fighting irish

Sh ite houses.

Hooray!!!!

This is such good news. It's like a dream come true for me. I just hope all NRL clubs will follow suit and get involved to build a semi-pro/pro comp over there.

Any sign of the money coming in?

Until they age and die of course. Your stance is about as ignorant and short sighted as it gets. A manifesto to relinquish all responsibility for the games future and do nothing. How mature. Keep on banging away for all your worth you'll die soon enough.

Loving it. Isn't it great, when it's done right? We just need to get these ads seen by all and sundry.

They're not my figures.

My dear chap, £21 million divided by £100 is 210,000. But if subscribers pay near £100 per month (not £100 per year) then the number of subscribers needed is only about 17,500 ish.

Yes but you're forgetting the fact that selling Rugby League to their subscribers is a profitable enterprise.

Perhaps JD Vance will make an appearance?

I'm inclined to think that the SL+ matches produced by Sky have at least a two-fold benefit to us. Firstly we get the filming done at no cost, which allows us to distribute additional coverage to subscribers, who may not be Sky subscribers. Secondly, it is a means of creating more revenue through SL+ subscriptions which compensates somewhat for the reduction in Sky's funding to us. I imagine (correct me if I'm wrong) that this was all done with Sky's approval and perhaps at their prompting. Or was it IMG's brainchild? It is clearly in Sky's interests to help us generate more revenue from non-Sky subscribers because it helps keep us sustainable without them paying what they might otherwise have to, to keep the game afloat. This avenue also has the potential to deliver more and more money to the game over time. Also, (this is more difficult) it could/might be used to draw in new fans which may in future become new Sky Sports subscribers. If we hope to use this facility to grow our audience then we do need to make newcomers aware of SL+ and how to find it or I fear it will remain a cloistered enclave for the already faithful few, invisible to the outside world, with minimal income and growth potential. If we want to both maximise income from SL+ and grow our fan base, then we will have to find a way to approach newcomers effectively making them aware of what's on offer and how to access it. Do we have a banner, visible to viewers, (advertising SL+) on BBC's coverage?

I loved that. I'm so excited, I'm afraid I'm going to wet myself.

I loved it.

Hallelujah!

I did pluck the numbers out of thin air, I said as much, for illustrative purposes. Whether they are truly applicable is an unknown at this time. Having said that, the point remains the same, the ''value'' of our offering is a variable Damien and its somewhere between what we will accept as a minimum (any less being insufficient/unsustainable given our fiscal needs) and what they would pay as a maximum (the point at which any more would make their profit margin insufficient to cover their perceived risk.) It's in our interests to push them up to their limit and in their interest to push us down to ours. The trouble is, we have no leverage and they do. If we pushed them too hard they could walk away but we can't. That's why our position is unhealthy and why we are prone to being forced to settle near our lower limit, leaving a significant sum ''on the table''. We could really do with an alternative, to give us ''walk away power'', which is why and what Mr Beaumont is brainstorming about.

You're falling into the same trap as Gingerjon Damien, insisting that the value is 20 million because that's the only offer on the table and you're wrong. (Please refer to my last response to Jon?) Here's why. (I'm making the numbers up just for the purposes of illustration, so here goes.) Sky buy for 20 million they sell for 50 million. They make 30 million on the deal. If we had walk-away power and we threatened to walk away so pushed them to 30 million they'd still make 20 million on the deal. There's still an enormous incentive to buy at 30 million. So the ''true value'' of our offering is not the 20 million we ''accepted'' because we didn't have any choice. Without an alternative bidder in the deal, we have no walk away power so we have to accept what they offered and we left 10 million quid on the table. So we lose 10 million and they make an extra 10 million, over and above the 20 million they would have been happy with in the first place. So returning to you comment above it's not easy to say no, because we simply can't get more elsewhere. There is no ''elsewhere''. So as a result we are no-where near the true market value for our offering.

Forgive me Jon but that's naive tosh mate. Imagine you wanted to sell your house and your neighbours house (equivalent to your own) just sold for a million but your personal circumstances mean you need to make a deal quickly. You are under time pressure, you have a month. During the month only one buyer turns up and offers £660,000. You cry and whine and plead but he's steadfast. You don't hear from him again. As your deadline looms you reluctantly phone him up and accept his offer. You've just lost 340,000 and he's made an extra 340,000. That's negotiating mate. You're inability to walk away means you just got shafted.

Well when the true value of your offering is 50% more than your buyer is paying for it but you can't say no, that's pretty humiliating. Would you be happy selling your house for 2/3 of it's true market value, just because you need some ready cash quick? Derek's comments by the way are ''broad brush'' it's the concept he's discussing not the nitty gritty details and it's early days for a new idea. He's just brain storming! (Sorry to the woke sensitive readers for such an crass insensitive term). It's what entrepreneurs do mate. Who's to say that those numbers couldn't be doubled some time in the future?

Ok one more layer in the hope of clarifying my opinion. Yes, Sky have paid enough to fund a professional top division (but it's not as much as it was last time) and the money left over for the tiers below is a paltry sum driving some to the point of bankruptcy/oblivion. Sky obviously value our product (otherwise they wouldn't deal with us) and they obviously expect to profit from its distribution. My position is that they would (almost certainly) still profit even if they'd paid 30 million for it. My question to you is, why would they? Why would they pay more than they need to? Why leave an extra 10 million on the table for us, when (they know) we can't say no? Does that help clarify the weakness of our position for you? Lastly, Derek probably doesn't feel the need to say more when all he's doing is jabbering on about general principles and a future direction of travel. The details necessarily come later.

I'm trying not to be condescending here mate but if you've ever been involved in a high value buying/sales situation (perhaps with your own money at stake) you would know, that being able to say, no thank you and walk away is an enormous advantage in the price negotiations. Sky have that ability and we don't so we are not equal contenders in the negotiations. That's not a healthy situation. My pauper metaphor might feel like hyperbole to you, but mate, it's pretty close to the mark. Trust me, when you get shafted (and you know it) it's pretty humiliating.

I agree Dave, no argument. If you re-read my post you'll see that I acknowledge that but I believe there may be enough there (and perhaps Derek knows that) to indicate some reasonable growth potential? I'm just saying that the current situation leaves us in a pretty humiliating position. Sky have the upper hand and it's not healthy (for us).

I'm inclined to think that this was Derek, banging on extemporaneously (perhaps after a few pints) and someone has picked it up and generated some quick and easy click bait at Derek's expense. I wouldn't put too much faith in the numbers but as a general principal, I think the idea has merit. Sky have no competitors so we have no ''walk away power'' in any negotiations which leaves us like paupers proffering the begging bowl come contract renewal time. With nothing else on the horizon I think we should be developing our own content production and distribution facility. The numbers Derek quoted, particularly the BBC figures indicate a pretty large potential customer base, if it can be induced to buy our offering. I'm not saying its a go-er from the off, (and I don't think Derek was either) but I think it is something we should be trying to build which (of course) would give us more muscle in the negotiations with Sky. Our current relationship with them isn't even remotely equitable.

I think he wrote/published it yesterday. Click on the home page tab and it's about eighth article from the top.

I really enjoyed Martin's article and without labouring on anything in particular I thought he came up with many good ideas. I have to say I'm amazed that his article didn't engender any response! What on earth are IMG doing? Martin's question is nothing if not a reasonable request for information and I was sure the forum would have produced a long enthusiastic outpouring of ideas either supporting Martins initiatives or (of course) contradicting them. But nothing?!!! Have we had the stuffing knocked out of our love of the game and our hopes for the future?

Come on boys, pack it in?