Can Ralph Rimmer get Ottawa to the starting gate?

[CanadianRugger]

20 minutes ago, ojx said:

No, it's what makes it so interesting. Excitement on the pitch and a soap opera off it. This is true sports entertainment.

Discussions are supposedly occurring right now, but if what I heard on RL Backchat is true, while certain club chairmen don't like TWP, Sky apparently love the concept and the team.  

[ojx]

7 hours ago, fighting irish said:

Would you care to add some estimates ($ values) for these outgoings?

Also what I was really trying to get to, is what's inside David Argyle's mind.

Is this a rich man's folly that he is prepared to spend his loose cash on till he dies?

Or does he have a estimated time period where he is prepared to carry the cost until income overtakes expenditure.

If this is true, how long is that time period and how does he expect the income to grow to the point it exceeds the expenses..

Sorry fighting, I really don't know the cost of each item, or what is happening in Mr. Argyle's mind. Like I said in an earlier post, I only think it can become profitable with a large enough TV deal. I have no idea if this is possible, however, one game a week doesn't seem like much content to sell. Maybe it can be packaged with Ottawa's games in 2021.

[Big Picture]

10 minutes ago, ojx said:

Sorry fighting, I really don't know the cost of each item, or what is happening in Mr. Argyle's mind. Like I said in an earlier post, I only think it can become profitable with a large enough TV deal. I have no idea if this is possible, however, one game a week doesn't seem like much content to sell. Maybe it can be packaged with Ottawa's games in 2021.

That's especially true if half (or more) of those one match a week are in at an audience-unfriendly time on a Saturday or Sunday morning.

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, CanadianRugger said:

Interesting discussion on Rugby League backchat this week on TWP and viewing figures:

Sunday's result against Widnes was circulated to 40 million people globally

10 million in the UK + 30 Million outside the UK

What does this mean?

[Man of Kent]

3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

What does this mean?

Tweeted. 

[CanadianRugger]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

What does this mean?

Martin Vickers elaborated on TWP's long term strategy as well which is very simple.  The reason David Argylle is paying six figures of his own money to broadcast TWP games is to build a platform that gets eyeballs watching the sport.  The way forward to profitability for TWP is through streaming and television.  

Sky are happy about this because according to Vickers, they are getting more viewers of their Wolfpack broadcasts outside the UK than they are in the UK.

The Wolfpack is seen as a way to grow the games exposure.

[The Parksider]

17 hours ago, CanadianRugger said:

Martin Vickers elaborated on TWP's long term strategy as well which is very simple.  The reason David Argylle is paying six figures of his own money to broadcast TWP games is to build a platform that gets eyeballs watching the sport.  Sky are happy about this because according to Vickers...........................................

Martin Vickers had a free ride to say whatever he wanted. It's naive to believe that because he was unchallenged on this it was true. As has been said by the journalists, if you want to ask searching questions of club officials, then they won't come on the programme. Vickers was therefore able to say what he wanted, and wasn't challenged on why TWP are not bothering to develop players, and what is happening about the Transatlantic League that would find a TV deal much bigger than SKY could ever provide.

SKY are not happy with the aim of the American dream that actually is a Transatlantic League that attracts a massive NATV contract and sidelines SKY. You can find this in Perez's online interviews but as above you do not want to find this, you do not want to debate either like Vickers, you play the same game of putting the truth on "ignore" as can be seen in your post on here where you and TIWIT are proud not to want to face the real debate. 

On 01/08/2019 at 09:48, Man of Kent said:

Well, if I’d signed a five-year participation agreement then proceeded to spend squillions on a new club, I’d be seeking legal action if that club was prevented from participating within that period.

The signed contract is with the RFL. If therefore TWP are refused promotion by Superleague TWP are contractually obliged to play on in the Championship for two more years this would enable Ottawa and New York to work their way up and create with TWP a Transatlantic league which was essentially the plan. If Argylle was ever serious then he would stick around even if he's not promoted. If he only wants Superleague for himself and cares nothing about Perez's long term aims HE may be the one to shut down and breach the agreement.

