Workington & Bradford in live streaming beef

[bobbruce]

23 hours ago, Konkrete said:

If it’s not about the Bulls’ away support, but about locals, why did the club permit the Toronto broadcast only a few months ago? Did that not threaten the attendance from locals?  

As that tv deal is backed by the RFL the clubs don’t get a say in it as we found out when Leigh tried to stop it. 

[Scubby]

2 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Im pretty sure i remember that not everyone was on board beforehand with Toronto

The bulls can only do a niche operation by one club. It should be down to the RFL to put structures around that. That bradford were simply allowed to set up this operation and workington decline it, simply shows a complete lack of thought and leadership at the RFL.

Yet they filmed live games at Workington twice last year. Wonder what appeased Town then that wasn't in place this time?

[Monkeydo]

2 hours ago, yipyee said:

It's a shame no one could see it... might have got you some extra supporters for future games... now Bradford have rolled out of time you will continue to be small time...

For the record I am not a Bradford fan but a fan of RL and in this instance Bradford trying to televise division 3 games is what RL needs to get TO at all levels out there. Sky only focus on SL and it's only the furore around Toulouse Toronto and now Bradford that division 3 is on the radar... BBC even left this division out at one point! 

The Welsh derby should be huge at any level, again this should be pushed as an event and stop the short term thinking that is killing our sport!

You seem to be struggling to stay in your pram over this issue. Will you be in touch with Town tomorrow to put yourself forward as the clubs new marketing manager? You seem to know it all..... 

[Dunedan]

While I wouldn't describe myself as a hard-core rugby league fan, I'm also not a casual fan either. Yet without this ruckus, I had no idea Bradford were streaming their games. I don't think I'm alone in that.

If current fans of the game don't know about it, I think it is wildly optimistic to think a massive number of casual fans/complete newcomers are going to tune in and suddenly become lifelong fans.

As for the costs to Workington, let's say they did lose 100 through the gate at a cost of £1,500. It might not seem a lot for Super League, but it's a decent sum for that level - one they probably can't afford to miss out on.

As for those saying it's a shame such a good game wasn't available to watch - let's face it, most of us wouldn't have been watching it anyway.

[Futtocks]

If it had been available, I'd probably have watched. On the other hand, as it partially clashed with St Gaudens v Albi, I might have had a tough choice, because the French streamed games have been very enjoyable and well-presented so far. If more clubs in divisions without TV contracts start looking at live streaming, we could have the very nice problem of too much free, live Rugby League to watch!

Looking at the BarTV YouTube account, we may actually have reached that point, as far as Australian RL is concerned. The future has arrived already; now we need more people to realise the fact and capitalise upon it.

[Copa]

5 hours ago, Futtocks said:

If it had been available, I'd probably have watched. On the other hand, as it partially clashed with St Gaudens v Albi, I might have had a tough choice, because the French streamed games have been very enjoyable and well-presented so far. If more clubs in divisions without TV contracts start looking at live streaming, we could have the very nice problem of too much free, live Rugby League to watch!

Looking at the BarTV YouTube account, we may actually have reached that point, as far as Australian RL is concerned. The future has arrived already; now we need more people to realise the fact and capitalise upon it.

BarTV is great. I really enjoy watching some of the local Canberra games on them. It’s made suburban rugby league easier to follow and support. I’ve now started attending more games.

Auckland RL has also started to broadcast suburban games too.

[dkw]

9 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

A hundred fans is £1500. Thats not a lot of money.

The fact is they only got 1400, The district has a population of nearly 100k. There is plenty to go at.

The argument boils down to here people worrying about the 100 people who would have paid £15 for a ticket but didnt because of it being streamed. Im saying we should be thinking about the 99'600 people who didnt and wouldnt pay £15 per ticket. Would they pay a tenner a month for all games streamed? would they pay a fiver?  Would enough watch for free so that it is worth £2k to a sponsor giving the club an extra £500. Is there potential that enough would watch for free through facebook that when facebook watch extends to the UK they can make more than £1500 through adds, and extended sponsorship opportunities. If they are worried about 100 people going to pubs to watch it, how much a pubs willing to pay to screen it?

Your first sentence shows just how little understanding you have of the situation of clubs in this division. £1500 absolutely is a lot of money to a club like town, plus there's a chance it would be more than that with programme sales, drink, food etc. You talk in absolutes but with a complete lack of knowledge on the subject. 

