BBC.If it were so good back then why did the BBC abandon the floodlight trophy? Why did no one ever go to the games.

#31 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 5,613 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 02:41 PM

and how many watched..and how many did not go to televised games because it was free on TV.

The naysayers on here seem to me to be unable to come to terms with the changes that have happened in the last 30 years...changes to living patterns and places, working patterns and places, competition for leisure time and money, competition from other sports, new technologies. People no longer live in huddled roews of terraced houses with tin baths and outside lavvies. No longer do we hear the mill hoter nor do we hear the merry banter of mill workers and the sound of their clogs as they skip to work for the early shift at the Acme mill. There never was a golden age for the game. It has always lived a hand to mouth existence, and even during Wigan's dominance in the 1990s, it was still a game run by amateurs in every sense of the word. No one really knows what would have happened had Sky not come along when it did but to imagine that the game would have thrived and survived is self deception of the highest order. Sure, things could be better but in this age of central heating I know of no one advocating sending chidren up chimneys


And how many don't either watch or go to games because it';s not on terestrial TV and so they don't watch it and its not on terrestrial TV so they don't even know we exist to even think about going to a game.

I think Sky's money has been a great fillip to the game and I'm glad it is available but it's not without fault.Tthere are some negatives and a narrowing of our TV exposure is one of them.

With regards to your central heating analogy. The ring fencing and removal of an upward progression curve for CC clubs is exactly that. The RFL and SL have central heating, which they got from a grant, and they want it for themselves and they are advocating the CC teams keep spending money on the chimney sweep with no grants being made available to them to upograde to the modern age. In fact they are harking back to the tin bath era and the popular attitude of the time of " I'm alright Jack".

#32 EastLondonMike

EastLondonMike
  • Coach
  • 4,225 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 02:51 PM

I guess with the potential of another competitor in the new BT sports channel and the fact that club RU will be shown on that platform and no longer on Sky (as far as i'm aware) might give the RFL a bit more leverage if they did enter into negotiations on the next TV contract, as much as RL doesn't represent one of Sky's key sports it does get good viewing figures and fills quite a few slots, i'm sure Sky might be more inclined to discuss some improvements (ie sharing games with a terrestrial broadcaster) if they thought they might lose club rugby from both codes, that is of course if platforms such as ESPN and the new BT sports channel would be interested in Rugby League.

that being said if the game did get games on terrestrial TV i genuinely believe there are only a handful of clubs in the game who would be able to exploit this increase in exposure properly with increased advertising streams.

Edited by EastLondonMike, 09 December 2012 - 02:52 PM.

Newham Dockers - Champions 2013. Rugby League For East London. 100% Cockney Rugby League!

Twitter: @NewhamDockersRL - Get following!

www.newhamdockers.co.uk


#33 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 5,613 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 03:03 PM

I guess with the potential of another competitor in the new BT sports channel and the fact that club RU will be shown on that platform and no longer on Sky (as far as i'm aware) might give the RFL a bit more leverage if they did enter into negotiations on the next TV contract, as much as RL doesn't represent one of Sky's key sports it does get good viewing figures and fills quite a few slots, i'm sure Sky might be more inclined to discuss some improvements (ie sharing games with a terrestrial broadcaster) if they thought they might lose club rugby from both codes, that is of course if platforms such as ESPN and the new BT sports channel would be interested in Rugby League.

that being said if the game did get games on terrestrial TV i genuinely believe there are only a handful of clubs in the game who would be able to exploit this increase in exposure properly with increased advertising streams.


I was thinking more of the commentators throwing in free promotions for International Games, World Cups, CC1 expansion,, amateur teams being found all over the country etc and hoping the quality of the game they were watching wouild encourage more people to get involved in the supporting the game. As we are now, I don't think we get near enough exposure to encourage any such increase in supporters.

#34 Marauder

Marauder
  • Coach
  • 11,808 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 03:05 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??

