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
- - - - -

BT Sport Superleague?


  • Please log in to reply
47 replies to this topic

#21 Just to be clear

Just to be clear
  • Coach
  • 330 posts

Posted 30 July 2013 - 12:59 PM

plus dual tv rights seems to work for the NRL...why not here?


Just to be clear, the pay TV market in Australia is much smaller than it is in the UK and there are fewer commercial restrictions. Australian networks can afford to compete for domestic sport rights and are the major partners in NRL and AFL with the pay TV companies buying what is left.

This is the exact opposite of what the situation would be here, where no major network would be able to afford to be the primary broadcaster, and Sky are in a much more powerful and dominant position than their Australian counterparts to need to whatever rights remain to build their business around.

The two markets are completely different. If it was so simple other spots would do it. No other sport in England has a professional domestic league with coverage on a free to air network, and when the BBC tried with the Football League between the combination of the ratings and cuts it was considered not worth it and so the deal was not renewed.

In Australia Seven, Nine and Ten can afford to spend more on sport than than Fox.

In the UK Sky can afford to spend more on sport than the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 or Channel 5.

And that not withstanding, as others have said, that the status of rugby league is completely different in Australia. It is more akin to what the Premier League is here, not Super League. Just because they are the same sport does not mean the two competitions have the same levels of interests or value in their respective countries.

#22 Just to be clear

Just to be clear
  • Coach
  • 330 posts

Posted 30 July 2013 - 01:04 PM

sky own the tv rights so they can show as many as they want..ie thursday nights,friday nights,saturday evenings & monday nights...so they can show over hundred if they wish...


Just to be clear, Sky only own the rights to show up to 70 Super League matches, which includes the playoffs and Grand Final. No more. With all of the Magic Weekend this allows two matches per round plus two extra for bank holidays or rearranged fixtures.

This year they will show 73 live matches in total, Super League, WCC, Exiles, and two Challenge Cup semi-finals. They still have one Super League match remaining they could show, which last season they used showing the Catalans v Bradford games on the red button so they could still repeat that.

#23 Pottsy

Pottsy
  • Coach
  • 3,535 posts

Posted 30 July 2013 - 02:14 PM

Just to be....whatever.

A few people here really need to differentiate between opinion and fact and learn to be a little more courteous to one another.

#24 Ackroman

Ackroman
  • Coach
  • 1,913 posts

Posted 30 July 2013 - 03:38 PM

I'm looking forward to BT sport being a BT customer. I think it's reasonable to pay £15 a month for broadband and premier league football.

 

The thing is, it take innovative moves like this, plus the buying power of BT to compete.

 

So what stops Channel 4 or ITV getting into bed with Orange (or whoever) and bidding for a sport like RL? They can offer one of their digital slots (like more4) to be a sport channel.

 

Edit: How many RL fans would switch to orange broadband and mobile for a much reduced pay TV channel for RL?


Edited by Ackroman, 30 July 2013 - 03:39 PM.


#25 Pottsy

Pottsy
  • Coach
  • 3,535 posts

Posted 30 July 2013 - 04:15 PM

I would but before we ditch the security of sky after a 20 year period where they've basically kept the sport afloat, it's worth considering the plight of ITV digital, Setanta, ESPN and all the other 'young pretenders' who've come along during that period.

#26 Bleep1673

Bleep1673
  • Coach
  • 3,430 posts

Posted 30 July 2013 - 04:40 PM

I think this argument is very academic, as BT have never, ever shown any kind of interest in RL whatever.

When the renamed their mobile phone branch, remember what it was called, and what major sport does it sponsor? That's right! Rugby Union and it's O2.

No interest in RL - I repeat.
Swinton RLFC est 1866 - Supplying England with players when most of your clubs were in nappies

#27 Doghead

Doghead
  • Coach
  • 1,049 posts

Posted 30 July 2013 - 04:41 PM

Just to be clear, the overnight rating was 898k. Which is about average for cup matches, so why would the BBC want to show a live game every week when a Dad's Army repeat can get 1.4m viewers? As it is they have cut back the number of cup games they shows in rounds 4 and 5 even though they normally have two all-Super League ties they could show.

Sky pay a premium for exclusivity, if you sell games to another channel it does not meant they will walk away, but the amount they pay will be less. Is it worth losing income in favour of greater exposure, assuming a major free to air channel was interested? The RFL thought that logic made sense recently, and were thoroughly lambasted for it.


