Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Gruff

BT Sport Superleague?

48 posts in this topic

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



Rugby League World - June 2017

League Express - Mon 17th July 2017