I don't think the argument is about the Sky money, more to do with the way it's being distributed, if the Sky money was given under a criteria that only allows the championship clubs chicken feed then I'd go with the second option (unless the championship clubs are allowed to negotiate their own deals with other TV companies)
Carlsberg don't do Soldiers, but if they did, they would probably be Brits.



http://www.pitchero....hornemarauders/

#35 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 5,613 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 04:15 PM

Keighley' the game spoke for itself and got into millions of living rooms from John O Groas End and all stops in between. Everybody knew it was a real, genuine sport, not like the fixed and futile wrestling. It was the exposure of the sport to millions which was of value.


what value? Even if it were true, no one put any money into the game, not least the BBC.If it were so good back then why did the BBC abandon the floodlight trophy? Why did no one ever go to the games.


You can't put a value of public exposure to the game. Why do you think people come on here and bemoan the lack of press coverage or the BBC listing out results ot their failure to broadcast the SL highlights nationwide at a decent hour ?. I don't know but I could speculate that the reason we got 73,000 to a WC cup final at Wembley back inbt the day and the reason we struggled to get 40,000 to the same venue for the last four nations against the same opposition, Australia, and a double header to boot, is because no one outside the North or watching Sky even knew the 4 nations was on whereas the WC final was on the BBC and we still had a public prescence due to their televising of the game nationswide for many years.

I think the BBC abandoned the floodlight trophy due to budget cuts as usual. I do remember a Hull V Hull KR game in that competition getting a huge attendance to the Boulevard on a Tuesday night plus nationwide TV viewership. I think I remember Leigh getting over 7,000 for a final at Hilton Park. Last season they got 4,000 for a game against Leeds in the later Cup rounds. i don't think the attedndances were that bad but I must admit I am writing from memory here and sometimes I remember Keighley beating Wigan 50 to 0 at Wembley so it's not all that reliable.

I know money was tight but the BBC did put money into the game and so did John Player in the knowledge they would get advertising all over the UK as a result of the BBC broadcasts. Contrast the difficulty finding a sponsor today when the advertisers know they will only be broadcast to 200,000 homes. Sky money is great but a combination of terrestrial and Sky would be better.

#36 shaun mc

shaun mc
  • Coach
  • 1,707 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 04:43 PM

According to the Rugby League Project website the last final in 1979/80 between Hull and HullKR had an attendance of 18,500
That will have brought some decent money in. We'd be shouting that attendance from the rooftops now.

#37 Johnoco

Johnoco
  • Coach
  • 20,103 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 05:34 PM

Several games between FC and Rovers, in recent years have had much bigger crowds than 18K.

Edited by Johnoco, 09 December 2012 - 05:35 PM.


#38 shaun mc

shaun mc
  • Coach
  • 1,707 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 07:21 PM

I'd guess though, that the 18,500 was the capacity of the Boulevard at the time?
The derby v Hull KR in the league in April 1981 also had an attendance of 18,500
And it was a mickey mouse competition according to some

Edited by shaun mc, 09 December 2012 - 07:25 PM.


#39 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 20,318 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 08:13 PM

Sigh. :( It is clear to me at least that the game would have been dead. Despite the intense commitment of people like Marauder, schools one by one would have moved over to union.

Super League attendances totalled 1,743,040 in 2012 (not including Magic Weekend), with only four clubs pulling in less than 100,000 in total (Castleford, London, Salford and Widnes), and Wigan totalling more than 200,000.

#40 Methven Hornet

Methven Hornet
  • Coach
  • 9,496 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 08:19 PM

The simple fact is that the amount of money available from the Sky contract(s) enabled the game to fund a full-time elite competition for the first time in the sports history. Without that money our best players would have been snapped up by the cashed-up Australian game and by the newly professionalised Union game.

For those who yearn for the good old days of part-time rugby there is still the Championship. Why not try and interest the BBC in televising those games?
"There are now more pandas in Scotland than Tory MPs."