Sign in to follow this  
DoubleD

Premier League rights value falls

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Oxford said:

If market competitors come to an arrangement about what a third company can earn from it's product is that entirely legal or are we in the realm of Tory politics "We've done nothing illegal!" once again?

Irrespective there are enough differences between Football and the real thing to work in our favour.

 

Have a care, you'll find Dave T getting angry at gratuitous political shoehorning. :smile:

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, JohnM said:

Have a care, you'll find Dave T getting angry at gratuitous political shoehorning. :smile:

 

4 minutes ago, JohnM said:

Irrespective there are enough differences between Football and the real thing to work in our favour.

Just a reprise of the nub to help things along.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, JohnM said:

Irrespective there are enough differences between Football and the real thing to work in our favour.

I see you are making things up again

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, roughyedspud said:

No...sky have exclusive rights for all of SL but choose to broadcast only 71 games

Sky can pick up any fixture they choose!

I'm pretty sure they have the right to by broadcast 71 games, but they have a choice of all games to broadcast. They can't just decide next week that they'll show 6 games out of 6.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

I'm pretty sure they have the right to by broadcast 71 games, but they have a choice of all games to broadcast. They can't just decide next week that they'll show 6 games out of 6.

They have cameras at all SL games, which is where the highlights comes from. Not the full complement of lenses + big screen that they do for the currently televised matches. But if they have airtime to fill up, I know I'd be happy to watch those other matches with fewer angles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Futtocks said:

They have cameras at all SL games, which is where the highlights comes from. Not the full complement of lenses + big screen that they do for the currently televised matches. But if they have airtime to fill up, I know I'd be happy to watch those other matches with fewer angles.

No they don’t. Clubs have to record the games for the RFL. Sky pick up the “tapes” to compile the highlights

Edited by Spidey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Yakstorm said:

Sky currently pay for the rights to 71 Super League, 17 Championship, 11 Challenge Cup and 1 League One game a year as part of their current deal until 2021.

For Super League and Championship they have also paid for exclusivity for all matches involving two UK based clubs, arguably creating a scenario where the RFL can't really sell off the remaining inventory in the UK (except for when Toronto, Toulouse or Catalans are in the mix), but Sky technically can't show any additional games, however if past seasons are anything to go by, what was sold and what is shown don't line up (ie. I don't recall any L1 games being shown and additional SL games have been broadcasted).

Now I'm sure these limits are just to protect the per game valuation. If the RFL gave away all 169 SL matches + 29 Play Off matches, the per game value  would more than half, assuming Sky wasn't prepared to pay for anymore games (or take on more broadcast costs) which wouldn't be a good look.

Now in terms of trying to change the way we sell our packages, there is arguably plenty of scope to mix it up, however our code has often been reluctant to take on the associated risk (ie. I'm sure we could sell to Sky without exclusivity, but it would possibly cut 20% off the value of their offer, could we make that back through another broadcaster? Through streaming, etc?)

There is also scope for the sport to partner Sky in getting more games on TV in a rev share arrangement (ie. Broadcast costs are shared, and revenue is shared), but not since we tried to get the Championship on Eurosport have we shown such initiative, although potentially we may not have the budget to consider such risks.

Good post and a lot i agree with. One thing i would add is that the benefit of packages is not just related to who you can sell to, but gives you more control over what you sell and what bidders buy. 

For instance, the original premise behind the move to summer was to give Sky something to sell in the soccer offseason. Yet we do very little to fulfil that niche. So we could look at creating packages to meet that need.

It also gives you an opportunity to bundle some of your less valuable properties with your more valuable ones to create a premium on them. 

The trick is to create packages that would have value in and of themselves and a bidding process that allows us to still charge a premium for exclusivity without diluting them to a level where they become unattractive.

As a rough example. you could split it in to 4 packages (assuming 14 sides, 27 rounds)

Package 1. 21 first pick games to be played on a friday night. 5 second pick Friday night games, First pick Semi-final. Grand Final. 10 second pick championship games to be played Tuesday nights in June/July, second pick championship semi-final. 

