Michael Carter / TV deal etc (Merged threads)

[Padge]

20 hours ago, Chris22 said:

Absolutely.

The fact that the clubs agreed to a TV deal that nobody, in Michael Carter's words, "had a proper look at" is staggering. This deal was of critical importance, yet clubs voted blindly in favour of it! I can't say that inspires confidence in them being responsible for the future of Super League.

I am also concerned that Michael Carter thinks that Super League chairman have a right to interfere in matters involving the national team and how the RFL's central funding is distributed to Championship and League 1 clubs.

The more I read about this, the more concerned I am.

Wood's and Sky's £300,000 carrot may have had the effect that they wanted,  "bollards to the detail give us skint clubs the cash".

 

[Futtocks]

For all the people who repeatedly opine that Nigel Wood was incompetent and stupid, you are now rejoicing that the game's management has passed into the hands of the people that he (allegedly) completely bamboozled and outfoxed into signing the current TV contract.

Hmm.  

[Padge]

6 minutes ago, Futtocks said:

For all the people who repeatedly opine that Nigel Wood was incompetent and stupid, you are now rejoicing that the game's management has passed into the hands of the people that he (allegedly) completely bamboozled and outfoxed into signing the current TV contract.

Hmm.  

 

He didn't bamboozle and outfox them he bribed enough of them that needed the money to get the vote through.  

[weloveyouwakefield2]

28 minutes ago, Futtocks said:

For all the people who repeatedly opine that Nigel Wood was incompetent and stupid, you are now rejoicing that the game's management has passed into the hands of the people that he (allegedly) completely bamboozled and outfoxed into signing the current TV contract.

Hmm.  

its not hard to do! just say sign this within two hours or its off the table and we wont get as much next time they offer....

[Angelic Cynic]

Was it really that long ago that Dr Koukash was met with vitriol for having the audacity to speak out

against the RFL and the TV  deal?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/26049215

The changing face and the short term memory of rugby league followers.

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

48 minutes ago, weloveyouwakefield2 said:

its not hard to do! just say sign this within two hours or its off the table and we wont get as much next time they offer....

 

1 hour ago, Padge said:

 

He didn't bamboozle and outfox them he bribed enough of them that needed the money to get the vote through.  

And you believe that Sky won't use that tactic (again) when the next negotiation comes around? I doubt there are many clubs willing to call their bluff if they do.

[Dave T]

5 minutes ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

 

And you believe that Sky won't use that tactic (again) when the next negotiation comes around? I doubt there are many clubs willing to call their bluff if they do.

Indeed. It suggests that Nigel Wood didnt want the best deal for RL and the clubs and he was trying to be sneaky.

Things like the basic split of funds can be understood in half an hour.

[Padge]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

Indeed. It suggests that Nigel Wood didnt want the best deal for RL and the clubs and he was trying to be sneaky.

Things like the basic split of funds can be understood in half an hour.

 

Sky employ the same tactic every round. Contract aren't due but Sky put an offer on the table, they have done their homework and know how many clubs are in debt by how much (one wonders how they get their figures), they then slap a take it or leave it offer on the table, the clubs panic and sign up.

We should already be putting feelers out to broadcasters about the next contract, we won't be. This is what peed Lenagan off , Sky came in played their usual game and walked off with what nobody knows was a good deal or not. Usual suspects will come and say "well he voted for it", the reasons why and his regrets against that decision have been poured over a thousand times so don't bother going there. 

We seem incapable of making the first move, our cap doffing days have never really gone away.

[shaun mc]

Sky will employ the best (or near to the best in tv contract negotiations) in procurement, the legal side, the accountants and a project manager

The RFL can't and probably won't and neither can the clubs. Unfortunately its an uneven playing field and Sky hold most of the cards. Its like the local shop dealing with the Tesco buyers

The game in general (and not just the clubs) have to be more cute, not get caught on the back foot by Sky, and have a number of strategy scenarios in place when they come calling, including having already approached other broadcasters if necessary, to mitigate as much as possible the advantage that Sky has

Easier said than done though.......

[Padge]

More or less what I said, clubs are to willing to sit in their little Sky comfort zone. I think what is happening at the moment is an attempt to break away from this mentality. The TV contract should pay for the nice add ons, not the weekly wages.

[Dave T]

47 minutes ago, Padge said:

 

Sky employ the same tactic every round. Contract aren't due but Sky put an offer on the table, they have done their homework and know how many clubs are in debt by how much (one wonders how they get their figures), they then slap a take it or leave it offer on the table, the clubs panic and sign up.

We should already be putting feelers out to broadcasters about the next contract, we won't be. This is what peed Lenagan off , Sky came in played their usual game and walked off with what nobody knows was a good deal or not. Usual suspects will come and say "well he voted for it", the reasons why and his regrets against that decision have been poured over a thousand times so don't bother going there. 

We seem incapable of making the first move, our cap doffing days have never really gone away.

