TV Deal

[Futtocks]

19 minutes ago, Dave T said:

People often talk about DAZN and I must admit I don't know much about them. Are they available in the UK, or if not, what is their plan for the UK?

I had a quick Google, and it seems they are available in the UK. They also appear to have signed up a lot of sports coverage, but I don't know if all of it is available in all territories.

https://watch.dazn.com/en-US/sports/

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, Futtocks said:

I had a quick Google, and it seems they are available in the UK. They also appear to have signed up a lot of sports coverage, but I don't know if all of it is available in all territories.

https://watch.dazn.com/en-US/sports/

DAZN is currently available in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Italy, Canada, Japan and USA. You can find out more about DAZN and where it is available here.

We have exciting news that we are coming to Spain soon! Sign up here to be the first to hear our launch plans.

[Scubby]

15 minutes ago, Dave T said:

DAZN is currently available in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Italy, Canada, Japan and USA. You can find out more about DAZN and where it is available here.

We have exciting news that we are coming to Spain soon! Sign up here to be the first to hear our launch plans.

Spoken like a marketeer 

[Dave T]

21 minutes ago, Scubby said:

Spoken like a marketeer 

Pah, wouldn't work in marketing if they begged me to! I'm the one who gives marketing a hard time

[Scubby]

Just now, Dave T said:

Pah, wouldn't work in marketing if they begged me to! I'm the one who gives marketing a hard time

Then why hold back so much on this forum?  

[Sir Kevin Sinfield]

When Super League becomes a true international competition, with Catalans, Toulouse and Toronto, the TV deal will be far more valuable.

[paulwalker71]

2 hours ago, RayCee said:

Sky has splashed out for the EPL. Hopefully there is still  some money in the pot for RL.

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/46267320

That story isn't about the EPL, it's about the EFL. The Football League in old money...

Thats £595m to screen the second,  third and fourth tier. Puts the talk about Sky (not) paying the screen the RL Championship and League 1 into context...

[Damien]

6 minutes ago, paulwalker71 said:

That story isn't about the EPL, it's about the EFL. The Football League in old money...

Thats £595m to screen the second,  third and fourth tier. Puts the talk about Sky (not) paying the screen the RL Championship and League 1 into context...

When one second tier Football match can get a bigger crowd and is better supported than all of lower league RL matches combined it really doesn't.

[Hemel Stag]

2 hours ago, Futtocks said:

Some on the forum have confidently predicted a reduction, and a massive one, every single time since TRL became a website.

An increased deal for RL is pocket-change for Sky, compared to Football, and if it keeps exclusivity for SL (and borderline invisibility for the Championship), they can afford it without breaking sweat.

BT Sport are doing well with RU at the moment, they also re-sell highlights to Channel 5 and C5 Screen a couple of games simultaneously with BT. RL should try to get a similar arrangement with Sky and another Channel like 4 or 5, so there's some exposure on the "normal" telly. Nobody will pay to watch a sport they don't already like, but lots of people will be happy and curious to try something that's for free on Freeview. It could be a win win as if people do get interested they will go on to take up Sky or their Online version Now TV. Sky can earn by reselling footage, get more customers and so can RL potentially. Having the Challenge Cup on BBC is a great shop window for attracting viewers and potential fans.

[EastLondonMike]

I think dazn have Premier league rights. Though probably for viewers outside the UK.

[RayCee]

1 hour ago, paulwalker71 said:

That story isn't about the EPL, it's about the EFL. The Football League in old money...

Thats £595m to screen the second,  third and fourth tier. Puts the talk about Sky (not) paying the screen the RL Championship and League 1 into context...

Thanks for the clarification Paul. I didn't pick that difference, which explains Toby's link from a year ago. 

So the EPL gets the same size deal as the rest of the divisions combined. I hope I have that correct. Perhaps RL should negotiate two deals and then the lower divisions would be recognised, although I'm sure Sky wouldn't see value in that. 

[Rupert Prince]

34 minutes ago, RayCee said:

Thanks for the clarification Paul. I didn't pick that difference, which explains Toby's link from a year ago. 

So the EPL gets the same size deal as the rest of the divisions combined. I hope I have that correct. Perhaps RL should negotiate two deals and then the lower divisions would be recognised, although I'm sure Sky wouldn't see value in that. 

