Michael Carter / TV deal etc (Merged threads)

[Futtocks 8,238]

24 minutes ago, M j M said:

Other sports sell broadcasting rights. Rugby League "sold its soul to Sky".

Ironically that's the view of both flatcappers and establishment media types who think RL should know its place.

Well I, for one, have outsmarted the latter. Thanks to male pattern baldness, I no longer have a forelock to tug, even if I felt like doing so.

Ha! Take that, Nigel Starmer-Smith!  

[Padge 3,256]

11 hours ago, Dave T said:

Im not too sure why there is always such anger at clubs relying on broadcasting funds. It is a major income stream just like commercial income and gate income.

Its totally relying on it that is the problem, clubs get an mount from TV that enables them to pay SL full cap, Clubs spend all that money on wages, they think that is what it is for.

NO IT IS NOT TO PAY PLAYERS WAGES.

Sky know exactly how stupid a lot of clubs are and they know they will still be skint and can dangle them on the same string.

[Bob8 3,346]

On 14/1/2018 at 11:09 AM, scotchy1 said:

Because it fits with their narrative that the only reason there is this big gap between their club and other clubs is luck.

There is nothing wrong with TV revenue forming a big part of a clubs revenue, in fact it is to be expected. The only real issue is that some clubs have become lazy because of it and not chased growth in other areas nor tried to maximise that stream. We have clubs who are happy to take their sky money and keep ticking over. Its got to the point. Its gone so far down that route that investment has become a dirty word. 

Indeed.

There are six or so clubs that really add to the value of the TV contract.  Other teams are there to make up the numbers, which is the luck of the draw.