[AB Knight]

38 minutes ago, dkw said:

Your first sentence shows just how little understanding you have of the situation of clubs in this division. £1500 absolutely is a lot of money to a club like town, plus there's a chance it would be more than that with programme sales, drink, food etc. You talk in absolutes but with a complete lack of knowledge on the subject. 

Just to throw another angle at things, I think some forget a lot of the matchday work being done by League 1 teams is by volunteers - people like the programme sellers, turnstile staff, raffle sellers, merchandise sellers. No, it's not a charity but likewise for most clubs it's not a cash rich league. So £1,500 is a lot of money to these clubs, as you rightly say. At York we had a good 30 or so volunteers giving their all to make the game vs Bradford a success (off the pitch at least!).

For the record, I dealt with and talked to some of the Workington matchday reps/officials on both occassions when they came to Bootham Crescent last season, very knowledgable, professional and friendly people. I'm sure they gave the request a lot of consideration, and their statement shows that..

I hope we can all draw a line under it and move on. Just an idea, but why don't Bradford charge users say £5 a month/ £40 for the season to watch the live stream matches. Everyone who buys a season subscription get's a ticket to any home match of their choosing, and they enter a draw to win a free season ticket for 2019. A small percentage of the money raised could then be given to the home team to negate the possible impact of a lower crowd. Just a thought.....

[Derwent]

30 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Then that needs to change. A pro sport can't survive on those figures. Such a hand to mouth existence is a recipe for death.

Though I have to wonder why a club who cannot afford £1500 are signing two new players. 

Not being able to afford it and not wanting to throw it away are two entirely different things altogether.

[Michael Gledhill]

12 hours ago, Derwent said:

Town had no problem with ProperSports and had came to an amicable agreement for the streaming. It was when people from the actual Bulls club got involved and started making unreasonable demands - not requests - that Town got irked and told them to stuff it. I’m sure Mick will confirm that there was no disagreement whatsoever between ProperSports and Town.

 

For those that follow me on Twitter/Facebook will know that two weeks ago, I was at Derwent Park and the Recreation Ground with Sam Bridges (Proper Sport) testing the cameras ahead of the planned live stream. 

I think it's important to point out that as a club and organisation, the Bradford Bulls and Proper Sport don't just turn up at these grounds unannounced. 

I personally phoned Workington Town up - some eight days before our visit and explained what we would like to do - the response from Workington Town was that we were good to visit Derwent Park on the 28/3/18 for a ground site visit.

When myself and Proper Sport arrived at Derwent Park on 28/3/18, Workington Town welcomed us with open arms, one of their directors and a volunteer were present as the Workington chairman is a driving instructor and had a full diary, so couldn't meet us on our visit.

Once at Derwent Park we had numerous cups of tea, talked for over 90 minutes about the current state of Rugby League before we conducted our site visit. I would like to thank Workington for their generous hospitality.

Whilst we were on site it was communicated to myself and Proper Sport that the chairman was worried the coverage would be too pro-Bradford.

I showed the two memebers of staff from Workington the coverage from the York and Keighley games, and explained that we could get the chairman or coach/player to be part of the production - eg have them on the live during the broadcast to give the coverage a balanced view.

This was communicated back to the Workington chairman and we left Derwent Park with an agreement to stream the game with the chairman wanting to be filmed pitchside talking promoting all things Workington Town. 

For whatever reason that I'm not privy to, Workington Town then changed their mind last week, four days before the game was scheduled to take place.

Yes, it's frustrating because myself and Proper Sport spent a full day with the camera equipment on the Cumbria peninsula, but ultimately Workington Town have the final say in the matter of who is allowed to stream/film games as per the 2018 RFL operational handbook.

[paulwalker71]

Very fair post, and a good counter to some of the ill-informed stuff being thrown about.

As you say though, in the end it was Workington's decision, and perhaps now we have to put the whole thing to bed and move onwards (and upwards, hopefully)

[fairfolly]

Just a thought,has the esteemed venerable Doctor been visiting Workington last week? Why change your mind hours before the game ? Something not quite right here coming from Workington.

[Michael Gledhill]

3 minutes ago, fairfolly said:

Just a thought,has the esteemed venerable Doctor been visiting Workington last week? Why change your mind hours before the game ? Something not quite right here coming from Workington.