18 hours ago, Moove said:

That's the thing that gets me. Back in April SL had made an 'agreement in principle' with the RFL on entry criteria into SL yet there's still no transparency around what any team (TWP or otherwise) would need to do to be cleared to join SL should they win the Championship play-offs.As a sport we're going to look utterly stupid if (most likely when) we get to the end of the 80th minute of the Championship Final and still nobody has a clue what is going on. 

That's not so. The basic qualification for SL is win the Championship play off. That has been modified to also run a reserves team home and away as well. This has had to come in because of the dire player shortage North American clubs who don't produce any will only make worse. Read about how bad it is on the other thread.

Twice before clubs (Dewsbury & Hunslet) have played out the Championship to winning the final and had their day in the sun and had time to enjoy the glory. But in the weeks after that the hard work was done to analyse if they were strong enough for inclusion in Superleague and neither were.....

It is very clear what the situation is and it's no good making out "nobody has a clue". The cold hard reality has already been discussed in public when McManus said on behalf of Superleague that dressing English players up as North Americans does not work for Superleague. 

The only cloudy issues are the unilateral announcement by Argylle three years ago that he was going to be generous and pay all the travel and accommodation costs as his club scythed through the Championships on it's way to superleague. Once there the Superleague clubs would have to pay their own travel and accommodation. How on earth can he dictate that?? You tell me??

So once the victory parade is over the questions about whether Argylle (1) will run reserves and whether he will (2) pay all travel and accommodation to both the teams that SL clubs will send there, plus there is the issue of (3) TWP wanting to play at home here out of Manchester, until Easter which SL have already said they can't.

I do not have a clue about reserves and travel costs or where TWP would play "at home" in the winter, because Argyle isn't saying - so please do not keep having a go at Superleague's administrators indicating they are "utterly stupid" (your words).

If an overseas billionaire wants to start his own club then renege on promises to develop players and fail to bring in paying TV deals, and not run reserves, and expect Superleague clubs to stand all the travel costs to Toronto twice over and let them play "at home" here, then that's his problem to sort out.

Note also how Argyle has avoided talking to Superleague for three years - if you want to join the club talk to the committee.

I am only telling it how it is yet I note the childish posts proudly insulting me in the thread above and putting all these home truths on "Ignore". it's a tough debate this but I think we should have it accordingly don't you?.....

[fighting irish]

1 hour ago, The Parksider said:

it's a tough debate this but I think we should have it accordingly don't you?.....

Yes I do.

[Moove]

1 hour ago, The Parksider said:

That's not so. The basic qualification for SL is win the Championship play off. That has been modified to also run a reserves team home and away as well. This has had to come in because of the dire player shortage North American clubs who don't produce any will only make worse. Read about how bad it is on the other thread.

Twice before clubs (Dewsbury & Hunslet) have played out the Championship to winning the final and had their day in the sun and had time to enjoy the glory. But in the weeks after that the hard work was done to analyse if they were strong enough for inclusion in Superleague and neither were.....

It is very clear what the situation is and it's no good making out "nobody has a clue". The cold hard reality has already been discussed in public when McManus said on behalf of Superleague that dressing English players up as North Americans does not work for Superleague. 

The only cloudy issues are the unilateral announcement by Argylle three years ago that he was going to be generous and pay all the travel and accommodation costs as his club scythed through the Championships on it's way to superleague. Once there the Superleague clubs would have to pay their own travel and accommodation. How on earth can he dictate that?? You tell me??

So once the victory parade is over the questions about whether Argylle (1) will run reserves and whether he will (2) pay all travel and accommodation to both the teams that SL clubs will send there, plus there is the issue of (3) TWP wanting to play at home in Manchester until Easter which SL have already said they can't.

I do not have a clue about reserves and travel costs or where TWP would play "at home" in the winter, because Argyle isn't saying - so please do not keep having a go at Superleague's administrators indicating they are "utterly stupid" (your words).

Firstly I've excluded your last couple of lines from the quote as I've assumed they're not aimed at me even though they follow a quote of my post. I haven't commented on this thread previously in relation to anything you've said and clearly haven't insulted or blocked you.

