Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Total Rugby League

Catalans fail to land new TV deal

Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

Agreed. So for me the solution is to ring-fence the biggest clubs with the most supporters, rather than risk losing the likes of Leeds (and previously Bradford) to relegation. Catalans' and potentially also Toulouse's supporters won't be interested in SL if they're not in it.

No, imho a lot of people wouldn’t be interested in a SL with no relegation and crowds would drop. Also interest in the championship would massively reduce. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Eddie said:

No, imho a lot of people wouldn’t be interested in a SL with no relegation and crowds would drop.

Do you have any evidence to back this up? I would suspect supporters of all of the clubs who were in SL would be interested in it. What happened to interest levels when we had licencing compared to P&R? 

14 minutes ago, Eddie said:

Also interest in the championship would massively reduce. 

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?

Share this post


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

It proves that a relegation decider didnt drive interest either to the tv audience or paid attendances. 

It doesn't prove that at all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

Do you have any evidence to back this up? I would suspect supporters of all of the clubs who were in SL would be interested in it. What happened to interest levels when we had licencing compared to P&R? 

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?

Look pal this is really tedious, you’re just going round circles and asking the same questions that you asked yesterday. You may suspect something but is suspect something else, there is no evidence because it hasn’t happened yet. Though with regard to your last point if you serious think the championship wouldn’t suffer if there was no promotion then I really do give up. 

Share this post


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

Look pal this is really tedious, you’re just going round circles and asking the same questions that you asked yesterday.

And you didn't answer any of them then either. If you come on a discussion forum, then expect people to try and engage you in a discussion. If you're finding it tedious, go and do something else with your time.

3 minutes ago, Eddie said:

there is no evidence because it hasn’t happened yet.

There is evidence, because we had several years of licencing, and therefore have the capacity to compare that to the recent years of P&R. However, I have a suspicion that the evidence won't support your argument.

4 minutes ago, Eddie said:

Though with regard to your last point if you serious think the championship wouldn’t suffer if there was no promotion then I really do give up. 

I didn't say it wouldn't be impacted - I merely asked what the evidence suggests. I like to base my views and opinions on evidence. You haven't provided any evidence to support your arguments or convince me to change my mind.

I don't have a dog in this fight - I'm only interested in what's best for the long-term health and development of the game of rugby league. If I had to guess (which I have to, because you're not fully engaging in the discussion), I would guess that you are an advocate of P&R because it suits your club, and therefore your self-interests, as opposed to being for the greater good of the game. You haven't provided any compelling argument to the contrary.

Share this post


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

And you didn't answer any of them then either. If you come on a discussion forum, then expect people to try and engage you in a discussion. If you're finding it tedious, go and do something else with your time.

There is evidence, because we had several years of licencing, and therefore have the capacity to compare that to the recent years of P&R. However, I have a suspicion that the evidence won't support your argument.

I didn't say it wouldn't be impacted - I merely asked what the evidence suggests. I like to base my views and opinions on evidence. You haven't provided any evidence to support your arguments or convince me to change my mind.

I don't have a dog in this fight - I'm only interested in what's best for the long-term health and development of the game of rugby league. If I had to guess (which I have to, because you're not fully engaging in the discussion), I would guess that you are an advocate of P&R because it suits your club, and therefore your self-interests, as opposed to being for the greater good of the game. You haven't provided any compelling argument to the contrary.

You keep asking for evidence but what I’m offering is an opinion, as there isn’t any evidence (you have provided now either).  You reference what happened 25 years ago but life was different then, as were the specific circumstances, so attendances or marketing revenue going up or down then doesn’t mean the same would happen now, under vastly different circumstances. 

Incidentally I’m a Saints fan. How does my argument affect my self interest? 

Share this post


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

It doesn't prove that at all. 

Yes it does. Which is why you didnt use the BARB figures you are usually so keen to use and why not you're hiding behind these statements rather than trying to make any sort of cogent argument.

Share this post


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

Yes it does. Which is why you didnt use the BARB figures you are usually so keen to use and why not you're hiding behind these statements rather than trying to make any sort of cogent argument.

No, the figures you used really didn't prove that. And the reason I'm not going into the figures is because you are trying to disprove something that nobody has argued. 

 

Share this post


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

No, the figures you used really didn't prove that. And the reason I'm not going into the figures is because you are trying to disprove something that nobody has argued. 

 

I'm not trying to disprove anything. 

The figures prove the point I made that you quoted and responded to in your snarky tone. 