It was days, not hours. 

[DavidM]

Well we’ve ended up with some wider publicity and exposure , Andrew Voss has picked up the drop goal pic with the ‘ Bradford dab ‘ off towns twitter !

[fairfolly]

Point taken Mick but the question still remains.

[jpmc]

This hasnt done Workington any harm at all and with them winning the game i should imagine they are one of the biggest talking points in the town today.

Need to build on it for the next home game now

[Spidey]

31 minutes ago, Michael Gledhill said:

 

For those that follow me on Twitter/Facebook will know that two weeks ago, I was at Derwent Park and the Recreation Ground with Sam Bridges (Proper Sport) testing the cameras ahead of the planned live stream. 

I think it's important to point out that as a club and organisation, the Bradford Bulls and Proper Sport don't just turn up at these grounds unannounced. 

I personally phoned Workington Town up - some eight days before our visit and explained what we would like to do - the response from Workington Town was that we were good to visit Derwent Park on the 28/3/18 for a ground site visit.

When myself and Proper Sport arrived at Derwent Park on 28/3/18, Workington Town welcomed us with open arms, one of their directors and a volunteer were present as the Workington chairman is a driving instructor and had a full diary, so couldn't meet us on our visit.

Once at Derwent Park we had numerous cups of tea, talked for over 90 minutes about the current state of Rugby League before we conducted our site visit. I would like to thank Workington for their generous hospitality.

Whilst we were on site it was communicated to myself and Proper Sport that the chairman was worried the coverage would be too pro-Bradford.

I showed the two memebers of staff from Workington the coverage from the York and Keighley games, and explained that we could get the chairman or coach/player to be part of the production - eg have them on the live during the broadcast to give the coverage a balanced view.

This was communicated back to the Workington chairman and we left Derwent Park with an agreement to stream the game with the chairman wanting to be filmed pitchside talking promoting all things Workington Town. 

For whatever reason that I'm not privy to, Workington Town then changed their mind last week, four days before the game was scheduled to take place.

Yes, it's frustrating because myself and Proper Sport spent a full day with the camera equipment on the Cumbria peninsula, but ultimately Workington Town have the final say in the matter of who is allowed to stream/film games as per the 2018 RFL operational handbook.

Good insight - maybe you should coach Bradford’s Chairman how to communicate to the masses ?

[Adeybull]

This is all very perplexing.

Mick’s explanation contradicts the Town statement in several places. Not least, that neither he nor Proper Sport are in any way “The Bradford Media Team”, or indeed any Bradford team. (At least to my knowledge, unless Mick has some formal role at the club?)

Then, when you read the Town statement, the wording is perhaps a tad disingenuous? I am suspecting that whatever involvement took place with any Bulls staff came AFTER Town changed their mind about allowing streaming? If that is correct, I suggest that is not at all clear from the Town statement? Of course, if it came before then I am wrong, but I cannot see why Bradford staff would have had any cause to get involved before?

From what Mick says, it does seem Town changed their mind. The inference in their statement is that this was because of the conduct of Bradford staff, but it would be good to know the real reason if different given my deductions above. And if Town received any advice which may have led them to change their mind?

I am also perplexed at the unnecessary intervention of Koukash. What the hell had it to do with him? Interesting that Derwent suggested bad blood between Koukash and Chalmers. Whether connected with rumoured plans to buy into Bradford, and presumably try and get them back to SL, then no longer, who knows? I guess Koukash could claim an interest because of his reported plans or ideas for a Cumbrian club for SL, but surely the professional approach would be to keep out of silly name calling?

And I would still very much like to know just what so riled Chalmers that incited him into an uncharacteristic and embarrassing rant about SL ambitions and thIngs, which had nothing to do with the issue?

As I said before, surely there must be more to all this nonsense than is immediately apparent, since it otherwise really makes little sense? I never had Chalmers down as a petulant bully, and still don’t.

[Scubby]

24 minutes ago, Adeybull said:

This is all very perplexing.

Mick’s explanation contradicts the Town statement in several places. Not least, that neither he nor Proper Sport are in any way “The Bradford Media Team”, or indeed any Bradford team.

