Sky Sports - New TV Deal (Merged Threads)

[Cherry and White]

I think it is the whole deal, with £19m pa from sky

 

page 26 of the watkins report. . .

 

http://rflmedia.therfl.co.uk/docs/THE%20WATKINS%20REVIEW%20OF%20GOVERNANCE.pdf

 

"Agreements were concluded with Sky, the BBC and Premier Sport for the broadcast of the superleague, world cub challenge, challenge cup, championships and northern rail cup in the sum of £135million or the period 2012 to 2016"

[The Parksider]

This deal gives not only the game, players and clubs security, but also long term sponsors as well. Reading the comments about how much each club or lower grade clubs should get, i personally think it should be capped. 

Not at a rock bottom rate, but at a level where lower grade clubs can still survive nicely but not overspend to make the top tier. 

 

The one thing you dont want is lower clubs getting into financial strife to win a spot. I also think feeder clubs has to come into play, so you dont get that dog eat dog approach, you get more of a group effort support. Only my opinion. 

 

Super-league is basically at rock bottom, so everything now is pointed to growth, much the same as the NRL was only a year ago. And we can all see how far the NRL has come in a short time, example, a 3 million deficit two years ago to a 40 million profit this year. Sponsors will now feel more confident to back super-league, which help grow crowds and support junior growth.

 

I think the 12 teams in Super League is perfect. It will keep the game the best it can be at the top level, which is hard to do when talent moves between two countries. As the NRL continues to grow, and lets not forget it has basically another half of the country plus talent out of the islands and NZ to still grow, then a flow-over will end up in the Super-league. 

 

12 clubs will grow revenues and 'more cash to less clubs' will entice a better quality of player that will be paid more.

Lets not forget, its all about money now, loyalty to a code is of little importance, dont be fooled into thinking otherwise.

No, cap the bottom tiers so spending is kept in check, and  spend the cash in the top 12 teams, so to build worlds best players and pay-checks. 

 

Interesting considered view there Oikee.

 

Superleague has several problems like not being able to pay enough salary to top players to keep them all in the game, whether they move to NRL, RU or just get a "proper job" as one player did for security.

 

The bottom SL clubs can't make the crowd revenue and TV money stretch to full cap and a well funded academy hence their squads are picked over by the big boys and their academies don't work. Several SL chairman candidly admit crowds are short and there's an annual deficit of sums like £500K a year to find.

 

Money is the big fix in the first instance and one wonders what the split is going to be if the first priority is to up the Superleague salary cap, fund clubs to all be able to meet it, and fund decently run academies?

 

How much will then be left for the "Lower grade clubs" as you put it, I don't know and whilst £200,000,000 sounds a lot it may not go as far as some may think. All clubs will get a lift but what will the financial gap end up being between the top and second 12 is a key point as the fine details are ironed out.

[Derwent]

 

We don't know how long the RL negotiators had the information from Sky before it was put ought to the club chairmen. Also, in this negotiating round surely the circumstances were different, given the greater competition for sports coverage rights currently. 

 

Does anybody know, eg Martyn, or John, who is in the negotiating team for the broadcast rights for RL?

SLE pay IMG to negotiate their broadcasting deals, it is not done in-house. IMG aren't cheap to hire, they'll be taking a nice cut of the contract value.

[longboard]

 

SLE pay IMG to negotiate their broadcasting deals, it is not done in-house. IMG aren't cheap to hire, they'll be taking a nice cut of the contract value.

 

Thanks.

Given IMG's involvement and expertise in this area it is strange that the club chairman were only given two hours to make a decision on whether to accept the deal, if what Hudgell has written gives the whole story of course.

[Derwent]

So, based on a rumour from Chris Irvine (who is usually pilloried on here BTW), we are assuming that this is a £200m deal. Given its long term nature its worth around £165m in real terms at today's money values when allowing for inflation between now and 2021. Still a substantial increase if its true.

Its also worth bearing in mind, before people get too giddy, that contracts like this are very rarely made up of purely cash payments. Sky are known for including contra-deals in their contracts whereby they include the advertising value of their SL trailers as part of the contract and deduct contributions for production costs etc. So the alleged £200m will be made up of a number of things which have a value, it won't be all cash. A broadcasting contract "worth £200m" isn't the same as getting £200m in cash.

Its still a good deal based on previous ones, but people who are expecting the game to have it all in cash are going to be a little disappointed I think.

[gingerjon]

So, based on a rumour from Chris Irvine (who is usually pilloried on here BTW), we are assuming that this is a £200m deal. Given its long term nature its worth around £165m in real terms at today's money values when allowing for inflation between now and 2021. Still a substantial increase if its true.

Its also worth bearing in mind, before people get too giddy, that contracts like this are very rarely made up of purely cash payments. Sky are known for including contra-deals in their contracts whereby they include the advertising value of their SL trailers as part of the contract and deduct contributions for production costs etc. So the alleged £200m will be made up of a number of things which have a value, it won't be all cash. A broadcasting contract "worth £200m" isn't the same as getting £200m in cash.