1. I categorically did not say that SLs administrators are stupid as you've claimed in the last line above. You've made that up, and that is not conducive to a constructive debate if you're going to continue to do that. I said "as a sport we're going to look utterly stupid if...". There are few sports which have such a dilemma about its structure on a seemingly annual basis and drip feed high level P&R entry criteria in occasional interviews by individual club owners and does little to encourage investment in the sport

2. I'd question the relevance of your Dewsbury and Hunslet examples. That was so long ago now and the sport is structured differently and run differently by many different people

3. I'd question your statement of fact that reserves have only come in for next year to mitigate player development challenges for TWP. What is your evidence for this being the case? Everywhere that reserves have been mentioned has referenced player development pathways with the club environment, players returning from injury etc. The idea that everyone in the sport has lied about that and they've only agreed to reserves to put a blocker in front of TWP seems unlikely

4. The formal criteria which was to be agreed between SL and the RFL is absolutely not clear. Yes, winning the Championship is a pre-requisite. In Elstone's interview here, he backs this up by stating that there is no fast-track opportunity for any club (TWP, Toulouse or any other team). Current SL teams have agreed that they will all run a reserves next year so it may be a reasonable assumption the same (or a similar alternative as per Catalans) would apply to any other club hoping to gain promotion

5. In that same interview Elstone also claims that one of the fundamental questions about promotion (in reference to TWP/Ottawa/NYC but I would assume applies to any team), is around “...does it grow the cake? Does it come with additional fans, sponsors, broadcast revenues?". This implies that these may also form part of any entry criteria, none of which you mention despite stating that the criteria is clear. So have they decided against that in the last three months? If not, what would be the measure? How many fans? How much in sponsorship is required? What level of contribution to broadcast revenues? If it's new broadcasters then how big does the deal need to be? How does SL intend to measure the contribution of say York or Leigh (just examples) if they were to win the Championship? Do they have access to Sky Sports subscriber/viewer numbers in those areas?

6. If the criteria is indeed limited to just running reserves and winning the Championship alongside some consideration of logistics (as you're implying) then there's probably a separate debate to be had there as I'd argue that is far from being sufficient in terms of growing SL. It's also very different to the elements which Elstone referenced when he said the criteria was in the process of being finalised with the RFL back in April

7. If SL entry criteria was as clear as you say it is, why is it necessary to have to search through odd interviews to find odd elements in isolation? How can you interpret that as being clear? If it's been agreed with the RFL, why is the criteria nowhere to be found anywhere on the SL or RFL websites or the operational rules (even with a 'subject to change' clause)? The point of my post was around the lack of clarity and transparency. Your response to it has done nothing to convince me that this clarity and transparency exists

PS. Please could you let me know which issue of the paper the interview with Eamonn McManus was in? As it has been referenced as stating entry criteria on behalf of SL without being quoted or referenced in any other media source I'd like to buy the back-issue and read it myself.

[Dave T]

17 hours ago, CanadianRugger said:

Sky are happy about this because according to Vickers, they are getting more viewers of their Wolfpack broadcasts outside the UK than they are in the UK.

Why would Sky be happy with this?

[Moove]

22 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Why would Sky be happy with this?

I don't think they covered any details. I'd have to watch it back but I think they referenced something about Sky's broadcasting partners elsewhere in the world, e.g. Australia, where the Toronto games are available. Maybe it's something like they're able to sell on rights they have to other places, not sure how that stuff works.

As a side note, there was an interesting throw away comment though about how the sport already has a broadcast deal in place for North America. Again no details mentioned as the questions moved on to other topics but it did make me wonder whether that might impact other potential NA deals being done until that agreement is up - if there's a market for such a thing of course.

[CanadianRugger]

2 hours ago, Dave T said:

Why would Sky be happy with this?

Fairly straight forward:

It's all about those eyeballs

[Dave T]

58 minutes ago, CanadianRugger said:

Fairly straight forward:

It's all about those eyeballs

Not straightforward at all for Sky to care about overseas viewers who dont pay Sky.

