David Shepherd
-
Posts
2,415 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Posts posted by David Shepherd
-
-
4 hours ago, Gav Wilson said:
Thats very odd. ITV Hub on Apple TV has always had the option of live TV for as long as I can remember. Hopefully they're bringing out an update across all platforms soon - It makes zero sense not to!
On a similar note, I'm praying that Premier Sports bring out an app for their Premier Player on Apple TV for next season, its far more preferable to casting from my phone.
It's available through Prime if you subscribe to that.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, ATLANTISMAN said:
League owned streaming + 1 FTA a week.
Don't get your hopes up. We're light years away from having the volume of fans interested enough to make it pay.
Realistically, we'll be relying on a generous broadcast or streaming partner for (probably) the rest of time.
-
12 minutes ago, Gav Wilson said:
Thats weird, I'm watching live ITV on the ITV Hub app right this very minute.
It's platform dependent. I can watch it via SkyGlass, but mum can't get it through her smart TV.
-
26 minutes ago, Pulga said:
I see what you mean. I'm not sure if you can watch the game on delay or not with Sky.
Dishes seem so outdated now. I don't agree with your last sentance. They'll go the way of the Dodo in the next 5 - 10 years.
There's a hardcore of 30-40% that only use Freeview (Aerial) or Freesat - No streaming, no subscription channels. They won't be going anywhere anytime soon.
Dishes are relatively new to the UK, until the late 80s we only really had terrestrial TV. I suppose TV transmitters are much more cost effective than satellites for a small island, rather than a massive one. Dishes will remain ubiquitous for a while to come yet.
-
Mick Gledhill though.
-
4 minutes ago, Pulga said:
Kayo here has 1.2m paying subscribers. It's Fox's offering. Multi-sport.
Union here has heavily banked on streaming through Stan Sport which is the sports arm of one of our FTA channels. They only have one FTA game a week. The rest is stream only. Not sure on the number of subscribers.
Very strange that it seems a bit behind the times in the UK as far as sports streaming.
You're missing the point again. A live broadcast by definition is linear TV. It doesn't matter if it's streamed or received by an aerial.
Technically, I stream live games through my SkyGlass TV, but it's still on a channel that is being broadcast.
I think you're getting hung up on the platform, rather than the end result. And it remains a fact that the overwhelming majority of live sport broadcasts are received through an aerial or a dish and will do for many years to come.
-
2
-
-
4 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:
I'm sure Yorkshire Airlines would have broken the rules for once
Captain Boycott says no.
-
5 minutes ago, Just Browny said:
The bit people don't really seem to understand is that when you are taking a squad of 17-20 players plus coaches and support staff, you don't get the Skyscanner price for you and your mate, because almost certainly you are taking up all of the excess capacity. Just like when you take the last ticket on a plane it costs a hell of a lot more than if you bought it three months in advance.
Correct. And you can't book more than 8 passengers at once. The 2nd 8 that you book will be significantly more than the first.
Then there's the routing. Once had a punter proudly boasting about how much cheaper his trip to Majorca was doing it himself via Skyscanner, booking his own hotel etc than it was with me. He only had to change planes in Lisbon and Nice to save his £100, which he only realised when he got to the airport.
-
1
-
3
-
-
14 minutes ago, gingerjon said:
Come back with a quote and then we can compare.
I've just booked one for a client, Humberside to Ibiza return. For her party size it was significantly less than buying commercial tickets and comfortably less than £20,000.
There may be an element of last minute in the pricing they got, but it's excessive in my opinion.
-
27 minutes ago, gingerjon said:
Happily, it is possible to check.
https://www.privatefly.com/private-jet-charter/estimate-prices.html?flightSearch=JOQdpF5Kl1U=
Chartered flight for 30 people travelling from Leeds to Perpignan flying out Friday and returning Saturday (and only including flight, nothing else) starts at €77,000 - not sure if that includes tax.
So, a bit under £100,000 but not hard to see it getting close to that.
Loganair charter their planes for less than £20,000. OK it's a bog standard commercial aircraft, not sure the Rhinos need the luxury of a private jet for a less than 2 hour flight.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:
Leeds now bringing to everyone's attention that to go to Perpignan on Friday will cost them circa £100,000, so they want to fill up the empty plane seats with fans at £800 each to reduce their costs, seems a bit steep to me charging loyal fans so much for what would be empty seats anyway, yes make something back but not extortionately so.
Leeds Rhinos Commercial Director Rob Oates said,
“The chartered flight, and associated costs, mean the whole trip is going to cost us around £100,000, the vast majority of which we have to meet as a club. We have a limited number of seats available on the plane to travel with the team, which will include transfers in France and tickets but inevitably it is expensive at £800 per person. This will limit our losses on the trip but that is the reality of the situation
Christ knows what they're chartering for the trip. Must be a Saturn V rocket at that price. It can be done for comfortably less than £20,000.
-
1
-
2
-
-
52 minutes ago, Pulga said:
Showing your age there I think.
Streaming is and will continue to eat away at "traditional TV", sport included.
I think I've watched 3 shows on traditional TV this year and I'm not even in the coveted 18 - 34 age bracket.
The YoY growth of sports streaming is phenomenal.
Of course streaming will continue to grow. I can't remember the last time I watched a linear TV show either (except live sport).
Our lack of profile will not be solved by streaming. It's not a push technology, consumers need to seek it out.
-
I'd like to propose Brian McDermot for the job. I'll even pay his train fare.
-
5
-
-
6 minutes ago, gingerjon said:
It's equal standard to the FA Cup match that was streamed by the BBC over the weekend and matches what they cover in the Challenge Cup too. It's absolutely fine.
It's also the same as some of the paid-for streams that other leagues and sports offer.
