Jump to content
Bedfordshire Bronco

Why does it have to be SKY?

Recommended Posts

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


the grass may be greener on the other side of the fence but the crows are just as black

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

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

Watch Corry.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by MSW87

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1

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

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.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...