Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Man of Kent

‘Sky Sports Rugby’

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, M j M said:

It was a deal which caught the top of the market and locked Sky in at a high rate for an extended period.

conversely it was a deal signed two years early that missed the top of the market by two years and locked the game in to a damaging and unpopular structure that has caused a split in the game, a precipitous fall in the prestige of the top level and create an instability that saw many clubs go bust and the game unable to take advantage of the greatest opportunity offered to it in decades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But Sky don't really care about the structure. The deal was signed at that point, and at a slight premium, because Sky wanted to do a big confirmation of a whole bunch of different sports at one go to reassure the stock market (https://www.skysports.com/rugby-union/news/11095/9140875/sky-sports-secures-six-long-term-rights-agreements-across-six-different-sports )

Sky really aren't that fussed as long as viewers are tuning in and they are by and large paying for Wigan/Saints/Leeds/Warrington/Hull/Hull KR. The rest is just padding to be brutally honest - the other teams, apart from maybe Cas, generally don't rate and are making up the televisual numbers.

It's also pretty rubbish to claim that the 8s did many of the things you claim; that's for another thread but correlation is not causation.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, M j M said:

But Sky don't really care about the structure. The deal was signed at that point, and at a slight premium, because Sky wanted to do a big confirmation of a whole bunch of different sports at one go to reassure the stock market (https://www.skysports.com/rugby-union/news/11095/9140875/sky-sports-secures-six-long-term-rights-agreements-across-six-different-sports )

Sky really aren't that fussed as long as viewers are tuning in and they are by and large paying for Wigan/Saints/Leeds/Warrington/Hull/Hull KR. The rest is just padding to be brutally honest - the other teams, apart from maybe Cas, generally don't rate and are making up the televisual numbers.

It's also pretty rubbish to claim that the 8s did many of the things you claim; that's for another thread but correlation is not causation.

I agree that Sky dont really care about the structure, they are pretty honest and upfront about that. The problem is that the structure and the deal became inextricable because of the deal the RFL negotiated. The results of that has been pretty terrible. You can argue about cause and effect but we can't separate different parts of the deal from each other or divorce the deal from its results.

The question of whether we were wrong to sign the deal we did when we did has been pretty conclusively answered. We were. The results of it have been incredibly bad and incredibly damaging. Whether we would have been better signing a different deal at the same time or the same deal later or a different deal later are obviously pure speculation, but it is clear and well established demonstrable fact that the deal we did sign, which were inextricably linked to the changes we made had a negative effect on the game and got nowhere near achieving the results they aimed for or expected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, gingerjon said:

There's not one sport that gets that level of coverage from the BBC, not even soccer.

How many sports that are as popular/has viewership numbers that are as cheap per game/event as RL?

 BBC couldn't afford two live games a week of soccer plus a CH match, you do know how much soccer costs right?

BT paid £320M/yr over 3 years for 42 matches/yr , that's £7.8M per game, SKY paid approx £11M per game in a £4.2Bn deal over 3 years.

BBC paid £204M just for the premiership highlights ffs!

RL SKY deal Was £200M over 5 years for SL, CH and CC games

You do the sums.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

I agree that Sky dont really care about the structure, they are pretty honest and upfront about that. The problem is that the structure and the deal became inextricable because of the deal the RFL negotiated. The results of that has been pretty terrible. You can argue about cause and effect but we can't separate different parts of the deal from each other or divorce the deal from its results.

The question of whether we were wrong to sign the deal we did when we did has been pretty conclusively answered. We were. The results of it have been incredibly bad and incredibly damaging. Whether we would have been better signing a different deal at the same time or the same deal later or a different deal later are obviously pure speculation, but it is clear and well established demonstrable fact that the deal we did sign, which were inextricably linked to the changes we made had a negative effect on the game and got nowhere near achieving the results they aimed for or expected.