You're right about the equal standard i.e. not good enough for TV, but OK if you're watching on a website, are interested in the game being played and it's available for free.
We're not football, we are small and anonymous. If we're streaming it needs to pay for itself and preferably turn a profit. Who besides die-hard fans of a club are going to pay for that kind of standard, or even notice that it's available?
-
7 minutes ago, gingerjon said:
Did you miss that Our League exists and already streams games?
No, it's a bit amateur don't you think? One or two cameras on a very glitchy stream is not going to be the next Netflix.
We're never going to sell it to the wider UK, let alone the world and we just do not have the resources to produce a standard that the wider public will pay to consume. Assuming of course that the wider public have even heard of us, nevermind are interested enough to fork out for a subscription/ppv.
-
8 minutes ago, gingerjon said:
But, as we know from here, there are individuals dotted around the globe, probably a few thousand of them, who would, at least, like to be able to legally watch UK rugby league and are prepared to pay for it.
We can't even offer that at the minute.
Offering it and making it pay are two different things. I doubt a few thousand ex-pats dotted around the globe would provide sufficient volume to even come close to breaking even.
-
5 minutes ago, Dave T said:
We do actually have a platform, it's already built, but I'm also not sure how expensive that actually is. I'm not sure that is the blocker. I also believe that IMG have their own service that can be white labelled and used, but not sure.
The challenge is about getting scale here.
Yeah, IMG provide the service for Football, so I'm sure that could be white labelled,as you say.
Football can afford broadcast quality coverage of it's games. I'm pretty sure that we can't and I don't see anyone that would take the massive punt of providing that footage for the reward on offer.
-
54 minutes ago, Pulga said:
It's interesting because there's a 3% difference in the percentage of people who say they stream sports in Australia to those who say they stream sports in the UK.
So the UK has much more than DOUBLE the amount of people streaming sports.
Not sure if you noticed but streaming is enormous basically everywhere that has the internet. It's going to continue to eat away at the share of how consumers watch their content.
You really struggle to keep up with the times. That's quite weird.
And what you don't seem to understand is that the overwhelming majority of live sport is broadcast and consumed on linear tv.
Amazon have bought a few Premier League games to stream live and the premier league itself streams about 35 games a season live. This is the reality, not some pie in the sky notion that streaming automatically means there will be millions of eyeballs on our sport.
We need exposure. You only get that from traditional linear, free to air TV.
It's kind of the same argument we had at the dawn of Satellite TV. We took the money, hid behind a paywall and totally slipped out of public consciousness.
-
14 minutes ago, Dave T said:
You can take up the streaming debate with the other David, I don't agree with his analysis of the streaming market in the UK.
But I also don't agree with yours, and that isn't about streaming, it's about how to monetise that. PPV and subscriptions have been challenging for bigger sports than ours.
If yiu try actually reading posts, you'll see I acknowledge that I expect IMG to absolutely have a streaming solution on their list, but I think it will be a real challenge to monetise it, and in fact it has a real risk of being a cost to the game.
For streaming to be worthwhile, it absolutely has to bring in money, because its not about eyeballs.
We're nowhere near significant enough warrant building our own platform, nor are we significant enough for one of the major streamers to pick us up.
As you say, streaming needs to pay. It's never going to make the sport more visible. Until we've got the kind of visibility that can only be achieved by FTA presence, streaming is a very expensive blind alley imho.
-
25 minutes ago, hunsletgreenandgold said:
Just caught up on the last few pages of this thread and for all I disagree with on Pulga's take overall, he's right about streaming. SL needs to be bold and a designated streaming platform (which presents itself in no way like OurLeague app) would be a huge move and in time begin to help the sport move away from the reliance solely on Sky money.
But in the real world, rather than Pulga's fantasy island. We need a major partner like Amazon etc. Do we really have the resources to set up our own streaming platform? I very much doubt it.
Even if we had the resources to set up our own platform, we're just not well known enough for the likes of Samsung to include our app on TVs. I doubt even Sky Glass would see us as significant enough to include our app. Without a presence on a major platform, we're just not going to get the critical mass we need to either make it pay or boost our profile.
-
1 hour ago, Pulga said:
I take that back. It's not 2022 in the UK apparently.
You're just making yourself look daft now.
-
1 hour ago, Pulga said:
It's 2022. Stream it.
That shows how little you understand the UK market. Sport streaming is very much in it's infancy here and I don't see any of the big players seeking out RL any time soon, so far there has only really been Tennis and Premier League.
The only way to get widespread exposure for the game is still free to air terrestrial TV, linear TV has more than 50% of viewers and probably will for many years to come.
We've got OurLeague of course, but that is very much preaching to the choir. A bloke in Devon or Norfolk is not going seek out RL in that format, but he is fairly likely to watch a free broadcast on one of the big 5.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:There we go I have stuck my neck out and said Leigh will be promoted, first time I have done that.
Finally. We’ve been telling you for months
-
5 hours ago, Dave T said:
RL was never ever fully behind a pay wall.
The Challenge Cup has always remained on the BBC and return the highest viewing figures for British RL every year.
SL highlights have been on the BBC for years now, including national highlights of the playoffs and Grand Final.
Internationals have been on the BBC for the last 12 years or so.
Our FTA coverage has been decent.
I know that. I should have been clearer that I was referring to Super League.
I disagree that our FTA coverage has been decent. It’s 7 or 8 games a year. Hardly enough to make household names of our stars. Regular C4 coverage will help.
IMG - Thought's, suggestions and comments to move the game forward
in The General Rugby League Forum
Posted
I think it's a fiver a month more than doing it direct. I got it that way 'cos Premier isn't on SkyGlass (and they're a nightmare when you want to cancel). Dead easy to knock off during the off season and no peering at a tiny iPad.