Its still a good deal based on previous ones, but people who are expecting the game to have it all in cash are going to be a little disappointed I think.

 

Agree with what you say but, presumably, when comparing with both previous deals and those in the public domain for other sports all of the same applies.  So Premier Union's "worth up to £152m" with BT Sport is presumably very similar in terms of its value decline, the bits where BT promote rah rah in pubs and on trailers etc etc?

 

I'll take Irvine's word for now for two reasons.  One: because he really is the most joyless ###### out there so if he's tweeting positivity he must have some kind of reason; Two: he's a lackey of the Murdoch empire and slightly more likely as a result to have a chance of knowing what's going on.  Neither are solid but nobody has come out and said he's wrong - all we have is the Hull KR chap saying it was rushed.

[bobbruce]

Reading a few articles today a lot say the deal is worth over £200m. Then goes on to say deal also Includes championship RL from next. Which again makes me think the £200m is for the full 7 yrs not just 5. Don't suppose we'll find out until the RFL let us know.

[Derwent]

 

Agree with what you say but, presumably, when comparing with both previous deals and those in the public domain for other sports all of the same applies.  So Premier Union's "worth up to £152m" with BT Sport is presumably very similar in terms of its value decline, the bits where BT promote rah rah in pubs and on trailers etc etc?

Yes, deals "worth up to" are generally made up of cash plus associated benefits. There are very few that are cash only. I know for sure that the deal they initially offered the BSPA for speedway was a "broadcast only" deal (which was turned down) whereby Sky would broadcast the sport and pay all of the production costs with no actual cash being paid to the sport. That would still have been a deal "worth up to". The devil is always in the detail with these things. For example, if Sky have substantially increased their investment then I'd imagine they would have required some concessions in return - e.g. are we going to see games scheduled for a quiet Tuesday night or a Saturday lunchtime if Sky require it ?

[gingerjon]

 

are we going to see games scheduled for a quiet Tuesday night or a Saturday lunchtime if Sky require it ?

 

Very few sports now seem to have a fixed date with Sky.  I noticed last night whilst watching Hertfordshire Mavericks down the Celtic Dragons in the Netball Superleague that one of the offerings elsewhere on Sky was live football league - on a Thursday night.  If even soccer gets the odd slots then I suspect we're going to have to put up with being shunted around too.  I noted before that Championship (tier 2) union gets odd times (the next one is live on a Sunday lunchtime, after that it's Saturday tea time).

 

So, yes, we're going to see matches kick off when the broadcasters want us too.  Let's just hope we have value enough to retain at least one regular, useful slot.

[GaryO]

However the clubs decide to divvy up the money I hope they:

 

1. Set aside a big budget to properly promote the game and its showpiece events
2. Ensure all full time clubs implement the best possible Acadamy/Scholarship structures.  Money for this (say £200K) should be withheld each season if certain standards have not been met.

I'm crossing my fingers that the lessons of the past have been learned.  Hopefully this influx of money is not spent by short sighted chairmen on second grade Aussies (we still won't be able to afford the top players).  This is a golden opportunity to grow the game in the UK and build a strong future for the code.

 

 

 

Exactly that Railway Ender, whichever way it is looked at bringing on the young un's is the foundation of the game that should not be overlooked, it seems that Sky are now not just purchasing the rights of the Super League but investing in the game as a whole.

 

It is paramount that the RFL should insist on the junior structures and marshal the spending of the monies as you suggest, I would even consider a clause to bring back the "A" teams running alongside a 19 age limit academy. There are far more positives than negatives in this suggestion.

 

I too fear that to many clubs will go for the instant fix of second rate overseas players, and this in my opinion should have further restrictions insisted upon by the RFL, I would go for three per team and if the coach is a "foreigner" then he should be part of the count.

 

The monies set aside for the top 24 clubs should also be shared out evenly to go along with the restrictions as mentioned, what would be the point of giving those now in SL substantially more than the second 12 under the the new system, the top 12 would have more buying power to entice players, effectively widening the gap, the RFL has made these bold steps to give an opportunity to clubs to be promoted, they now need to give some parity to make it possible.     

[hindle xiii]

£200 million would make a jolly nice Superdome at Odsal.

 

*two thumbs up*

[GaryO]

£200 million would make a jolly nice Superdome at Odsal.

 

*two thumbs up*

 

Talking of Odsal - Where's YipYee he is very quiet since these announcements! do you think he doesn't like them. 

[gingerjon]

Exactly that Railway Ender, whichever way it is looked at bringing on the young un's is the foundation of the game that should not be overlooked, it seems that Sky are now not just purchasing the rights of the Super League but investing in the game as a whole.

 

It is paramount that the RFL should insist on the junior structures and marshal the spending of the monies as you suggest, I would even consider a clause to bring back the "A" teams running alongside a 19 age limit academy. There are far more positives than negatives in this suggestion.

 

I too fear that to many clubs will go for the instant fix of second rate overseas players, and this in my opinion should have further restrictions insisted upon by the RFL, I would go for three per team and if the coach is a "foreigner" then he should be part of the count.