Of course it will depend on who owns SL's worldwide rights, whether that is SLE or have Sky bought them.

[TheReaper]

7 hours ago, The Parksider said:

SKY are not happy with the aim of the American dream that actually is a Transatlantic League that attracts a massive NATV contract and sidelines SKY.

Do you have proof of sky's opinion? Maybe they're thrilled with the opportunity,  possibly a joint venture with an NA broadcaster? Maybe NA content comes back to sky? 

7 hours ago, The Parksider said:

You can find this in Perez's online interviews but as above you do not want to find this, you do not want to debate either like Vickers, you play the same game of putting the truth on "ignore" as can be seen in your post on here where you and TIWIT are proud not to want to face the real debate. 

Would that be the Perez who is no longer at TWP and has no bearing on what happens anymore?  The same Perez who has never been in charge of any TV decisions,  and speculated on how many clubs would be needed to attract 

7 hours ago, The Parksider said:

The signed contract is with the RFL. If therefore TWP are refused promotion by Superleague TWP are contractually obliged to play on in the Championship for two more years

Maybe,  maybe not. Unless you have access to that contract?  It could easily be worded that participation is allowed,  but not enforced. You have no idea what's in it, just like you don't know if they promised in writing to provide players or TV deals.

7 hours ago, The Parksider said:

 this would enable Ottawa and New York to work their way up and create with TWP a Transatlantic league which was essentially the plan. If Argylle was ever serious then he would stick around even if he's not promoted. If he only wants Superleague for himself 

I think it's more a case that he wants profitability for TWP, and that it can only (or only easily) be achieved by being in the top flight.  

7 hours ago, The Parksider said:

and cares nothing about Perez's

Perez who's no longer involved? Just checking...

7 hours ago, The Parksider said:

long term aims HE may be the one to shut down and breach the agreement.

 

7 hours ago, The Parksider said:

That's not so. The basic qualification for SL is win the Championship play off. That has been modified to also run a reserves team home and away as well. This has had to come in because of the dire player shortage North American clubs who don't produce any will only make worse. Read about how bad it is on the other thread.

Twice before clubs (Dewsbury & Hunslet) have played out the Championship to winning the final and had their day in the sun and had time to enjoy the glory. But in the weeks after that the hard work was done to analyse if they were strong enough for inclusion in Superleague and neither were.....

It is very clear what the situation is and it's no good making out "nobody has a clue". The cold hard reality has already been discussed in public when McManus said on behalf of Superleague that dressing English players up as North Americans does not work for Superleague. 

The only cloudy issues are the unilateral announcement by Argylle three years ago that he was going to be generous and pay all the travel and accommodation costs as his club scythed through the Championships on it's way to superleague. Once there the Superleague clubs would have to pay their own travel and accommodation. How on earth can he dictate that?? You tell me??

Well, he can't.  But if he says I'm not covering it anymore,  and SL still accepts TWP, then they've agreed to it. 

By the way, the default for pretty much every top flight sport is for every team to pay for their own travel and accommodations (league wide sponsorship deals aside). TWP is currently the outlier in arranging for these costs to be covered.  It was announced from the start that the arrangement would only be for L1 and Championship, why would there be any expectations otherwise?

7 hours ago, The Parksider said:

So once the victory parade is over the questions about whether Argylle (1) will run reserves

Haven't seen anything indicating they wouldn't.  I'd assume they fully intend ti meet all requirements that are applied to the rest of the clubs

7 hours ago, The Parksider said:

and whether he will (2) pay all travel and accommodation to both the teams that SL clubs will send there

Never been offered or expected...

7 hours ago, The Parksider said:

plus there is the issue of (3) TWP wanting to play at home here out of Manchester, until Easter which SL have already said they can't.

That could easily change, we all know nothing is set in stone in Rugby League. 

7 hours ago, The Parksider said:

I do not have a clue about reserves and travel costs or where TWP would play "at home" in the winter,

Maybe you should stop talking about it so much then?

7 hours ago, The Parksider said:

because Argyle isn't saying -

Probably because it hasn't been sorted out yet, and smart business people don't make announcements until everything is in order. 