You have done it again - I think!  This new deal is for the English Football League.  The EFL, not the EPL which is The Premiership.  Ironically the word 'league' does not feature in the lexicon of The Premier Division.

The Super League will be the one who negotiates any TV, in the same way The Premier Division does.   There is, as is regularly pointed out elsewhere on here, no value in the lower divisions of the RL.

[Michael Gledhill]

4 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

For the EFL two reasons, 1 they want to be the home of football. Don't doubt there are others in for the EFL, maybe BT, maybe DAZN maybe eleven.

Secondly there isn't a straight customer/supplier relationship between sky and it's sports. The value they offer affects the product they are supplied with which in turn affects the product they sell. A crappy sport has no value to them even if the price is cheap. This is an issue with SL. Sky could probably cut a decent amount from their payment before BT or terrestrial become the better offer or they force SL to have the balls to look at streaming. However cut SL's funding, SL afford fewer quality players put a worse product on the field get fewer viewers fans drift away and ultimately dump sky. 

You forget to mention the new red button coverage that has pushed the price up. 

[Mr Wind Up]

3 hours ago, RayCee said:

Thanks for the clarification Paul. I didn't pick that difference, which explains Toby's link from a year ago. 

So the EPL gets the same size deal as the rest of the divisions combined. I hope I have that correct. Perhaps RL should negotiate two deals and then the lower divisions would be recognised, although I'm sure Sky wouldn't see value in that. 

No. Sky have four of the five Premier League packages, which they paid £3.57 billion over the next three year rights period. BT Sport has the other package, so it totals around £4.5 billion. 

£595 million divided by 5 is £119 million a year for EFL. 

£3.57 billion divided by 3 is £1.19 billion a year for Premier League. 

The EPL gets 10 times what the divisions 2-4 get a year from Sky alone, not counting BT Sport or international broadcasters. In fact, US broadcaster NBC pays the Premier League more (£129 million a year) than Sky is going to for the EFL. 

It's worth noting that many Championship clubs (that's the 2nd division) have threatened to break away if this deal was signed, because they think it undervalues their rights. Now that it has, it'll be interesting to see what happens. 

[Mr Wind Up]

2 hours ago, Rupert Prince said:

You have done it again - I think!  This new deal is for the English Football League.  The EFL, not the EPL which is The Premiership.  Ironically the word 'league' does not feature in the lexicon of The Premier Division.

The Super League will be the one who negotiates any TV, in the same way The Premier Division does.   There is, as is regularly pointed out elsewhere on here, no value in the lower divisions of the RL.

You're living in a bygone era. The only Premiership around here is in union. It's been the Premier League for a long time. And in the last few years it has even gone so far to do away with sponsorship titles (Barclays Premier League) in favour of just being the 'Premier League' in its branding. 

[Bedford Roughyed]

5 hours ago, paulwalker71 said:

Thats £595m to screen the second,  third and fourth tier. Puts the talk about Sky (not) paying the screen the RL Championship and League 1 into context...

There is no comparison between football and any other sport in the UK market.  In no way does it put anything into context.  

[RayCee]

4 hours ago, Bedford Roughyed said:

There is no comparison between football and any other sport in the UK market.  In no way does it put anything into context.  

It does in so far as if that is what broadcasters are prepared to spend on one sport, then for a fraction of that they could have a quality sports product. If media want to fill air time with sport, then someone should get out there and try sell it to a wider audience. To put a broadcast team in at a game costs a fixed amount, then the more you can on sell the more it spreads that cost. Sky do minimal RL games for themselves and that is underselling the fine game RL is. 

Sky were initially good for UK RL, but are now restricting it as the media industry evolves. RL is a good sport for viewing on a media devise of whatever sort. Sky are not doing enough with it. That's an opinion form far away but how it seems to me anyway.

 

[gingerjon]

4 minutes ago, RayCee said:

It does in so far as if that is what broadcasters are prepared to spend on one sport, then for a fraction of that they could have a quality sports product. If media want to fill air time with sport, then someone should get out there and try sell it to a wider audience. To put a broadcast team in at a game costs a fixed amount, then the more you can on sell the more it spreads that cost. Sky do minimal RL games for themselves and that is underselling the fine game RL is. 

Sky were initially good for UK RL, but are now restricting it as the media industry evolves. RL is a good sport for viewing on a media devise of whatever sort. Sky are not doing enough with it. That's an opinion form far away but how it seems to me anyway.

