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
- - - - -

BBC coverage


  • Please log in to reply
55 replies to this topic

#41 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 20,057 posts

Posted 29 April 2014 - 09:21 PM

I see what you mean,but would ask consideration for this statement."the reduced attendance at CC speaks volumes for the effect of free-to-air coverage of games not included in the season ticket."



#42 C H Calthrop

C H Calthrop
  • Coach
  • 187 posts

Posted 30 April 2014 - 10:35 AM

How on earth can we (as in collective RL fans or administrators) complain about reduced coverage of CC when we don't show up and many question the value of the CC nowadays and talk about changing format because of lack of interest.

 

It would seem to me that the BBC reflects the reduced  interest from fans.  So I would turn your comments around and say "the reduced attendance at CC speaks volumes about fans interest/commitment, etc etc.....

 

The BBC would increase coverage if they saw more interest.

Well we can complain because the BBC have a licence fee so majority opinion does not have to rule. They are pushing women's soccer at the moment, that is not audience led, it is just a new corporate strategy. They reduce the RL because I assume it is in their interests. 

 

You can't have a game on the BBC and then be surprised why fans are not willing to pay twice plus all the extras. You've paid to see it on the Beeb but come on fork out another £50 and come over to the ground. Support costs and following just SL is heavy on the pocket.

 

You can turn my argument round but you will still be left with - What is the counter ploy to falling audience from the BBC? They are still defining RL as a Northern game. The company can't be all that interested in viewership if they artificially limit the exposure of the game on an antiquated notion that disadvantages their own programming. They can't react to reduced audiences with surprise when they minimise exposure in the first place.

And the BBC certainly did not increase coverage with the high interest in the 90's. It is only in 2012 that they made any effort to try and show the league season to a wider audience and then by showing sport in the afternoon opposite re runs of keeping up appearances when nobody is watching.

 

"The BBC would increase coverage if they saw more interest". Any proof of that? 

 

just as a side note , if anyone else noticed. The Saints v Leeds game had the BBC stats at half time. They must make them up as they go along. At half time they had a combined tackle count  of 136. Opta put the combine total for the match at 633. A hell of a game with 497 tackles in the second half. Clearly the BBC are using different methods to acknowledge the type of play than those used elsewhere.



#43 iffleyox

iffleyox
  • Players
  • 56 posts

Posted 30 April 2014 - 12:11 PM

 

 

You can turn my argument round but you will still be left with - What is the counter ploy to falling audience from the BBC? They are still defining RL as a Northern game. The company can't be all that interested in viewership if they artificially limit the exposure of the game on an antiquated notion that disadvantages their own programming. They can't react to reduced audiences with surprise when they minimise exposure in the first place.

And the BBC certainly did not increase coverage with the high interest in the 90's. It is only in 2012 that they made any effort to try and show the league season to a wider audience and then by showing sport in the afternoon opposite re runs of keeping up appearances when nobody is watching.

 

 

But they're not defining it as a northern game though are they - when they cover the match on television it goes to every corner of the UK (except when the Scots are exercising their right to carry their own programming). The BBC can't be singlehandedly either responsible for doing the RFL's evangelising for it, or for holding the game back.

 

Arguably, it's precisely *because* they're not interested in viewers that they're still covering it. There aren't exactly other terrestrial braodcasters queuing up to carry it.

 

It's far more likely that they're defining it *as a sport of minority interest,* which, to be perfectly honest, every sport in the country is with the exception of football, and treating it accordingly. They lost, cricket, union, and almost all club football to other broadcasters who wanted to pay more.... At one point, they had Match of the Day off air for a couple of years because they didn't even have the football highlights!

 

And as for complaining about them sticking it on in the Saturday afternoon "graveyard" when no one is watching, well, they honestly can't win can they? That's when most sport happens. It's only in recent decades that braodcasters have been able to faff around with the fixture list to suit themselves. This is the BBC. It's covering RL terrestrially on tv when no one else is. They'd have a ruddy war on their hands if they bumped Tuesday night EastEnders say for a game which was going to get viewing figures of far less than watch the soaps.