7 hours ago, The Parksider said:

so please do not keep having a go at Superleague's administrators indicating they are "utterly stupid" (your words).

If an overseas billionaire wants to start his own club then renege on promises

Promises, or aspirations? 

7 hours ago, The Parksider said:

to develop players and fail to bring in paying TV deals, and not run reserves,

No proof, you're just trying to repeat this until it becomes pseudo-fact.

7 hours ago, The Parksider said:

and expect Superleague clubs to stand all the travel costs to Toronto twice over

While Toronto pays for like 15 trips to the UK? Yeah, real disadvantage to UK clubs there...

7 hours ago, The Parksider said:

and let them play "at home" here, then that's his problem to sort out.

Note also how Argyle has avoided talking to Superleague for three years - if you want to join the club talk to the committee.

I am only telling it how it is yet I note the childish posts proudly insulting me in the thread above and putting all these home truths on "Ignore". it's a tough debate this but I think we should have it accordingly don't you?.....

 

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

Not straightforward at all for Sky to care about overseas viewers who dont pay Sky.

Of course it will depend on who owns SL's worldwide rights, whether that is SLE or have Sky bought them.

Sky would care, because those people watching means it's a valuable property to whoever is showing the games, which means they'll want to pay Sky for them. Or if Sky don't own then now, they'll want to buy the international rights in 2021, so that they can distribute them for profit.

[CanadianRugger]

13 minutes ago, TheReaper said:

Do you have proof of sky's opinion? Maybe they're thrilled with the opportunity,  possibly a joint venture with an NA broadcaster? Maybe NA content comes back to sky? 

Would that be the Perez who is no longer at TWP and has no bearing on what happens anymore?  The same Perez who has never been in charge of any TV decisions,  and speculated on how many clubs would be needed to attract 

Maybe,  maybe not. Unless you have access to that contract?  It could easily be worded that participation is allowed,  but not enforced. You have no idea what's in it, just like you don't know if they promised in writing to provide players or TV deals.

I think it's more a case that he wants profitability for TWP, and that it can only (or only easily) be achieved by being in the top flight.  

Perez who's no longer involved? Just checking...

 

Well, he can't.  But if he says I'm not covering it anymore,  and SL still accepts TWP, then they've agreed to it. 

By the way, the default for pretty much every top flight sport is for every team to pay for their own travel and accommodations (league wide sponsorship deals aside). TWP is currently the outlier in arranging for these costs to be covered.  It was announced from the start that the arrangement would only be for L1 and Championship, why would there be any expectations otherwise?

Haven't seen anything indicating they wouldn't.  I'd assume they fully intend ti meet all requirements that are applied to the rest of the clubs

Never been offered or expected...

That could easily change, we all know nothing is set in stone in Rugby League. 

Maybe you should stop talking about it so much then?

Probably because it hasn't been sorted out yet, and smart business people don't make announcements until everything is in order. 

Promises, or aspirations? 

No proof, you're just trying to repeat this until it becomes pseudo-fact.

While Toronto pays for like 15 trips to the UK? Yeah, real disadvantage to UK clubs there...

 

Sky would care, because those people watching means it's a valuable property to whoever is showing the games, which means they'll want to pay Sky for them. Or if Sky don't own then now, they'll want to buy the international rights in 2021, so that they can distribute them for profit.

According to Rugby League backchat, SKY are very happy with TWP coverage to date, like the concept and how it is going so far.  

They get at least twice as many viewers outside the UK viewing their TWP Broadcasts as opposed to in the UK.

[Dave T]

57 minutes ago, TheReaper said:

 

Sky would care, because those people watching means it's a valuable property to whoever is showing the games, which means they'll want to pay Sky for them. Or if Sky don't own then now, they'll want to buy the international rights in 2021, so that they can distribute them for profit.

Which would put Sky's bill up as ultimately SLE own those rights.

I still have to be convinced why Sky would be happy with people in canada or Oz watching.

If there are good figures abroad, that is brilliant news for SLE.

[TboneFromTO]

6 hours ago, Dave T said:

Not straightforward at all for Sky to care about overseas viewers who dont pay Sky.