You're talking in absolutes which are anything but.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, M j M said:

You're talking in absolutes which are anything but.

I'm talking about absolutes solely in relation to what happened. Which is true. The other things we could have done is an academic discussion and pure speculation. What we did and the results we saw are now fact. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

It was a bad deal, the repercussions of it are the risk we face in the next one

It was a bad deal because we got too much money and may now receive less next time?!

There are regular posters on here,who claimed a year after the deal was signed,that we 'gave the game away too cheaply and deserved more'.The same people now say what a great deal it was and we'll have to accept less next time.These people always know the winner of the 3.00pm at York,unfortunately they only tell anyone at 3.15pm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, cookey said:

It was a bad deal because we got too much money and may now receive less next time?!

There are regular posters on here,who claimed a year after the deal was signed,that we 'gave the game away too cheaply and deserved more'.The same people now say what a great deal it was and we'll have to accept less next time.These people always know the winner of the 3.00pm at York,unfortunately they only tell anyone at 3.15pm.

That clearly isn't what I said. 

But I thought it was a bad deal at the time, can see it has been proven a bad deal and the changes being made now are a response to the disastrous  consequences of making that deal  

I don't believe we got too much last time I think we got too little and locked ourselves in to changes that had a negative effect and left us in danger of getting less next time. 

I also don't believe some of the chicken licken the sky is falling in predictions about the next tv deal. I think the next tv deal will be different but overall SL will get more. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, cookey said:

It was a bad deal because we got too much money and may now receive less next time?!

There are regular posters on here,who claimed a year after the deal was signed,that we 'gave the game away too cheaply and deserved more'.The same people now say what a great deal it was and we'll have to accept less next time.These people always know the winner of the 3.00pm at York,unfortunately they only tell anyone at 3.15pm.

The twisted logic appears to be that it was a bad deal because the extra TV money caused us to do things which caused us to get less money next time. 

Trying to conflate the structure with the TV deal is misleading because life is complicated and not black and white. But one thing the structure did give were those middle 8 Saturday games which were relatively appealing to Sky compared to bottom end of SL matches and top end of Championship matches. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Denton Rovers RLFC said:

How many sports that are as popular/has viewership numbers that are as cheap per game/event as RL?

 BBC couldn't afford two live games a week of soccer plus a CH match, you do know how much soccer costs right?

BT paid £320M/yr over 3 years for 42 matches/yr , that's £7.8M per game, SKY paid approx £11M per game in a £4.2Bn deal over 3 years.

BBC paid £204M just for the premiership highlights ffs!

RL SKY deal Was £200M over 5 years for SL, CH and CC games

You do the sums.

 

There's nothing in there that remotely even begins to explain why the BBC, or anyone else, would want to make a commitment to showing multiple rugby league games a week.


Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, M j M said:

The twisted logic appears to be that it was a bad deal because the extra TV money caused us to do things which caused us to get less money next time. 

Trying to conflate the structure with the TV deal is misleading because life is complicated and not black and white. But one thing the structure did give were those middle 8 Saturday games which were relatively appealing to Sky compared to bottom end of SL matches and top end of Championship matches. 

That isn't the logic at all.

The logic is that we still undersold the rights in 2014, we signed a deal that was inextricably linked to the new format, the new format proved disastrous and as such the whole deal proved poor. Now we are having to take actions to remedy those poor decisions which may lead to a lower deal next time round not because of any inherent issues around us but because of the effects of the last 7 years on the game.

However as I have also said I don't agree that the situation is unsalvageable and think the negative expectations of some massively smaller deal will be proven incorrect. I think we will see a larger deal that may work out per game as less but overall more. I think we will get a better deal next time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, scotchy1 said:

That isn't the logic at all.

The logic is that we still undersold the rights in 2014, we signed a deal that was inextricably linked to the new format, the new format proved disastrous and as such the whole deal proved poor. Now we are having to take actions to remedy those poor decisions which may lead to a lower deal next time round not because of any inherent issues around us but because of the effects of the last 7 years on the game.