 

The better alternative would probably be evening on ITV4, which no one watches anyway when it hasn't got the football, Union, or IPL on, but, they *are* beholden to advertisers to make a business case for their programming and, for the nth time on this forum, ITV4's interest in League appears to be conspicuous by its absence...

 

In an ideal world a terrestrial broadcaster would cover RL games free-to-air every week across the UK. Then an audience might build despite/regardless of anything the RFL try. This, however, is demonstrably not that world. Those who already like League can pay to watch as many games to their hearts content, and frankly it's good the BBC still show any of it, otherwise the problem would be *none* of the unconverted seeing the sport, not an argument over how many currently get the opportunity.

 

Until such time as the game can primarily through other means build a bigger fanbase to make the case for greater coverage of the Challenge Cup or putting the SL highlights on nationwide at prime time it's going to have to take its chances amongst F1, Wimbledon and athletics (and this year the FIFA world cup).



#44 redjonn

redjonn
  • Coach
  • 879 posts

Posted 30 April 2014 - 12:59 PM

I see what you mean,but would ask consideration for this statement."the reduced attendance at CC speaks volumes for the effect of free-to-air coverage of games not included in the season ticket."

 

you could be right but whatever the reason not many bother to turn up to CC games to convince a media company/BBC that their is much interest.



#45 redjonn

redjonn
  • Coach
  • 879 posts

Posted 30 April 2014 - 01:05 PM

I think iffleyox makes good points/comment.

 

I would also note that the BBC carry more RL than they do many other "minority" sports and not least they don't show much club rugby union either.   

 

Personally I think RFL/Superleague should have split the rights to games so that they could have superleague games on the BBC as well as Sky.  That way could have helped in promoting the game more but they chose to sell all to Sky, so I'm surprised the BBC make any effort at all. Paticularly as whatever they do with RL they get lots of moaning and can never do right - gosh yer still get complaints about their coverage with Eddie Waring. May as well save the licence monies in the cost of covering a RL game and use it elsewhere.


Edited by redjonn, 30 April 2014 - 01:09 PM.


#46 C H Calthrop

C H Calthrop
  • Coach
  • 187 posts

Posted 30 April 2014 - 01:54 PM

But they're not defining it as a northern game though are they - when they cover the match on television it goes to every corner of the UK (except when the Scots are exercising their right to carry their own programming). The BBC can't be singlehandedly either responsible for doing the RFL's evangelising for it, or for holding the game back.

 

Arguably, it's precisely *because* they're not interested in viewers that they're still covering it. There aren't exactly other terrestrial braodcasters queuing up to carry it.

 

It's far more likely that they're defining it *as a sport of minority interest,* which, to be perfectly honest, every sport in the country is with the exception of football, and treating it accordingly. They lost, cricket, union, and almost all club football to other broadcasters who wanted to pay more.... At one point, they had Match of the Day off air for a couple of years because they didn't even have the football highlights!

 

And as for complaining about them sticking it on in the Saturday afternoon "graveyard" when no one is watching, well, they honestly can't win can they? That's when most sport happens. It's only in recent decades that braodcasters have been able to faff around with the fixture list to suit themselves. This is the BBC. It's covering RL terrestrially on tv when no one else is. They'd have a ruddy war on their hands if they bumped Tuesday night EastEnders say for a game which was going to get viewing figures of far less than watch the soaps.

 

The better alternative would probably be evening on ITV4, which no one watches anyway when it hasn't got the football, Union, or IPL on, but, they *are* beholden to advertisers to make a business case for their programming and, for the nth time on this forum, ITV4's interest in League appears to be conspicuous by its absence...

 

In an ideal world a terrestrial broadcaster would cover RL games free-to-air every week across the UK. Then an audience might build despite/regardless of anything the RFL try. This, however, is demonstrably not that world. Those who already like League can pay to watch as many games to their hearts content, and frankly it's good the BBC still show any of it, otherwise the problem would be *none* of the unconverted seeing the sport, not an argument over how many currently get the opportunity.