Of course it will depend on who owns SL's worldwide rights, whether that is SLE or have Sky bought them.

Its very straightforward if you know who owns sky,...which is the american media conglomerate of COMCAST..... its like some people here think SKY is a British owned company....

[Manx RL]

[Moove]

1 hour ago, TboneFromTO said:

Its very straightforward if you know who owns sky,...which is the american media conglomerate of COMCAST..... its like some people here think SKY is a British owned company....

I think the point in this case is more who holds the international rights to SL/Championship. Is it Sky/Comcast?

[TboneFromTO]

Just now, Moove said:

I think the point in this case is more who holds the international rights to SL/Championship. Is it Sky/Comcast?

I took the point as ''why should sky care about international markets''

if SL gets popular in other markets, and comcast buys those rights, then they would have more advertising and subscription revenue.  

but yes, comcast do only hold the UK/Irish rights  currently, although with les dragons and TWP (+further expansion) the next tv deal may hold international rights (or more likely a subsidiary picking up local rights at a cheaper price - Jesus comcast own a lot....)  

 

[TIWIT]

13 hours ago, Moove said:

Firstly I've excluded your last couple of lines from the quote as I've assumed they're not aimed at me even though they follow a quote of my post. I haven't commented on this thread previously in relation to anything you've said and clearly haven't insulted or blocked you.

1. I categorically did not say that SLs administrators are stupid as you've claimed in the last line above. You've made that up, and that is not conducive to a constructive debate if you're going to continue to do that. I said "as a sport we're going to look utterly stupid if...". There are few sports which have such a dilemma about its structure on a seemingly annual basis and drip feed high level P&R entry criteria in occasional interviews by individual club owners and does little to encourage investment in the sport

2. I'd question the relevance of your Dewsbury and Hunslet examples. That was so long ago now and the sport is structured differently and run differently by many different people

3. I'd question your statement of fact that reserves have only come in for next year to mitigate player development challenges for TWP. What is your evidence for this being the case? Everywhere that reserves have been mentioned has referenced player development pathways with the club environment, players returning from injury etc. The idea that everyone in the sport has lied about that and they've only agreed to reserves to put a blocker in front of TWP seems unlikely

4. The formal criteria which was to be agreed between SL and the RFL is absolutely not clear. Yes, winning the Championship is a pre-requisite. In Elstone's interview here, he backs this up by stating that there is no fast-track opportunity for any club (TWP, Toulouse or any other team). Current SL teams have agreed that they will all run a reserves next year so it may be a reasonable assumption the same (or a similar alternative as per Catalans) would apply to any other club hoping to gain promotion

5. In that same interview Elstone also claims that one of the fundamental questions about promotion (in reference to TWP/Ottawa/NYC but I would assume applies to any team), is around “...does it grow the cake? Does it come with additional fans, sponsors, broadcast revenues?". This implies that these may also form part of any entry criteria, none of which you mention despite stating that the criteria is clear. So have they decided against that in the last three months? If not, what would be the measure? How many fans? How much in sponsorship is required? What level of contribution to broadcast revenues? If it's new broadcasters then how big does the deal need to be? How does SL intend to measure the contribution of say York or Leigh (just examples) if they were to win the Championship? Do they have access to Sky Sports subscriber/viewer numbers in those areas?

6. If the criteria is indeed limited to just running reserves and winning the Championship alongside some consideration of logistics (as you're implying) then there's probably a separate debate to be had there as I'd argue that is far from being sufficient in terms of growing SL. It's also very different to the elements which Elstone referenced when he said the criteria was in the process of being finalised with the RFL back in April

7. If SL entry criteria was as clear as you say it is, why is it necessary to have to search through odd interviews to find odd elements in isolation? How can you interpret that as being clear? If it's been agreed with the RFL, why is the criteria nowhere to be found anywhere on the SL or RFL websites or the operational rules (even with a 'subject to change' clause)? The point of my post was around the lack of clarity and transparency. Your response to it has done nothing to convince me that this clarity and transparency exists

PS. Please could you let me know which issue of the paper the interview with Eamonn McManus was in? As it has been referenced as stating entry criteria on behalf of SL without being quoted or referenced in any other media source I'd like to buy the back-issue and read it myself.