Just to be clear, I agree but Sky will be showing the Celtic league from 2014 to replace their lost English Premiership coverage. Which is also when BT are hoping their power grab will see them showing European game instead anyway.

I would be shocked if the Sky contract did not prevent the RFL selling any major Super League sponsorship rights to rival broadcasters. It should be a standard clause in any agreement, including for all other sponsors. But clubs are separate businesses, which is why Hull and Warrington were both sponsored by Magners at the John Smith's Stadium in the Tetley's Challenge Cup.

Read somewhere that the exclusive clause in the contract is worth an extra £2 million .



#28 Ackroman

Ackroman
  • Coach
  • 1,913 posts

Posted 31 July 2013 - 07:35 AM

I would but before we ditch the security of sky after a 20 year period where they've basically kept the sport afloat, it's worth considering the plight of ITV digital, Setanta, ESPN and all the other 'young pretenders' who've come along during that period.


They weren't selling Broadband. It's a model to copy that allows limited budgets to become more powerful. The BBC purchases limited rights from SKY so it's just a case of getting the right companies together.

However, if we are to believe the doom mongers then no-one is interested in RL anyway.

#29 markleeds

markleeds
  • Coach
  • 1,668 posts

Posted 31 July 2013 - 08:03 AM

I don't believe that BT would not have any interest in a sport that delivers 200k viewers on a regular basis and would help keep viewing numbers up over the summer.

#30 gingerjon

gingerjon
  • Coach
  • 29,263 posts

Posted 31 July 2013 - 09:17 AM

I would but before we ditch the security of sky after a 20 year period where they've basically kept the sport afloat, it's worth considering the plight of ITV digital, Setanta, ESPN and all the other 'young pretenders' who've come along during that period.

 

I've been very disappointed by the lack of intelligent purchasing of other sports from BT. 38 Premier matches plus Aviva club union union is not going to get paying subscribers once the free deals end. They've also not got a decent web presence and they launch tomorrow.

 

I'm not sure they'll be around for long unless they sort themselves out.


Cheer up, RL is actually rather good
- Severus, July 2012

#31 Bostik Bailey

Bostik Bailey
  • Coach
  • 1,690 posts

Posted 31 July 2013 - 10:18 AM

I've been very disappointed by the lack of intelligent purchasing of other sports from BT. 38 Premier matches plus Aviva club union union is not going to get paying subscribers once the free deals end. They've also not got a decent web presence and they launch tomorrow.

I'm not sure they'll be around for long unless they sort themselves out.


Agreed, I'm on BT broadband, but haven't taken the free offer up, because its only for 1year, I'll forget to cancel it and I won't watch any if it.

It doesn't have any uniqueness about it, obviously the RU fan now has a single supply of RU, but unless they expand their portfolio then I can see problems.

How much have they paid for RU, if it is a lot then ITV digital beckons.

#32 robinson2

robinson2
  • Coach
  • 105 posts

Posted 31 July 2013 - 10:33 AM

RU is still split because the Heineken (and Amlin?) will still be on Sky Sports and the MagnersRaboCeltic Pro14 is on a number of channels (BBC2 NI where I live) but they paid £152m over 4 years.



#33 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 15,086 posts

Posted 31 July 2013 - 12:07 PM

Wasnt there sonething in BT's deal about English european cup games? I remember there was controversy about this. If this is pure Aviva Premiership it is a ludicrous amount of money.

#34 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 16,929 posts

Posted 31 July 2013 - 12:44 PM

Wasnt there sonething in BT's deal about English european cup games? I remember there was controversy about this. If this is pure Aviva Premiership it is a ludicrous amount of money.

The BT deal for union is just the English domestic league games, not including the two European competitions.  It's also not really that ludicrous, £152m doesn't even cover three quarters of the salary caps of the clubs, never mind the marquee player costs to clubs.

 

BT have given me a permanent freebie pass for BT Sport as long as I'm a customer, first 12 months comes with HD free on Sky then it's £3 per month after that if I want to keep watching in HD.  That's a very compelling deal for anyone interested in union club games.  (p.s. that deal expires today if you want the 12 months of HD for free).

 

If I didn't have a BT account and BT had paid even like-for-like as Sky for the RL games then I'd happily have transferred my account from a different supplier to them to get it for that price.  £36 per year is an absolute bargain compared to how much I pay Sky.


