Catalans fail to land new TV deal

[Dave T]

19 hours ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

I can't deny a close relegation battle is exciting. But for me, that short-term excitement doesn't outweigh the long-term commercial downsides due to the instability experienced by the clubs and the competition.

Plus for every close relegation battle, there is a season where the bottom team are a basket case and end up cut adrift from the rest of the league. This offers zero excitement for me. In these situations, what do the broadcasters do? They would probably show the most exciting games that they have that week, which would be more likely to be higher up the table. Without having gone through the long-term trends of viewing figures, my guess is that this wouldn't significantly impact the viewing trends at all either way. However, if someone has the time and inclination to do the research and prove otherwise, then I'll happily stand corrected.

I think this post is fair, and in my view a lot of it comes down to personal preference, as despite people claiming otherwise, there is no conclusive evidence either way. And I think the biggest issue we have here is that we had a limited period of licensing and didn't really see it through well enough or long enough to be able to conclusively show the longer term benefits that should come with such a system. Sure, people will point to the high crowds, but ignore the huge growth that had been happening in the years prior to that in a P&R system. 

I can understand people disliking P&R and the impact it has on affected teams, and I can understand those who dislike the closed shop of licensing and the flatness of the lower half of the table. 

The bigger issue for me is that we can deliver growth under either system (we have done so in a P&R environment) but the bigger issue is that we are not setup right as a commercial entity (why the eff are individual clubs scrapping round for tv deals in overseas territories?) - and this is a bigger issue than whether we use P&R or not, as we will ultimately under-achieve in either system.

I think groups of fans trying to convince the other that their system is the best one is futile, as tbh it is all about personal preference, I'm happy to let the people investing the money make the decisions on this one, as we can be a success, or a failure under either system. But nobody should be criticised for just enjoying P&R, many are just sports fans and care little for spreadsheets and P&L's - that is for others to worry about. 

I am personally really frustrated with the game on expansion, and that is mainly because it doesn't appear to have made any decision on how it will facilitate or accommodate it. We are at risk of sleepwalking into some really difficult situations that can be predicted and planned for now. 

[redjonn]

For me its not P&R,  its the underlying issue. The strategically daft related issue is that with the salary cap so low is the  likelihood of one of the financially stronger clubs or "bigger clubs being relegated is significantly increased.   The two issues P&R and existing salary cap are in lock step.

A low salary cap to suit the weakest has an element of sense in a non P&R situation. Not in a P&R situation.  

[jacobus]

Could this be why they have let Williame go? 

[Dave T]

Just now, scotchy1 said:

I dont know why your conflating the debate which was happening with a different one 

One person finding p+r exciting and interesting isnt what was being talked about. People are free to like whatever they want. 

The question was whether relegation drove attendees and audiences and the results say not. 

It's exactly what was being talked about. 

You don't get to dictate the discussion that I am having with another poster. Absolutely bizarre

[Big Picture]

3 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

I agree with the fact that P&R and a salary cap, especially one as low as we have are incredibly incompatible if you want to grow the sport.

But P+R is just as incompatible with the international aspect of it. 

French growth and value of tv rights arent going to just happen. It requires planning and investment. It needs a long term strategy. One we dont have and cant have with P+R.

However we monetise the french rights cant happen on a year by year basis. It just wont work. Yet P+R ensures this has to happen. 

This is yet another reason why the international aspect doesn't fit into the existing structure of the game in the UK and instead needs a new, separate organization which isn't limited by the constraints of that existing structure.  Until such a new organization exists we'll continue to see progress held back by those constraints.

[GUBRATS]

On 11/12/2019 at 14:20, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

 

Again, is this borne out by the evidence? Does the Championship currently draw much bigger attendances and attract more commercial interest now compared to licencing?

Leigh's attendances dropped from 2500 ish to around 1400 ish by the end of licencing 

Now with P and R and a season in SL we are at over 3000 ( admittedly this is with some better supported club in the Championship compared to pre licencing ) 

[GUBRATS]

On 11/12/2019 at 15:31, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

The evidence is there. The average SL attendances haven't increased since the reintroduction of P&R, so there doesn't seem to be anything supporting your argument that interest is greater with P&R. Viewing figures are harder to gauge, as Sky have changed their channel structure in recent years, getting rid of 1, 2, 3 etc and replacing them with Arena and Main Event etc. The world didn't end when licencing was in operation (despite how badly the licencing process was implemented by the RFL).

Eh? Licencing finished just 5 years ago. Hence there is quite a bit of evidence available that we can use to make relatively informed decisions about things.

Well I didn't guess that. But then if you don't fully engage in discussions and answer questions then people have to make assumptions, which aren't always correct.

Incidentally, Saints now have the highest everage attendance in the country. Do you think it's in the best interests of SL for Saints to get relegated? How many of those supporters will be as interested if Saints are in the Championship?

You earlier made the point that London's attendances are poor. You're correct - they are really poor. As things stand, I therefore think that Saints, along with the other best supported clubs, currently have loads more to offer our elite competition than London do. London's aggregate supporters in 2019 were just 28,297. In comparison, Saints had 178,639 supporters through their gates in 2019. If I was a potential broadcaster, I know which one of those clubs I would want in the competition. If I was a potential sponsor, I would be far more interested in having over 178k pairs of eyes seeing my company branding over the course of a season compared to just 28k.

As of 2019, we have 6 clubs in SL (out of 12) that currently average over 10k attendances. So we've got a 50% chance of losing one of those big clubs to relegation and getting it replaced by a club with the capacity to average half of that. That is commercial suicide for me, and is a stupid way to run a sport that has so little money in it.

 

 

Any of those clubs being relegated would immediately return the following season , not a huge disaster 

[Smudger06]

On 11/12/2019 at 12:53, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

And the solution to increasing their commercial revenue is to introduce P&R is it? 

Plus you do know that a home Ashes series is only once every 4 years?

I really don't understand what point you are trying to make, other than the fact that you personally enjoy P&R - which is absolutely fine. But you've provided no attempt to explain how P&R will lead to greater commercial growth of the sport, other than highlight that every so often there is a tight relegation battle which is exciting. If you can provide a compelling argument then I will happily change my mind, but as it stands, you haven't.

P&R leads to growth. Investors can come in to the Sport as team owners, sponsors etc at bargain basement prices or on application and build on their involvement / investment.