However as I have also said I don't agree that the situation is unsalvageable and think the negative expectations of some massively smaller deal will be proven incorrect. I think we will see a larger deal that may work out per game as less but overall more. I think we will get a better deal next time. 

However, if that payment was to provide this structure, then how are we now moving from that structure but still getting the payments?

The value of the TV deal was used to push through the changes that the game wanted. Sky were happy to get games to show, and they still have games to show this year.

So you may feel that the decision to move to S8's was a mistake, but that is just what we spent the money on rather than the £200m tv deal being poor.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Dave T said:

However, if that payment was to provide this structure, then how are we now moving from that structure but still getting the payments?

The value of the TV deal was used to push through the changes that the game wanted. Sky were happy to get games to show, and they still have games to show this year.

So you may feel that the decision to move to S8's was a mistake, but that is just what we spent the money on rather than the £200m tv deal being poor.

But you are trying to divorce the different parts of the deal from each other rather than look at it in its totality . That we may have signed a different deal with a  different structure and a different funding formulae that may have worked out better (or worse) is not the argument.

That we made the deal we made which was x amount  of money for y number of years under z structure is what happened. The results are what we are seeing now. The results have not been good. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

But you are trying to divorce the different parts of the deal from each other rather than look at it in its totality . That we may have signed a different deal with a  different structure and a different funding formulae that may have worked out better (or worse) is not the argument.

That we made the deal we made which was x amount  of money for y number of years under z structure is what happened. The results are what we are seeing now. The results have not been good. 

But the "under z structure" bit clearly wasn't part of the deal, because we have changed structure with a couple of years left. And Lenegan has been extremely clear in saying that Sky pay for a number of games and we provide them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Dave T said:

But the "under z structure" bit clearly wasn't part of the deal, because we have changed structure with a couple of years left. And Lenegan has been extremely clear in saying that Sky pay for a number of games and we provide them.

It clearly was part of the deal because that's what we offered. That we may have offered something else is neither here nor there  we offered what we did. 

And we have changed the structure after consultation with the broadcaster. I agree sky didn't and don't really care about the structure which makes it all the worse that we offered such a damaging one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

It clearly was part of the deal because that's what we offered. That we may have offered something else is neither here nor there  we offered what we did. 

 And we have changed the structure after consultation with the broadcaster. I agree sky didn't and don't really care about the structure which makes it all the worse that we offered such a damaging one.

Wasnt the deal £xm for xx games per annum? How do you know the third factor was in there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Wasnt the deal £xm for xx games per annum? How do you know the third factor was in there?

Because it happened. It wasn't a surprise to Sky that this happened. 

I'm not sure why we are trying to divorce the two things. It isn't a hypothetical it's what happened. The signing of the deal and the change in structure are clearly linked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, scotchy1 said:

Because it happened. It wasn't a surprise to Sky that this happened. 

I'm not sure why we are trying to divorce the two things. It isn't a hypothetical it's what happened. The signing of the deal and the change in structure are clearly linked.

We also got a new logo. Was that part of the deal?

I should add, I made that bit up, I have no idea whether we got a new logo at that time of the year.

But I am happy to agree to disagree, the evidence suggests that Sky weren't bothered about what structure we had - they have said so, Ian Lenegan has said so, we have changed it. That is what I base my opinion, and am happy with that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

We also got a new logo. Was that part of the deal?

I should add, I made that bit up, I have no idea whether we got a new logo at that time of the year.

But I am happy to agree to disagree, the evidence suggests that Sky weren't bothered about what structure we had - they have said so, Ian Lenegan has said so, we have changed it. That is what I base my opinion, and am happy with that.

Why would a new logo have anything to do with Sky.

