Why does it have to be SKY?

[graveyard johnny 1,359]

let sky do what they do with the clause NO thurs or sat night games- Friday night  and sunday evening and stop using our games as schedule fillers to suit themselves

[Bedfordshire Bronco 906]

4 hours ago, graveyard johnny said:

let sky do what they do with the clause NO thurs or sat night games- Friday night  and sunday evening and stop using our games as schedule fillers to suit themselves

Hmmm....you say schedule fillers but I look forward to Thursday night games.... Gets me in the weekend mood....

[Bedfordshire Bronco 906]

On 10/11/2019 at 18:21, Damien said:

There is no reason why it has to be anyone in particular. However for all their knockers Sky have consistently put their money where their mouth is. In comparison, as far as I know, the likes of BT have never even bid.

Surely if other providers interested then Sky might have to pay more... Simple competition principle

[Bedfordshire Bronco 906]

19 hours ago, dixiedean said:

Ideally both. A regular game every week on the same channel at a known time would do wonders. Every other game on pay TV.

BT sport give channel 5 some Gallagher Premiership games each season... A cracking idea.... Apparently something SKY are dead against

[Damien 7,045]

14 minutes ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

Surely if other providers interested then Sky might have to pay more... Simple competition principle

That goes without saying. Not sure what that has to do with what you quoted though.

[whatmichaelsays 586]

4 hours ago, graveyard johnny said:

let sky do what they do with the clause NO thurs or sat night games- Friday night  and sunday evening and stop using our games as schedule fillers to suit themselves

But we are filler to suit Sky, as we would be to any broadcaster. 

Sky's priority is bums on sofas, not fans on the M62. It doesn't care how fans get to games, but how many people are watching at home, because that's its business. Any other broadcaster would want games played on their terms, not ours. That's the reality of modern professionals sport. 

I think that's where Elstone's point that the clubs need to work harder with Thursday nights rings true. As a sport we actually have it pretty good - we only have one 'unsociable' night in our schedule, the travel distances are short and Sky has actually declared the first 21 Thursday games. If you think that's not good enough, as I type this, 600 Portsmouth fans are currently in Harrogate watching a game that was arranged less than a month ago and has been delayed by an hour. 

RL needs to find a way to own Thursday nights. There are people out there looking for things to do on Thursday nights (other sports and leisure pursuits have proven that). RL clubs need to find those people.

[SL17 534]

2 hours ago, whatmichaelsays said:

But we are filler to suit Sky, as we would be to any broadcaster. 

Sky's priority is bums on sofas, not fans on the M62. It doesn't care how fans get to games, but how many people are watching at home, because that's its business. Any other broadcaster would want games played on their terms, not ours. That's the reality of modern professionals sport. 

I think that's where Elstone's point that the clubs need to work harder with Thursday nights rings true. As a sport we actually have it pretty good - we only have one 'unsociable' night in our schedule, the travel distances are short and Sky has actually declared the first 21 Thursday games. If you think that's not good enough, as I type this, 600 Portsmouth fans are currently in Harrogate watching a game that was arranged less than a month ago and has been delayed by an hour. 

RL needs to find a way to own Thursday nights. There are people out there looking for things to do on Thursday nights (other sports and leisure pursuits have proven that). RL clubs need to find those people.

Thursday nights do nothing for the game. If they are local games then fair enough. But Sky will choose  the best scenario for couch potatoes.

[Bedfordshire Bronco 906]

3 minutes ago, SL17 said:

Thursday nights do nothing for the game. If they are local games then fair enough. But Sky will choose  the best scenario for couch potatoes.

Again... I like Thursday games.... What else would I do of a Thursday? 

[SL17 534]

3 minutes ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

Again... I like Thursday games.... What else would I do of a Thursday? 

Watch Corry.

[Bedfordshire Bronco 906]

13 hours ago, SL17 said:

Watch Corry.

Coronation Street??? I'm a Southern rugby league fan

There is already too much northern-ness in my life 

[MSW87 9]

The short answer to this is it doesn't.

RL should look to use a range of broadcasters/ media channels.

Create 2 or 3 tiered packages and open them to bids from different media outlets. This would create greater competition and increase exposure. Thinking further ahead, they should be looking to create a profile/ packages for streaming sites. Amazon are launching sports streaming along with others.  

For instance,

- Tier 1 would include 70% of the major match ups (local derbys, and a split of regular SL, championship and League 1 games along with playoffs and finals for each), T

- Tier 2 would be remaining 30% of major match ups (I.e. Warrington vs Leeds, Wigan vs Hull) and a split of SL, Championship and League one games - they too can show playoffs and final)

- Tier 3 (and thinking more for building an online profile) should be access for exclusive rights to extended highlights across all SL, Championship and League 1 games, with maybe 1 or 2 live streamed events each year.

For lower league clubs, the above would encourage broader coverage - this should give greater access to TV money but also incentivize increased local sponsorship as they can demonstrate better visibility.

Edited November 12 by MSW87

[yipyee 766]

On 10/11/2019 at 19:52, weloveyouwakefield2 said:

In years gone by sky have come in with a offer and the rfl say you have got a few hours to decide if you want it or not or it will be off the table. It didn’t give the club’s much option! 

Well surely before the contracts up there should be multiple bids from the tender process?

[RigbyLuger 55]

Has anyone genuinely shown an interest in showing RL outside of Super League?

[iffleyox 505]

38 minutes ago, RigbyLuger said:

Has anyone genuinely shown an interest in showing RL outside of Super League?

