Jump to content





Photo
- - - - -

BT Sport Superleague?


  • Please log in to reply
47 replies to this topic

#41 Cherry and White

Cherry and White
  • Coach
  • 2,413 posts

Posted 31 July 2013 - 01:34 PM

may 21

 

http://www.therugbyp...r-heineken-cup/


HOLD ON TIGHT TO YOUR DREAM.

liverpool fc-rome 1977
wigan rl-wembley 1985
redsox-2004
GB RL-?????
Lancashire cricket 2011

#42 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 15,724 posts

Posted 31 July 2013 - 01:49 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.

 

 

A couple of other posters have clarified the situation since this so i won;t go over that, but had the £152m just been for Prem games then that is ludicrous considering the viewing figures. Sure they may be able to pull in a few of the prestigious RU sponsors, but low viewing figures mean that they won't also pull in the mainstream advertisers.

 

As it turns out is appears to be around £25m per year which seems much more realistic.



#43 Gruff

Gruff
  • Coach
  • 655 posts

Posted 31 July 2013 - 01:56 PM

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

I wouldn't say way over, but certainly more than what Sky were offering obviously. BT were always going to come in high to ensure they got the rights.

 

Imagine if they hadn't - they would be selling their "Launch" based on Football only - and only 38 games at that.  They needed another sport and the RU rights were up for grabs. I imagine the next TV Contract will be similar or only slightly higher, depending on whether Sky see a £100m drop in revenue because of losing the RU rights and decide to up their bid to get them back.

 

The other thing to consider for BT is how much they can get for International rights.  They might have paid over the odds just based on Uk figures, but if they then sell them on exclusively to Aus/NZ/SA/Arg/Fra etc... at £5m per year, then they have got their money back.



#44 Cherry and White

Cherry and White
  • Coach
  • 2,413 posts

Posted 31 July 2013 - 02:10 PM

the times reported on 18/09/2012 that the breakdown of the deal was...

 

£88m over 4 years = £22m per year for the premiership

 

£64m for European rights.


HOLD ON TIGHT TO YOUR DREAM.

liverpool fc-rome 1977
wigan rl-wembley 1985
redsox-2004
GB RL-?????
Lancashire cricket 2011

#45 Gruff

Gruff
  • Coach
  • 655 posts

Posted 31 July 2013 - 02:15 PM

the times reported on 18/09/2012 that the breakdown of the deal was...

 

£88m over 4 years = £22m per year for the premiership

 

£64m for European rights.

 That's right - this was only £4m per year more than their current deal.  Not exactly ground breaking.  If BT won it by offering this amount, makes you realise what Sky thought of their current deal



#46 Bostik Bailey

Bostik Bailey
  • Coach
  • 1,691 posts

Posted 31 July 2013 - 02:31 PM

This interesting. I wonder how it will pan out because like it or not, RU has further ghettoised itself away from a mainstream sports channel, at the moment.

It will be interesting to see how the ratings come in. And how this will affect exposure

#47 Duff Duff

Duff Duff
  • Banned
  • 717 posts

Posted 31 July 2013 - 04:01 PM

This interesting. I wonder how it will pan out because like it or not, RU has further ghettoised itself away from a mainstream sports channel, at the moment.
It will be interesting to see how the ratings come in. And how this will affect exposure


It won't effect exposure. Outside a few provincial strongholds Club Rugby Union doesn't have mass market appeal.

Rugby Union's revenue and wealth is driven by the international game. Sky have the rights to England's and Ireland's international matches sown up whilst the Six Nations is still viewed as a "Crown Jewel" by the BBC. The wealth and media exposure of international game is then filtered down to the lower tiers.

People should realise that the people who watch club rugby week in and week out by and large are not the same people who fill Twickenham to the gunnels for internationals. There is surprisingly little crossover and many club Rugby Union diehards have a thinly veiled contempt for the casual and corporate nature of the Twickenham crowd.

The trick that English Rugby Union has pulled off is to sell two different products to two different groups of people. They don't have to milk the same cow twice for club matches and internationals.

Like the ESPN deal I can't see the BT Vision deal having a real impact on the popularity of club Rugby Union. It is a niche product with a niche appeal and those that want to watch it on TV will find a way of doing so.

#48 shrek

shrek
  • Coach
  • 5,945 posts

Posted 31 July 2013 - 04:13 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.

I'd be in agreement, it'd be a brave person if and when the switch is ever made, I suspect if you jump ship and it doesn't work out Skys track record seems to indifcate they will be they'll be playing hardball if you go back cap in hand and we'd risk getting less.

 

I think we all crave more cash coming in from TV deals and sponsorship, but would it fix our problems or just lead to the same problems but with bigger numbers fastened to them?  If money floods in and all that happens is wages go up then fair play to the players they deserve it but the sport will still be were it is today, you'd have to ring fence plenty for the greater good of the game.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users