Sky aren't bothered about the structure, I've said that numerous times. But the idea that we didn't present the new structure as our offering when negotiating the new deal and as such they are linked and it was part of the deal, even if it was of no consequence to sky is preposterous.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dave T said:

But the "under z structure" bit clearly wasn't part of the deal, because we have changed structure with a couple of years left. And Lenegan has been extremely clear in saying that Sky pay for a number of games and we provide them.

Careful, Careful there's only Parky allowed to speak for Lenaghan on here?

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, gingerjon said:

There's nothing in there that remotely even begins to explain why the BBC, or anyone else, would want to make a commitment to showing multiple rugby league games a week.

You said that the BBC don't even have soccer on live as often as what I was asking for  - 2 live SL games and a CH match. I countered that by stating why they don't because of the obscene cost, even the one hour soccer highlights programme over 38 weeks costs more than the whole of SKY's RL package. I suppose you are also totally unaware of how much a handful of six nations matches cost the BBC also?

There is no financial reason why the BBC cannot take the reigns of live RL from SKY,  being on FTA is the only viable way to increase not just viewing numbers but interest in the sport as a whole. the BBC numbers give no indication as to what they are comparing, it's insulting to make anything of a garbage 45 minute slot for the highlights package, it's also not good enough in terms of production in any case nor indeed advertising it or RL on the BBC as a whole. As I said, if they actually did things in the same way they do for RU then there would be a massive differential IMHO, when you look at advertising/promotion of other sports/events RL is not just minuscule, it's non existent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Denton Rovers RLFC said:

You said that the BBC don't even have soccer on live as often as what I was asking for  - 2 live SL games and a CH match. I countered that by stating why they don't because of the obscene cost, even the one hour soccer highlights programme over 38 weeks costs more than the whole of SKY's RL package. I suppose you are also totally unaware of how much a handful of six nations matches cost the BBC also?

BBC1 and BBC2 are not sports channels - they are variety channels. They want a bit of everything, including a variety of sport. A few weeks of RU in Jan/Feb/whenever that stuff's on. Some live RL as the Challenge Cup pops up and some internationals. Regular highlights of football of course for an hour a week plus a selection of live games from some competitions. Olympics, athletics, whatever, as it arises. But blocking out effectively two or three hour segments every Saturday and Sunday afternoon from late January to mid-October, or later if they have international rights, for Rugby League on the main two channels in addition to all the other bits of sports coverage is not something they want to do, or anyone should expect them to do.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, M j M said:

BBC1 and BBC2 are not sports channels - they are variety channels. They want a bit of everything, including a variety of sport. A few weeks of RU in Jan/Feb/whenever that stuff's on. Some live RL as the Challenge Cup pops up and some internationals. Regular highlights of football of course for an hour a week plus a selection of live games from some competitions. Olympics, athletics, whatever, as it arises. But blocking out effectively two or three hour segments every Saturday and Sunday afternoon from late January to mid-October, or later if they have international rights, for Rugby League on the main two channels in addition to all the other bits of sports coverage is not something they want to do, or anyone should expect them to do.

Im not really sure its the blocking out slots that would be the issue. There isnt usually anything really on BBC 1 or 2 at that time, they show the football scores and the build up show, they used to show F1 blocking out a whole weekend, similarly with Horse Racing, they show a lot of athletics and have previously shown a lot of golf,  and will from 2020 show a lot more cricket.

I think the BBC would be perfectly happy to show Super League, the issue is they wont pay anywhere near what Sky or BT would or even a minor commercial sports network and removing the exclusivity of Sky et al to show "some" games on the BBC would mean the value of both deals would be relatively small. Sky pay a hefty premium for exclusivity. Its what drives subscriptions.

We also dont perform brilliantly on the BBC and underperform in the slot so im not sure why they would want to pay anything to take SL or certainly the championship.

Ive said before the answer should be to expand the challenge cup and give them more games for the same price, get out and sell the challenge cup and use the BBC as a marketing platform to get people in league games and watching on pay plat-forms.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...