 

The monies set aside for the top 24 clubs should also be shared out evenly to go along with the restrictions as mentioned, what would be the point of giving those now in SL substantially more than the second 12 under the the new system, the top 12 would have more buying power to entice players, effectively widening the gap, the RFL has made these bold steps to give an opportunity to clubs to be promoted, they now need to give some parity to make it possible.     

 

The whole game solution that was voted on covers academies.

[Northern Sol]

It feels a bit like 1995 but there doesn't seem to be a downside to this deal.

 

Good to see that the RFL seem to be taking a "whole game" approach, we need a structure that is good for M62 clubs and expansion clubs (both current and potential), for the big clubs and the small clubs and the grassroots.

[hindle xiii]

It feels a bit like 1995 but there doesn't seem to be a downside to this deal.

It doesn't get Fev into Super League any quicker than the day before yesterday, so there's still plenty to whinge about!

[John Rhino]

That's exactly what Sky did in he very first deal with them. Came along with the offer and gave the game a take it or leave it offer with a small time scale. The RFL balked somewhat though and Sky sweetened he deal but putting the pressure on is not new to Sky.

 

The truth is that the RFL have been negotiating with Sky since the end of November. With a successful World Cup behind them the RFL asked to re-negotiate the contract because the proposed league structure made the old contract redundant.

 

Sky put two proposals on the table in December and mid January. These were both knocked back as inadequate by the RFL.

 

In desperation Sky put forward the current bid and told the RFL you have half a day to agree or we walk away. The rest is history.

 

 

 

(a bloke down the pub told me)

[Northern Sol]

It doesn't get Fev into Super League any quicker than the day before yesterday, so there's still plenty to whinge about!

Only if you are genuinely bonkers. The bigger KPC / CC / NL1 sides had plenty to complain about under licencing and to be fair, they had a point. Now they don't. 

[gingerjon]

It feels a bit like 1995

 

Really?

 

I think you might need a lie down.

[Northern Sol]

Really?

 

I think you might need a lie down.

I am lying down (more or less). Day off for me.

 

It's a break through deal that will allow clubs to do more than just tread water. For the first time Sky have paid more than just the minimum required to have a full-time league.

[roughyedspud]

2 fulltime leagues...

[gingerjon]

I am lying down (more or less). Day off for me.

 

It's a break through deal that will allow clubs to do more than just tread water. For the first time Sky have paid more than just the minimum required to have a full-time league.

 

There are a few reasons to step back though.

 

Yes, it's a good deal but, obviously, we don't officially know how good and whether the amount mentioned is for 5 years or includes all or part of the altered next two years.  We don't yet know how the clubs will distribute the money or how much they will distribute.  We don't know anything at all about how often, or when, the Championship will be televised.

 

I said yesterday and I still think that it provides enough money to cover 3x8.  But the funding principles behind 3x8 are not fair once you drop out of the top 16 teams.  There is certainly nothing in the whole game solution that envisages a complete full time second tier - and there is nothing there that expects all professional teams to run academies.  Minimum standards are being dropped and will be monitored less stringently.

[Jack Russell]

Shock: Mcmanus praises the rfl over tv deal. Heard him on radio slating rfl management in past. This could only tell you this deal is mighty impressive.

[Northern Sol]

There are a few reasons to step back though.

 

Yes, it's a good deal but, obviously, we don't officially know how good and whether the amount mentioned is for 5 years or includes all or part of the altered next two years.  We don't yet know how the clubs will distribute the money or how much they will distribute.  We don't know anything at all about how often, or when, the Championship will be televised.

 

I said yesterday and I still think that it provides enough money to cover 3x8.  But the funding principles behind 3x8 are not fair once you drop out of the top 16 teams.  There is certainly nothing in the whole game solution that envisages a complete full time second tier - and there is nothing there that expects all professional teams to run academies.  Minimum standards are being dropped and will be monitored less stringently.

Obviously it is better if it is a 5-year deal not a 7-year deal but either way this is a significant improvement, the best we've had since 1995.

[GaryO]

 

 

  Minimum standards are being dropped and will be monitored less stringently.

 

If you believe that to be the case, and I sincerely hope you are wrong, the RFL have wasted the last six months developing the 2x12 = 3x8, unless all along it has been one calculated and very effective scam to entice a bigger contract from SKY and keeping the 12 teams who start 2016 in the SL for perpetuity.    

[gingerjon]

If you believe that to be the case, and I sincerely hope you are wrong, the RFL have wasted the last six months developing the 2x12 = 3x8, unless all along it has been one calculated and very effective scam to entice a bigger contract from SKY and keeping the 12 teams who start 2016 in the SL for perpetuity.    

The proposal makes clear that they are 'simplifying' the minimum standards and also reducing the oversight burden on the RFL that came with monitoring licencing.  The example they give is to reduce the minimum stadium capacity and associated corporate facilities.  The reason for the 'simplification' is to remove barriers to promotion.

 

They do also say the minimum standards will be with the clubs tomorrow.