Excellent post. Logical arguments, well presented.

Unfortunately the other poster will completely ignore them as they do not agree with his opinions that are repeated over and over again in the forlorn hope they will be accepted as facts.

[Dave T]

3 hours ago, TboneFromTO said:

Its very straightforward if you know who owns sky,...which is the american media conglomerate of COMCAST..... its like some people here think SKY is a British owned company....

Oh come on. If you think this is going to the head of Comcast that we are getting a few thousand fans around the world the you want your head testing.

 SLE own the rights to their product, If it does well abroad, then they make more. If there is a huge demand abroad, Sky make nowt.

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, TboneFromTO said:

I took the point as ''why should sky care about international markets''

if SL gets popular in other markets, and comcast buys those rights, then they would have more advertising and subscription revenue.  

but yes, comcast do only hold the UK/Irish rights  currently, although with les dragons and TWP (+further expansion) the next tv deal may hold international rights (or more likely a subsidiary picking up local rights at a cheaper price - Jesus comcast own a lot....)  

 

So Sky are not bothered about the current level as they make nowt from it. 

All this nonsense about comcast is just that. Nonsense.

If the international value goes up, as things stand it is nowt to do with Sky. It's like saying the BBC are happy about TWP figures as they are as much a potential future partner as Sky.

[TIWIT]

7 hours ago, TheReaper said:

Do you have proof of sky's opinion? Maybe they're thrilled with the opportunity,  possibly a joint venture with an NA broadcaster? Maybe NA content comes back to sky? 

Would that be the Perez who is no longer at TWP and has no bearing on what happens anymore?  The same Perez who has never been in charge of any TV decisions,  and speculated on how many clubs would be needed to attract 

Maybe,  maybe not. Unless you have access to that contract?  It could easily be worded that participation is allowed,  but not enforced. You have no idea what's in it, just like you don't know if they promised in writing to provide players or TV deals.

I think it's more a case that he wants profitability for TWP, and that it can only (or only easily) be achieved by being in the top flight.  

Perez who's no longer involved? Just checking...

 

Well, he can't.  But if he says I'm not covering it anymore,  and SL still accepts TWP, then they've agreed to it. 

By the way, the default for pretty much every top flight sport is for every team to pay for their own travel and accommodations (league wide sponsorship deals aside). TWP is currently the outlier in arranging for these costs to be covered.  It was announced from the start that the arrangement would only be for L1 and Championship, why would there be any expectations otherwise?

Haven't seen anything indicating they wouldn't.  I'd assume they fully intend ti meet all requirements that are applied to the rest of the clubs

Never been offered or expected...

That could easily change, we all know nothing is set in stone in Rugby League. 

Maybe you should stop talking about it so much then?

Probably because it hasn't been sorted out yet, and smart business people don't make announcements until everything is in order. 

Promises, or aspirations? 

No proof, you're just trying to repeat this until it becomes pseudo-fact.

While Toronto pays for like 15 trips to the UK? Yeah, real disadvantage to UK clubs there...

 

Sky would care, because those people watching means it's a valuable property to whoever is showing the games, which means they'll want to pay Sky for them. Or if Sky don't own then now, they'll want to buy the international rights in 2021, so that they can distribute them for profit.

Uh-oh, now you've done it.

[Dave T]

Genuinely, take a sec to read this guff. 

Sky are delighted with viewing figures because they may be able to buy them in future and sell them.

Surely Channel 4 are just as happy as they may be able to buy them in future and sell them?

 And so on.

Sky are happy to take a freebie, allowing TWP to pay for broadcasting on their channel. If they get something else though it goes on red button. Just like today's SL game is on Mix at the expense of GAA.

Let's stop making up fake benefits here. I'm as committed as anyone to expansion, but making stuff up about value just gives naysayers ammo. 

We arent gonna get loads of value in the first 5 years of a project. Let's not be so insecure to make stuff up. This is an investment for the game as much as Argyle.