I think this bit lends itself to all kinds of potential problems Adey. A company approaching the Bulls to negotiate covering live streamed games and clubs themselves unaware of who is the letterhead of the operation. Throw into that the laissez faire attitude of the RFL to L1 broadcasting and you are primed for crossed wires.

[Adeybull]

Just now, Scubby said:

I think this bit lends itself to all kinds of potential problems Adey. A company approaching the Bulls to negotiate covering live streamed games and clubs themselves unaware of who is the letterhead of the operation. Throw into that the laissez faire attitude of the RFL to L1 broadcasting and you are primed for crossed wires.

Could well be, Scubby. And the Town statement alluded to a similar issue, when saying that it was a "volunteer" at Town they dealt with. Either way, some wires seem to have been serious crossed somewhere?

I must admit I was perpelexed too about Town saying that the request had not been put "in writing". Maybe that was a response to someone at Bradford saying they had a formal agreement, but who knows? I'm sure it can't just be using failure to follow a formalised procedure as an excuse, but just seemed an odd choice fo words to me.

In the end, this seemingly stupid spat has served to deny followers of various clubs the opportunity to see Bradford getting their backsides spanked again up in Cumbria, and the good performance from Town.  Some good PR maybe gone begging, there?

[Michael Gledhill]

37 minutes ago, Adeybull said:

This is all very perplexing.

Mick’s explanation contradicts the Town statement in several places. Not least, that neither he nor Proper Sport are in any way “The Bradford Media Team”, or indeed any Bradford team. (At least to my knowledge, unless Mick has some formal role at the club?)

Then, when you read the Town statement, the wording is perhaps a tad disingenuous? I am suspecting that whatever involvement took place with any Bulls staff came AFTER Town changed their mind about allowing streaming? If that is correct, I suggest that is not at all clear from the Town statement? Of course, if it came before then I am wrong, but I cannot see why Bradford staff would have had any cause to get involved before?

From what Mick says, it does seem Town changed their mind. The inference in their statement is that this was because of the conduct of Bradford staff, but it would be good to know the real reason if different given my deductions above. And if Town received any advice which may have led them to change their mind?

I am also perplexed at the unnecessary intervention of Koukash. What the hell had it to do with him? Interesting that Derwent suggested bad blood between Koukash and Chalmers. Whether connected with rumoured plans to buy into Bradford, and presumably try and get them back to SL, then no longer, who knows? I guess Koukash could claim an interest because of his reported plans or ideas for a Cumbrian club for SL, but surely the professional approach would be to keep out of silly name calling?

And I would still very much like to know just what so riled Chalmers that incited him into an uncharacteristic and embarrassing rant about SL ambitions and thIngs, which had nothing to do with the issue?

As I said before, surely there must be more to all this nonsense than is immediately apparent, since it otherwise really makes little sense? I never had Chalmers down as a petulant bully, and still don’t. We 

Hi Adey, my role at the Bradford Bulls is digital media, covering the Bulls Live/Bulls TV - online commentary and visual media platforms.

Obviously these ground site visits have to take place and like I said in my earlier post, both Workington and Whitehaven gave us the green light to visit their grounds.

 

[Adeybull]

Just now, Michael Gledhill said:

Hi Adey, my role at the Bradford Bulls is digital media, covering the Bulls Live/Bulls TV - online commentary and visual media platforms.

Obviously these ground site visits have to take place and like I said in my earlier post, both Workington and Whitehaven gave us the green light to visit their grounds.

 

Ah sorry, so I was wrong and you DO have a formal role then? So the description by Town is at least partially correct?  I'm assuming it will not be you to whom they refer regarding "arrogance of some Bradford staff", since that came after your site visit?

[Michael Gledhill]

5 minutes ago, Adeybull said:

Ah sorry, so I was wrong and you DO have a formal role then? So the description by Town is at least partially correct?  I'm assuming it will not be you to whom they refer regarding "arrogance of some Bradford staff", since that came after your site visit?

That part of their statement doesn't refer to me or Proper Sport.

As Derwent has already learned, we had agreements in place when we left Derwent Park on 28/3/18.

[Adeybull]

4 minutes ago, Michael Gledhill said:

That part of their statement doesn't refer to me or Proper Sport.

As Derwent has already learned, we had agreements in place when we left Derwent Park on 28/3/18.

Thanks Mick, and yes that was how I understood it from what I had read.

[dkw]

3 hours ago, scotchy1 said: