Amber Avenger

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

656 Excellent

About Amber Avenger

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

5,588 profile views
  1. Ashes exclusive to BT sport.

    Sky have the rights to England home internationals, BT nabbed the Aussie home ones which include the ashes. This did lead on to people thinking BT might nick everything cricket related from Sky, but given the latest extended deal it seems not.
  2. Bradford Bulls.

    Never think it's completely fair to lump Sam Burgess in the "what if" brigade. His head was turned by the NRL and Rusty's giant wallet. I don't think he'd have ever stayed even if the club wasn't starting down that very slippery slope. IIRC, once he'd decided in his own head he was off, in his last few months for the Bulls he was a player going through the motions rather than the wonderkid that had burst onto the scene.
  3. Bradford Bulls.

    Toovey has packed it in the club announced this week, not sure what took so long as it was kind of obvious he wasn't staying. The club has distanced itself from the Sharp talk according to the Yorkshire Post. Edit: If it's Sharp, then he obviously needs to e-mail the club and tell them about the "done deal" that has been reported.
  4. League 1 2018

    "We" got what "one"...?
  5. League 1 2018

    Ooh, a new ground for me to watch us lose on. Was convinced it would be Keighley away first up, must be saving that for good Friday.
  6. premier sports infected

    If you're confident, get on Dragons Den. I wouldn't be.
  7. premier sports infected

    Sky have been forced to share the Premier League by law, if they could they'd have it all. Every other comp they have they are exclusive live rights holders too. Genuinely not sure what competitions in RU sky share with other broadcasters. Crickets battle with Sky is well documented, essentially conceding some value to free to air. They are still overwhelmingly primary rights holders to the stuff people shell out for though and - from the outside - it seems to have been a long fought battle by a governing body with more clout than we are used to. What you are asking is to ask Sky is for them to no longer be primary rights holders but take two games a week, or let two games a week go to another broadcaster, even if that is the governing body. Again, good luck with that, genuinely.
  8. premier sports infected

    You think we could get nearly a quarter of a million people to fork out a tenner a month for RL streams as an underestimate? Before we even get to the point of paying for production and broadcast costs at the other games, carriage deals and hosting costs, this is my queue to exit. If I'm wrong, I'll be first to buy you a virtual pint.
  9. premier sports infected

    Mate, its a comment on how Sky Sports operate. They prefer exclusivity across the board where they can.
  10. premier sports infected

    Again, you are making giant assumptions that people are going to want to buy what we want them to. Sky are notorious for wanting exclusivity - see the Championship deal. They have it just so nobody else does and don't use it. Can't see them going for this in a million years, the RFL doesn't have enough clout. As I said in my previous post, they already have the rights to all SL games, why would they give that up?
  11. premier sports infected

    "Nothing to lose" is a bit much. If Sky cut the last offer in half, which would be bad, it's still 90 Million. I guess the question you'd have to ask is would you have enough confidence the RFL could make 90 Million plus profit (never mind the money put in to get it off the ground) going it alone? And that's clubs getting a pay cut. Would be a braver man than me to commit to that.
  12. premier sports infected

    This is going round in circles. If you genuinely think the only reason we don't have an RL channel is lack of content then all I can say is that's a slightly simplistic point of view. It is nowhere near the main reason. Sky have the rights to the Championship and chose not to use them. That tells its own story. Sky already have the rights to every SL game. Sky had an RL magazine show, they cancelled it. Sky have rights to the Challenge Cup and rarely use them. You cannot tell me popularity doesn't come into it. I really can't pick your argument apart any further, as it boils down to the point I've made in every post so far in that (imo) you have a vastly over inflated sense of RL's importance and value in the current TV market. The basic service you describe is available already just not in a single place - people can get Premier and Sky on the internet, and on Sky/Virgin etc and even more with NRL online next year. Yes it costs more for a combined Sky/Premier sub at the moment so for the RL fan only interested in one sport a single channel or service would be a total bargain. However it would be a huge financial loss for the sport, why would we walk away from a multi million pound deal to go it alone and have to pump millions in with no guarantee we could sell the product back to the channel we've just cheesed off? You seem to think we can just get carriage deals with all these service providers no problems, yet Premier had real trouble getting onto Virgin and still are with Freesports. The reason is they wouldn't stump up enough money. Just because you say we'll sell it to every Tom, Dick and Harry doesn't mean we will. Where I do agree with you is that the RFL need to wise up to the way sport is being consumed. I just thing you are on a bit of a wild goose chase with this idea.
  13. premier sports infected

    So if being internationally known and popular sports is neither here nor there, why do you think Sky have singled them out for their own channels? My point was, they are infinately more popular and reconisable than RL has ever been Bit light on the old money details again I see
  14. premier sports infected

    Football, F1, Cricket, Golf are all internationally renowned and successful sporting products. NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL AFL and Aussie RL are far more succesful in their home countries than RL has ever been over here. Bar the NRL, they are all pretty much world famous leagues. People are quick to look at other sports and say "Why not us", without looking outside of our RL bubble. We can pick and choose elements of what they do and make it work for us, but to copy them wholesale you're just setting yourself up for a major fall.
  15. premier sports infected

    Yep, I understand that people are watching more on demand. With respect though, it still doesn't address any of the dangers I've pointed out and your post is basically buzzwords about how great streaming is (and I agree it is, for certain products). The fact that Sky put a lot of money into the game and RL really isn't that popular in the grand scheme of things have been issues for years, and I have yet to see anyone present a strong business case style argument for how this would improve our fortunes. The sport isn't ready for it, it's over-reliant on Sky's money. If you think being on a secondary Sky Sports channel isn't sustainable, I'm not sure streaming/a solo RL channel is any better. If you think the viewing figures are bad now on a secondary (multi-sport) Sky channel now, then get ready for a shock on a solo RL channel. There are certainly elements of streaming and on demand we can use to our benefit - we've already seen the best and worst this year - early rounds of the Challenge Cup on the BBC website have been great - the England RL friendly not so much. FWIW, I think the sport is also in danger of being offered a reduced contract from Sky next time round, which I don't think it's ready for either.