And this nonsense is how you are trying to save face.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Eddie said:

You keep asking for evidence but what I’m offering is an opinion, as there isn’t any evidence (you have provided now either).

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).

14 minutes ago, Eddie said:

You reference what happened 25 years ago

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.

16 minutes ago, Eddie said:

Incidentally I’m a Saints fan. How does my argument affect my self interest? 

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.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

It isnt a matter of opinion. 

Its measurable. We measure it. By and large games involving relegation teams just dont attract people in bigger numbers than they otherwise would.

 

23 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

I'm not trying to disprove anything. 

The figures prove the point I made that you quoted and responded to in your snarky tone. 

And this nonsense is how you are trying to save face.

 

See, this isn't true is it.

Look at your statement in the first quote:

"...games involving relegation teams just don't attract people in bigger numbers than they otherwise would..."

You then make a comparison which doesn't address that issue at all.  A valid comparison would be to look at viewing figures for Wakefield v London (or similar worst 2 teams in league) when relegation hasn't been an option. And for any comparison to be valid, the conditions need to be as consistent as possible, which makes most comparisons worthless tbh. But nobody has made the point that a relegation battle would get more fans and bigger crowds than top of the table games. 

You can keep trying to dismiss my point as snarky because it doesn't go along with your thinking, but the fact that Sky did broadcast not only this game, but also chose a relegation clash over the Saints v Wigan derby earlier in the year is a clear indication that the broadcasters value these. They also give a hell of a lot of coverage to relegation battles in Football. 

But ultimately, your 'analysis' was so narrow that it was meaningless and proved nothing. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unlike SL,Championship crowds have improved in recent years.To take away the automatic promoted spot would have grave consequences.

The general lack of money within the game has already had a major influence in the demise of the amateur game and we simply cannot let this happen at the semi-professional level.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

See, this isn't true is it.

Look at your statement in the first quote:

"...games involving relegation teams just don't attract people in bigger numbers than they otherwise would..."

You then make a comparison which doesn't address that issue at all.  A valid comparison would be to look at viewing figures for Wakefield v London (or similar worst 2 teams in league) when relegation hasn't been an option. And for any comparison to be valid, the conditions need to be as consistent as possible, which makes most comparisons worthless tbh. But nobody has made the point that a relegation battle would get more fans and bigger crowds than top of the table games. 

You can keep trying to dismiss my point as snarky because it doesn't go along with your thinking, but the fact that Sky did broadcast not only this game, but also chose a relegation clash over the Saints v Wigan derby earlier in the year is a clear indication that the broadcasters value these. They also give a hell of a lot of coverage to relegation battles in Football. 

But ultimately, your 'analysis' was so narrow that it was meaningless and proved nothing. 

Yes it does.

The fact you want to throw in loads of other factors doesnt detract from the point. It strengthens it.

The idea Eddie put forward was that relegation creates interest and improves attendances and tv audiences. We can conclusively prove that by comparing relegation games to none relegation games. 

The fact borne out of the evidence is that by and large attendances and tv audiences around relegation games arent good. They are, by and large, poor.

Are all the other factors you are throwing at the wall affect attendances. Yes. But all those other factors arent dependant on relegation. We would still have big teams, we would still have games at the top of the table, we would still have derbys.

The fact of the matter is that relegation doesnt attract attendees or audiences. The TV audience for that week for the perfect storm of relegation games wasnt good, the attendance wasnt good. 

Your argument that sky value these games because they showed some is just confirmation bias. Sky showed a hell of a lot more games that werent affected by relegation than were. So if we deduce from the fact that sky showed a relegation game ahead of the third meeting of saints v Wigan  that year that sky found that game more valuablee, the obvious question is what do we deduce from the fact Sky showed massively more none-relegation games than relegation games other than none relegation games other than none relegation games are massively more valuable than relegation games.

The fact is that relegation is a factor in terms of attendances and audience for a small minority of games in a small minority of years, for a small minority clubs and the effect of it is clearly negligible if it exists at all.

If it took being Wigan to explain Wigans attendance and audience, yet it took a full season and a freakish set of results that left a third of the league at risk of relegation on the final day of the year, 2 of them facing each other in basically a winner takes all showdown that, mathematically, will always be an exceedingly rare occurrence to explain wakefield v London then the obvious answer is that relegation is a waste of time as an attempt to build audience and attendances when the best it can do is slightly worse than wigan in a poor year.

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, redjonn said:

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.  

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. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

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. 

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 :kolobok_biggrin:

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

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 :kolobok_biggrin:

Lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 ) 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 2

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...