As you say we have done this to death, and as ive said many times, i look forward to things getting better now the clubs have got involved. I have plenty reservations, but the scapegoat being taken out of the equation is very welcome in my eyes, and now we will see whether we have been getting good deals or not.

I would genuinely love my reservations to be unfounded as that would mean that we get better deals!

Where my resevations come in is when we see what so called experts in this field have done (img) with previous rights and world cup rights.

But i do like the fact the owners are backing themselves, i look forward to exciting times ahead.

[jpmc]

14 minutes ago, Padge said:

More or less what I said, clubs are to willing to sit in their little Sky comfort zone. I think what is happening at the moment is an attempt to break away from this mentality. The TV contract should pay for the nice add ons, not the weekly wages.

Sorry but thats rubbish,the television money is everything.

Its quite bizarre that some on here are already preparing the ground to defend the clubs because the next tv deal is going to be terrible ,that they will be negotiating

[Dave T]

29 minutes ago, shaun mc said:

Sky will employ the best (or near to the best in tv contract negotiations) in procurement, the legal side, the accountants and a project manager

The RFL can't and probably won't and neither can the clubs. Unfortunately its an uneven playing field and Sky hold most of the cards. Its like the local shop dealing with the Tesco buyers

The game in general (and not just the clubs) have to be more cute, not get caught on the back foot by Sky, and have a number of strategy scenarios in place when they come calling, including having already approached other broadcasters if necessary, to mitigate as much as possible the advantage that Sky has

Easier said than done though.......

They have employed IMG a number of times who have a lot of expertise. Indeed for the RLWC IMG bought the rights and apparently lost money on them (now that could mean they didnt make as much as they wanted- but based on Premier getting key UK rights I wouldnt be surprised).

[fairfolly]

The next Sky deal is absolutely vital to all clubs not just S.L. as is the expansion with clubs in the U.S.A and Canada.If these proposed expansions go by the board the whole of R.L. in the U.K. will be back to part time in 5 years time.Maybe 4 clubs could remain full time,the rest have no chance of staying full time.This next 4 years will be the most important in the whole Rugby League history.Fail to capitalise on our great game with good deals or be prepared for a very slow death of the game.

[Padge]

4 minutes ago, jpmc said:

Sorry but thats rubbish,the television money is everything.

Its quite bizarre that some on here are already preparing the ground to defend the clubs because the next tv deal is going to be terrible ,that they will be negotiating

 

TV money shouldn't be everything is the point, Sky are giving clubs enough to pay the full salary cap wages each. What is totally wrong with that is it is making some clubs lazy. Hey we have the same cap as Wigan and Leeds, we can compete, all the off-field stuff is neglected. Clubs should be in a position where they can pay the  wage bill themselves regardless of TV monies, if Sky pull the plug how are a lot of clubs going to pay their way. A few have multi-million pound turnovers but not a lot.

 

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

11 minutes ago, Padge said:

 

TV money shouldn't be everything is the point, Sky are giving clubs enough to pay the full salary cap wages each. What is totally wrong with that is it is making some clubs lazy. Hey we have the same cap as Wigan and Leeds, we can compete, all the off-field stuff is neglected. Clubs should be in a position where they can pay the  wage bill themselves regardless of TV monies, if Sky pull the plug how are a lot of clubs going to pay their way. A few have multi-million pound turnovers but not a lot.

 

That's been the case for the last 21 years. Remind me again of what progress the majority of clubs have made towards being non reliant on the Sky money over that time.

[Padge]

23 minutes ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

That's been the case for the last 21 years. Remind me again of what progress the majority of clubs have made towards being non reliant on the Sky money over that time.

None, for the majority, that's my bloody point.  

[The Parksider]

10 hours ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

That's been the case for the last 21 years. Remind me again of what progress the majority of clubs have made towards being non reliant on the Sky money over that time.

I think Scotchy has it right that SKY must pay enough to enhance the product, otherwise  they will defeat the whole purpose of buying it. The last deal ended prematurely with clubs £68M in debt and collapsing at the bottom end. SKY therefore came in with more money and SL did their bit with a cut to 12 SL clubs.

As a business Superleague is effectively subsidised by SKY to run professionally, and I don't see that that subsidy provides any opportunity to grow revenues to make the clubs become "non-reliant" on it, in what is a highly competitive market. If there are other broadcasters in the mix fighting for the rights with SKY (some chairmen felt BT may have been an option, but it appears they weren't) then maybe. Some feel America will provide that more lucrative option, but that comes at a heavy price shifting our game over there that logistically won't work.

If you look at the 1904 league table they are all in there, Bradford, Salford, Wire, Leeds, HKR, Wigan, Hull, Widnes, Leigh and Fartown with Wakey and Saints achieving promotion. 114 years later they are all still in there plodding on, just in a more modern scenario. I don't read too much into what Carter says, for 22 years now we've stayed alive with SKY and gone professional into the bargain, and that's been great for the game. (Not great for the Championship clubs though)

[Dave T]

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.

[M j M]

8 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.

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.

[Futtocks]

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]

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]

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.