 

In the UK there is soccer, then more soccer, then a bit more soccer, then a final bit of soccer, then oh look we found some more soccer, then a discussion about soccer ... and then 'other sports'.

[Dave T]

3 minutes ago, RayCee said:

Sky do minimal RL games for themselves and that is underselling the fine game RL is. 

Sky were initially good for UK RL, but are now restricting it as the media industry evolves.

What do you mean by this?

[Scubby]

3 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

In the UK there is soccer, then more soccer, then a bit more soccer, then a final bit of soccer, then oh look we found some more soccer, then a discussion about soccer ... and then 'other sports'.

I think you've seriously undervalued their devotion to football there. It is unrelenting. 

[Harry Stottle]

6 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

In the UK there is soccer, then more soccer, then a bit more soccer, then a final bit of soccer, then oh look we found some more soccer, then a discussion about soccer ... and then 'other sports'.

I couldn't be paid to go to watch football, nor could I be bothered to switch over the tv channels to view it in the comfort of my home, I find it abhorrently boring. But I also realise that I am in a vast minority in my attitude to that game in this country and there are millions who are interested and prepared to spend their well earned to follow it, is it any coincidence that companies like Sky want to invest in it to actually earn money from their speculation.

Back to as the original question from the OP who implied, will their be enough left in Sky's budget for an increased RL contract? Who knows only Sky, but whatever they offer to the RFL it will eventually be accepted, beggars can't be choosers.

 

[cookey]

So,on the one hand posters are enquiring how much we will get,what will the increase be,how many companies will bid,it's sold too cheap etc,etc,on the other hand,virtually the same posters use every possible oppourtunity to critise every initiative with shambles,useless,crisis,disaster etc..If you were considering bidding,what would you do?

I am aware of a couple of sponsors who have been put off helping SL clubs because of the abuse others have received.If you are incapable of being positive about the game,at least try to be constructive in your criticism,,rather than the usual simplistic crisis/shambles offerings.Also applies to BBC Sport,many love to criticise the BBC,few even bother to post on their Rugby League pages.You certainly would if the BBC decided not to screen Internationals/Challenge Cup.

 

[Rupert Prince]

1 hour ago, gingerjon said:

In the UK there is soccer, then more soccer, then a bit more soccer, then a final bit of soccer, then oh look we found some more soccer, then a discussion about soccer ... and then 'other sports'.

You forgot about Women's Soccer. 

[Rupert Prince]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

I couldn't be paid to go to watch football, nor could I be bothered to switch over the tv channels to view it in the comfort of my home, I find it abhorrently boring. But I also realise that I am in a vast minority in my attitude to that game in this country and there are millions who are interested and prepared to spend their well earned to follow it, is it any coincidence that companies like Sky want to invest in it to actually earn money from their speculation.

Back to as the original question from the OP who implied, will their be enough left in Sky's budget for an increased RL contract? Who knows only Sky, but whatever they offer to the RFL it will eventually be accepted, beggars can't be choosers.

 

Mr S...  Yes ok you may be right about football, some indeed may say it's boring (and as you say you are in a minority).  But that is not the point.  Not only do TV companies simply show the game , they also show previews and then the post mortem. The more controversy they can wring out of the game the better for all concerned.  This is the symbiotic relationship that TV and Sport has. RL has to play the game, although sometimes I thing the NRL go overboard with it.

Oh and as for the EFL and Sky.  Assuming the deal goes through (and controversy has already started) then the deal will make Sky money, which is the point of it, so it should not hinder Superleague. 

[DavidM]

2 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

I couldn't be paid to go to watch football, nor could I be bothered to switch over the tv channels to view it in the comfort of my home, I find it abhorrently boring. But I also realise that I am in a vast minority in my attitude to that game in this country and there are millions who are interested and prepared to spend their well earned to follow it, is it any coincidence that companies like Sky want to invest in it to actually earn money from their speculation.

Back to as the original question from the OP who implied, will their be enough left in Sky's budget for an increased RL contract? Who knows only Sky, but whatever they offer to the RFL it will eventually be accepted, beggars can't be choosers.

 

The quality of a lot of lower league footy I see on telly really is very very average , but sky up it and sell it brilliantly . The comms go on like it’s Barcelona v Real Madrid. Sky needs it’s football to survive