The BBC via web and red button has done some good things with the early Challenge Cup rounds to be scrupulously fair. Down south, without Sky, those and the CC final are basically the only RL I've seen live this year. Getting married knocked out the usual couple of pilgrimages to the north.

[SL17 534]

3 hours ago, yipyee said:

Well surely before the contracts up there should be multiple bids from the tender process?

Yes diluting the game offering struggling clubs £300k for a signature. We do really need big change. Not forthcoming from either the RFL or SL 

[redsi42 89]

4 hours ago, MSW87 said:

The short answer to this is it doesn't.

RL should look to use a range of broadcasters/ media channels.

Create 2 or 3 tiered packages and open them to bids from different media outlets. This would create greater competition and increase exposure. Thinking further ahead, they should be looking to create a profile/ packages for streaming sites. Amazon are launching sports streaming along with others.  

For instance,

- Tier 1 would include 70% of the major match ups (local derbys, and a split of regular SL, championship and League 1 games along with playoffs and finals for each), T

- Tier 2 would be remaining 30% of major match ups (I.e. Warrington vs Leeds, Wigan vs Hull) and a split of SL, Championship and League one games - they too can show playoffs and final)

- Tier 3 (and thinking more for building an online profile) should be access for exclusive rights to extended highlights across all SL, Championship and League 1 games, with maybe 1 or 2 live streamed events each year.

For lower league clubs, the above would encourage broader coverage - this should give greater access to TV money but also incentivize increased local sponsorship as they can demonstrate better visibility.

Something like this has to be the goal.  

With changing viewing habits a dedicated subscription service is a must And I think one game a week on a free to air station is also a must for building the games profile.

[Bedfordshire Bronco 906]

6 hours ago, yipyee said:

Well surely before the contracts up there should be multiple bids from the tender process?

Yep, I assumed this was the case

I have zero loyalty to SKY or any other digital provider. 

I wander what % of my SKY subscription actually goes to League and how much to bloody soccer.... I'd prefer all my money go to league if it was possible and I drop any access to soccer

[scotchy1 4,525]

The question the game needs to ask is whether the cost of sky is higher or lower than its 'elasticity of demand'

How many who would pay wont pay for sky but would pay a separate sub. That gives you a basic value. That's what we can get separately from sky. 

[yipyee 766]

5 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

The question the game needs to ask is whether the cost of sky is higher or lower than its 'elasticity of demand'

How many who would pay wont pay for sky but would pay a separate sub. That gives you a basic value. That's what we can get separately from sky. 

There would probably be a sizeable amount especially if you had an option for a one off game pass similar to nowtv

[scotchy1 4,525]

2 minutes ago, yipyee said:

There would probably be a sizeable amount especially if you had an option for a one off game pass similar to nowtv

How many though. Let's say costs are 10m a year (an arbitrary figure I picked but I dont think its anywhere near too low)

Thsts 50m a year we need to find. £10 a month, less two months for the offseason and we need 500k. 

Are there 500k people who would pay that? Maybe 

Maybe you could get a bit more from a bit fewer

Maybe you could sell the rights to a game or two a week to ITV for £15m a year and try and use that to drive subs, sell it wholesale to sky, Netflix, amazon etc, maybe all three.

Its doable. But do we have the owners prepared to back it?

Our league should be proving a decent proving ground. 

[Bedfordshire Bronco 906]

20 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

How many though. Let's say costs are 10m a year (an arbitrary figure I picked but I dont think its anywhere near too low)

Thsts 50m a year we need to find. £10 a month, less two months for the offseason and we need 500k. 

Are there 500k people who would pay that? Maybe 

Maybe you could get a bit more from a bit fewer

Maybe you could sell the rights to a game or two a week to ITV for £15m a year and try and use that to drive subs, sell it wholesale to sky, Netflix, amazon etc, maybe all three.

Its doable. But do we have the owners prepared to back it?

Our league should be proving a decent proving ground. 

I'd love coverage to go to Amazon or Netflix

They'd market it better than Sky ever could and I assume a lot more people have Netflix than Sky Sports so Netflix could promote it's sale withing their format

[Eddie 906]

26 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

How many though. Let's say costs are 10m a year (an arbitrary figure I picked but I dont think its anywhere near too low)

Thsts 50m a year we need to find. £10 a month, less two months for the offseason and we need 500k. 

Are there 500k people who would pay that? Maybe 

Maybe you could get a bit more from a bit fewer

Maybe you could sell the rights to a game or two a week to ITV for £15m a year and try and use that to drive subs, sell it wholesale to sky, Netflix, amazon etc, maybe all three.

Its doable. But do we have the owners prepared to back it?

Our league should be proving a decent proving ground. 

I think I read the top Our League viewing figure last season was 6,000 for the Oldham v Newcastle play off final (was astounded at how low it was tbh but fairly sure I read that), in which case I doubt Netflix or Amazon would be falling over themselves based on that. 

[SL17 534]

1 hour ago, scotchy1 said:

The question the game needs to ask is whether the cost of sky is higher or lower than its 'elasticity of demand'

How many who would pay wont pay for sky but would pay a separate sub. That gives you a basic value. That's what we can get separately from sky. 

The question is....Does the Lower tiers put up and tell them to do one.. SL is SKY.. It doesn't give exposure for lower leagues only a pay off to shut up. I want the game to strive, what do yo want?

[RigbyLuger 55]

Netflix don't show live sport.

[gingerjon 8,959]

8 hours ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

I'd love coverage to go to Amazon or Netflix

They'd market it better than Sky ever could

What's this based on?

Netflix doesn't show live sport and Amazon's marketing of the little sport it has is woeful.