Package 2. 21 Second pick games to be played thursday night, 5 third pick thursday night games second pick semi-final, 10 first pick championship games to be played Wednesday nights in June/July, first pick championship semi-final, championship Grand Final.

Package 3. 4 World Club Challenge games, Magic Weekend, Summer Bash, 12 games as Saturday or Sunday double headers played June/July 14 games as part of 2 rounds where a game is played every night of the week. 29 home games from Toulouse, Toronto, and Les Catalans (feeds provided on a contra basis) 1 two day 9s weekend.

Package 4.  5 first pick games to be played Saturday evening, 5 second pick games, 10 third pick games to be played saturday or sunday. Highlights package. With a rule that this package will be sold FTA unless one bidder buys packages 1-3 in which case this package can be purchased for the same price as package 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Spidey said:

No they don’t. Clubs have to record the games for the RFL. Sky pick up the “tapes” to compile the highlights

Okay; I didn't know the onus was on the clubs. Still, the resulting footage is property of Sky TV. And I wouldn't object to watching that footage live, somehow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Futtocks said:

Okay; I didn't know the onus was on the clubs. Still, the resulting footage is property of Sky TV. And I wouldn't object to watching that footage live, somehow.

In yr 1 of the new structure they broadcast a few of these games in the middle 8s live online. Not sure why they never repeated them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me our relationship with Sky reminds me a lot of Brexit. 

People are often frustrated for a number of reasons but the reality is that we'd be far worse off without them. 

I remember many moons ago (2000ish? ) there was some speculation that Sky might pull out of the next contract. There were many fanciful ideas that we could broadcast on either BBC or C4 for much less but make up the difference by increased attendance and sponsorship as a result. The reality of course is of they had we'd have been screwed. 

This is still exactly the same now. They can essentially dictate terms and we can speculate all we like but if Sky don't like it we won't do it or face the reality of becoming a semi-professional sport. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Maximus Decimus said:

For me our relationship with Sky reminds me a lot of Brexit. 

People are often frustrated for a number of reasons but the reality is that we'd be far worse off without them. 

I remember many moons ago (2000ish? ) there was some speculation that Sky might pull out of the next contract. There were many fanciful ideas that we could broadcast on either BBC or C4 for much less but make up the difference by increased attendance and sponsorship as a result. The reality of course is of they had we'd have been screwed. 

This is still exactly the same now. They can essentially dictate terms and we can speculate all we like but if Sky don't like it we won't do it or face the reality of becoming a semi-professional sport. 

Largely that was certainly true, it is getting less so. The evolution in how media is consumed, the growth of over the top services, the huge relative fall in costs of production and distribution all mean that we need Sky less and less. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just on the remaining packages (F and G) the EPL have cocked up badly on these packages. If Sky or BT now bid to get these packages (Sky one package) they will get them a lot cheaper than the EPL wanted, unless they were to bid aggressively, but i doubt it, has the is no decent picks in them. 

Two points to add, taken from another thread...

"In the last financial year, Sky's rights deals for the Premier League, Football League, Formula 1, Super League and ECB cricket were worth about £1.634bn a year, 45% of Sky's UK&I programming budget.

Assuming Sky do not bother picking up one of the remaining 2 PL packages, their costs for the same contracts (which are now all nailed down on long term deals) will rise to £1.725bn annually by the year ending June 2021, an average rise of 1.4% a year. The financial analysts must be very happy with this."

"My prediction at the moment is that Sky are not (seriously) bidding for packages F & G. I think they are perfectly happy with what they have and if management can show a clear cost reduction it will win them serious brownie points with owners (and potential new owners). Their share price is now at 1094 - above the Fox offer level. Mission accomplished IMO."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Cherry and White said:

Just on the remaining packages (F and G) the EPL have cocked up badly on these packages. If Sky or BT now bid to get these packages (Sky one package) they will get them a lot cheaper than the EPL wanted, unless they were to bid aggressively, but i doubt it, has the is no decent picks in them. 