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#35 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 16,929 posts

Posted 31 July 2013 - 12:51 PM

I've been very disappointed by the lack of intelligent purchasing of other sports from BT. 38 Premier matches plus Aviva club union union is not going to get paying subscribers once the free deals end. They've also not got a decent web presence and they launch tomorrow.

 

I'm not sure they'll be around for long unless they sort themselves out.

I'd disagree with that.  BT can subsidise itself like almost no other UK technology company to get a foot in the market.  Even if BT Sport is massively loss-making then they have all the group profits behind it to ensure that it not only survives but continues to get under Sky's skin as it clearly has already.

 

That subsidisation makes them the only real competitor for Sky.  Sky subsidises the massively inflated price of football, that it deliberately inflated to get rid of competition, by essentially spreading the cost over all their subscribers, including those who haven't got Sky Sports.  If you're paying Sky any money then you're most likely subsidising the English Premiership, whether you want to or not.


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#36 Gruff

Gruff
  • Coach
  • 649 posts

Posted 31 July 2013 - 01:02 PM

The BT deal for union is just the English domestic league games, not including the two European competitions.  It's also not really that ludicrous, £152m doesn't even cover three quarters of the salary caps of the clubs, never mind the marquee player costs to clubs.

 

 

No it's not - its up to £152m for Aviva and European games, with the European games being a sizeable amount of the £152m.

 

The split was meant to be something like £100m Aviva, £52m European.

 

There was controversy because the clubs have sold the european games to BT when they aren't theirs to sell.



#37 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 16,929 posts

Posted 31 July 2013 - 01:09 PM

No it's not - its up to £152m for Aviva and European games, with the European games being a sizeable amount of the £152m.

 

The split was meant to be something like £100m Aviva, £52m European.

 

There was controversy because the clubs have sold the european games to BT when they aren't theirs to sell.

Really?  When I spoke to BT, they sent me the season's fixture lists for all of their "rugby" and it's only Premiership games on the list, no European games at all.

 

Edit:  I just looked at the BT Sport website and in their full lineup list it's quite clearly stated that they're showing the Aviva Premiership, no mention of European competitions.


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#38 gingerjon

gingerjon
  • Coach
  • 29,263 posts

Posted 31 July 2013 - 01:17 PM

Europe from next year I thought?


Cheer up, RL is actually rather good
- Severus, July 2012

#39 Gruff

Gruff
  • Coach
  • 649 posts

Posted 31 July 2013 - 01:19 PM

Really?  When I spoke to BT, they sent me the season's fixture lists for all of their "rugby" and it's only Premiership games on the list, no European games at all.

The Sky deal runs out in 2014, hence no advertisement for European games on BT.  The £152m included European games once the sky deal finished for 3 years  - £14-18m a year from 2014-2017

 

However, this European aspect is in limbo because the Premiership clubs had no right to sell these games to BT, the European competitons are owned by the ERC, and theirs to sell.

 

Hence why all the press releases stated up to £152m - it's all dependent on BT getting the European structure they want and getting the rights to show all English club games in it - something that requires a full restructure and more English clubs getting places and less Celtic clubs getting places.

 

The European side is a bit of a mess, but the aviva side is secured, but only worth £25m-£30m per year.  This is comparable to what SL get from Sky.



#40 nadera78

nadera78
  • Coach
  • 2,983 posts

Posted 31 July 2013 - 01:25 PM

The Sky deal runs out in 2014, hence no advertisement for European games on BT.  The £152m included European games once the sky deal finished for 3 years  - £14-18m a year from 2014-2017

 

However, this European aspect is in limbo because the Premiership clubs had no right to sell these games to BT, the European competitons are owned by the ERC, and theirs to sell.

 

Hence why all the press releases stated up to £152m - it's all dependent on BT getting the European structure they want and getting the rights to show all English club games in it - something that requires a full restructure and more English clubs getting places and less Celtic clubs getting places.

 

The European side is a bit of a mess, but the aviva side is secured, but only worth £25m-£30m per year.  This is comparable to what SL get from Sky.

In which case they've paid way over the odds, given the ratings.


"Just as we had been Cathars, we were treizistes, men apart."
Jean Roque, Calendrier-revue du Racing-Club Albigeois, 1958-1959