 

Until such time as the game can primarily through other means build a bigger fanbase to make the case for greater coverage of the Challenge Cup or putting the SL highlights on nationwide at prime time it's going to have to take its chances amongst F1, Wimbledon and athletics (and this year the FIFA world cup).

In showing a Northern game on  national tv then they are making no overt definition of RL. But when they spend decades broadcasting RL as " in the North" and to the North as they still do now with the SLS then that is defining the RL as a Northern game. And in the world of BBC covered sport this approach is exclusively reserved for RL.

 

We don't know who would queue up for RL as it is not on offer or has ever been, at least to the best of my knowledge.

 

They may well be dedicated to classifying RL as minority interest, for whatever reason and in whoevers best interests.

 

I made no reference to Saturday afternoon, but mean't the weekday afternoons the SLS may or may not be shown to grandma's. I don't think keeping up appearances is shown on Saturday.

 

ITV 4 has some top films and re runs of the Professionals. That is sufficient to make it a credible channel. Clearly a lower profile than BBC but some RL ambition from the BBC is the best bet combined with an aggressive promotion campaign from the RFL.  ITV 4 could be a welcome supplementary partner but I'm not convinced that some broadcasters may not wish to consider RL out of obligations to the sports that already have their feet under the table. 

 

I don't think the RL should be grateful for scraps from the table. But you are prompting the idea that inspite of the BBC coverage RL must build a status that is unchallengeable by other means. Of course for decade after decade RL had that status, the top club rugby in the whole of Europe. Didn't stop Rugby Special advertising a game literally watched by one man and his dog. No "and now only in parts of the South" for that programme.

On our budget, with our media partners, well the RFL best spend all the RLWC £ on Tina Turner and her legs.



#47 Futtocks

Futtocks
  • Coach
  • 20,411 posts

Posted 30 April 2014 - 02:51 PM



I think iffleyox makes good points/comment.

 

I would also note that the BBC carry more RL than they do many other "minority" sports and not least they don't show much club rugby union either.   

 

Personally I think RFL/Superleague should have split the rights to games so that they could have superleague games on the BBC as well as Sky.  That way could have helped in promoting the game more but they chose to sell all to Sky, so I'm surprised the BBC make any effort at all. Paticularly as whatever they do with RL they get lots of moaning and can never do right - gosh yer still get complaints about their coverage with Eddie Waring. May as well save the licence monies in the cost of covering a RL game and use it elsewhere.

If they had split the SL rights with Sky and any other free-to-air terrestrial broadcaster, then Sky would have offered a lot less, I reckon.

 

Plenty of RL fans, espcially those feeling the financial pinch, would have gone with the option of having one free match to watch per week, regardless of the teams involved (I know I would), and cancelled their Sky Sport subscription. And RL gives Sky a very good number of subscribers compared to the money paid to the sport.

 

Sky may well have marginalised their RL coverage too. They value the word "exclusive" a lot, as has been shown with Test cricket.


A mind is like a parachute. It doesn’t work if it isn’t open. Frank Zappa (1940 - 1993)


#48 redjonn

redjonn
  • Coach
  • 879 posts

Posted 01 May 2014 - 10:30 AM

If they had split the SL rights with Sky and any other free-to-air terrestrial broadcaster, then Sky would have offered a lot less, I reckon.

 

Plenty of RL fans, espcially those feeling the financial pinch, would have gone with the option of having one free match to watch per week, regardless of the teams involved (I know I would), and cancelled their Sky Sport subscription. And RL gives Sky a very good number of subscribers compared to the money paid to the sport.

 

Sky may well have marginalised their RL coverage too. They value the word "exclusive" a lot, as has been shown with Test cricket.

 

Yep reasonable points... I guess it comes down to short term v mid to longer term perspective. The desperate need for monies today meant no real consideration of wider picture.