Two points to add, taken from another thread...

"In the last financial year, Sky's rights deals for the Premier League, Football League, Formula 1, Super League and ECB cricket were worth about £1.634bn a year, 45% of Sky's UK&I programming budget.

Assuming Sky do not bother picking up one of the remaining 2 PL packages, their costs for the same contracts (which are now all nailed down on long term deals) will rise to £1.725bn annually by the year ending June 2021, an average rise of 1.4% a year. The financial analysts must be very happy with this."

"My prediction at the moment is that Sky are not (seriously) bidding for packages F & G. I think they are perfectly happy with what they have and if management can show a clear cost reduction it will win them serious brownie points with owners (and potential new owners). Their share price is now at 1094 - above the Fox offer level. Mission accomplished IMO."

Id agree. They are pretty poor standalone packages and would only suit one of the two current partners. It isnt worth anybody else investing in this for two or four weeks per year coverage. It seems Sky may not be interested and are ok for BT to get a few midweek games.

I think they completely overestimated the attractiveness to broadcasters and these should probably have been part of a more standard bundle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, JohnM said:
42 minutes ago, JohnM said:

Irrespective there are enough differences between Football and the real thing to work in our favour.

I see you are making things up again

No I just look at what we have to offer and neither over nor underestimate it's value and as I've already said a good negotiating team rather than the cap in hand alternative we've used from time immemorial can do the trick.

We need Sky or BT so that's in the con column but we must never assume we have nothing to bargain with in the pro column.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Oxford said:

No I just look at what we have to offer and neither over nor underestimate it's value and as I've already said a good negotiating team rather than the cap in hand alternative we've used from time immemorial can do the trick.

We need Sky or BT so that's in the con column but we must never assume we have nothing to bargain with in the pro column.

 

I was referring to the bit where you quoted me as saying "Irrespective there are enough differences between Football and the real thing to work in our favour".  I did not write those words. I assume it was a mistske on your part and it would be good if you would edit your post .

Edited by JohnM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, JohnM said:

I was referring to the bit where you quoted me as saying "Irrespective there are enough differences between Football and the real thing to work in our favour".  I did not write those words. I assume it was a mistske on your part and it would be good if you would edit your post .

I think I was quoting me John and it was a huge mistske!;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:dancer:No prubs. 

 

 I agree re a good negotiating team, though didn't the RFL once use IMG for this?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, JohnM said:

:dancer:No prubs. 

 

 I agree re a good negotiating team, though didn't the RFL once use IMG for this?  

Yup.

IMG were also used for the 2013 and 2017 World Cups. The RLIF are in dispute with them. Most games were staged on secondary channels and no radio coverage was secured at all. They lost money on the rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

 the original premise behind the move to summer was to give Sky something to sell in the soccer offseason.

Wow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know a big cheese at Sky and they are extremely pleased with the way it’s played out with the BT deal and the Premier League.

Whether it means more money for us must remain doubtful. They will probably use this to put pressure on other sports.

In the end it’s up to RL to make it a more attractive product that is worth paying more for.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/14/2018 at 3:04 PM, Sick39ed said:

Not all packages are sold yet. So It could still rise. 

In which case the OP would be null and void and our worries pointless.

But some of the points made on here are still valid.

There does seem a lot of assumptions about the inherent weakness of TGG's position and that's very interesting in itself.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Of course.

(Why 'of course'? Anybody'd have to be around minimum 40 years old more or less to have had a good handle on events at that time. I don't know your age)

And from all the reasons,  excuses, lies, complaints, accusations, justifications, allegations, myths, exaggerations and nonsense that was put forward at that time as to how and why super league was invented, that is what you took out of it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


League Express - Online Now

League Express - Every Monday



Rugby League World - Aug 2018

Rugby League World - Aug 2018

Rugby League Books On Sale Here