 

Although you don't have to package off too many games to try and create alternative TV audience that may help contribute towards growing the game. Also need to consider whether the numbers feeling the pinch will lessen over the next 6 years as the economy grows as distinct than just considering todays environment - whatever the situation better or worse the point is you need to consider broader that just today.


Edited by redjonn, 01 May 2014 - 10:31 AM.


#49 tomdooley

tomdooley
  • Players
  • 26 posts

Posted 01 May 2014 - 11:16 AM

mark chapman fine with brian noble but robbie paul walkabout is poor.

eddie talks far too much in commentary drives me nuts. 



#50 Grollo

Grollo
  • Banned
  • 310 posts

Posted 04 May 2014 - 09:04 AM

mark chapman fine with brian noble but robbie paul walkabout is poor.

eddie talks far too much in commentary drives me nuts. 

You would have thought Robbie would have managed to position himself by now, wouldn't you.


Edited by Grollo, 04 May 2014 - 09:04 AM.

What you are aware of you are in control of; what you are not aware of is in control of you.

#51 Bulliac

Bulliac
  • Coach
  • 2,683 posts

Posted 04 May 2014 - 09:59 AM

To be honest, I think the broadcasters in general just dumb down to the lowest common denominator and assume we all have the attention span of a gnat on speed. Remember those pre-match interviews on Sky a few years back, with the camera operator walking around the person being interviewed and giving us close ups of a moustache at a silly angle or up some players nose? It's not what I got HD for, and that is a fact. The latest Beeb idea of having news presenters wandering about in front of a big graphic board is just another branch of the same condition.To quote a friend of mine - "it does my head in"..


No team is an island.........................................

http://www.flickr.co...s/31337109@N03/

#52 londonrlfan

londonrlfan
  • Coach
  • 842 posts

Posted 04 May 2014 - 10:14 AM

I prefer Sky's coverage, far more professional and you can here the crowd a lot more than on the Beeb. I don't like those weird half time interviews they do either, it comes across as amateur not professional sport. The only problem I have is, Sky tend to call the sport 'Super League' rather than rugby league. 



#53 Bulliac

Bulliac
  • Coach
  • 2,683 posts

Posted 05 May 2014 - 02:10 PM

Stevo constantly calls the game, "rugby league football", which is another of my pet hates; plain, "rugby", would suffice in 99% of cases.


No team is an island.........................................

http://www.flickr.co...s/31337109@N03/

#54 Cake Tiger

Cake Tiger
  • Coach
  • 724 posts

Posted 05 May 2014 - 06:42 PM

mark chapman fine with brian noble but robbie paul walkabout is poor.

eddie talks far too much in commentary drives me nuts. 

 

Is that his name these days?



#55 Wiltshire Rhino

Wiltshire Rhino
  • Coach
  • 2,309 posts

Posted 06 May 2014 - 05:51 AM

If it wasn't for the BBC the only RL on tv would be on subscription channels. The game needs Sky's money but it equally needs the exposure that only the Beeb can give. Yes there are other free-to-air channels but none would get the same viewing figures we get on the Beeb.

If the BBC would pay the same as Sky (I know it's not going to happen) it would be BBC all the way! Exposure will grow the game!

2014 Challenged Cup Winner

 


#56 C H Calthrop

C H Calthrop
  • Coach
  • 187 posts

Posted 06 May 2014 - 01:10 PM

If it wasn't for the BBC the only RL on tv would be on subscription channels. The game needs Sky's money but it equally needs the exposure that only the Beeb can give. Yes there are other free-to-air channels but none would get the same viewing figures we get on the Beeb.

If the BBC would pay the same as Sky (I know it's not going to happen) it would be BBC all the way! Exposure will grow the game!

Yes but RL has had BBC exposure for decades and it now has reduced viewership. Is 6 to 7 games per year with no momentum combined with a lack of ambition and intent behind the productions "exposure"? Perhaps it is but it certainly is not advertisement. 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users