Sky sports v Fox League

[RSN]

I've just switched on Eels v Panthers on sky sports and sky sports played the fox league intro to the game. 

The 1st thing I noticed was the how much better the quality of the intro was compared to anything sky sports produce (not just rugby league). The game felt absolutely massive and that every player was a superstar. 

Are sky sports falling behind the rest of the market on these sort of things? Or are the Aussies just better at it than us?

I also think fox sports content is absolutely fantastic. It is very serious at times but they make the game relevant to casual fans with funny content at the same time with Fletch and Hindy ect. Maybe something they can learn from?

[Man of Kent]

Fox League coverage is superb but you always have to remember the social context in relation to rugby league's relative standing in Britain compared to Australia.

Aussie rugby league is essentially soap opera and never slow to make fun of itself (hence the light entertainment shows). It's wonderful, really. 

[DavidM]

15 minutes ago, RSN said:

Fletch and Hindy ect.

Yeh exactly . It’s not all good 

[Eddie]

32 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

Fox League coverage is superb but you always have to remember the social context in relation to rugby league's relative standing in Britain compared to Australia.

Aussie rugby league is essentially soap opera and never slow to make fun of itself (hence the light entertainment shows). It's wonderful, really. 

What I was going to say, only you articulated it better. 

[Futtocks]

When a sport is big enough in your country to have a dedicated TV channel, broadcasters spend a bit more on the presentation.

[Hughsehhh]

Agree with OP, the Australian production levels are on another planet to what sky produce here. The intros, the back stories, the build up, the montages, the commentators, everything. Blake Austin made the point quite well in his BBC interview when he joined the Wire - stating that the in stadium experience is miles better in the UK than Oz, but it falls short on TV whereas the Aussies have it nailed and it comes across so much better as a result 

[thirteenthman]

3 hours ago, RSN said:

I've just switched on Eels v Panthers on sky sports and sky sports played the fox league intro to the game. 

The 1st thing I noticed was the how much better the quality of the intro was compared to anything sky sports produce (not just rugby league). The game felt absolutely massive and that every player was a superstar. 

Are sky sports falling behind the rest of the market on these sort of things? Or are the Aussies just better at it than us?

I also think fox sports content is absolutely fantastic. It is very serious at times but they make the game relevant to casual fans with funny content at the same time with Fletch and Hindy ect. Maybe something they can learn from?

RL is one of the biggest drivers of subscriptions to Fox in NSW and Queensland, so it obviously gets big money put into it. 

As for your last paragraph, I'm not sure the phrases 'funny content' and 'Fletch and Hindy' really belong in the same sentence. There's one 'joke' about Hindy never having won a Grand Final, and that gets repeated week in, week out.....

[whatmichaelsays]

3 hours ago, RSN said:

Are sky sports falling behind the rest of the market on these sort of things? Or are the Aussies just better at it than us?

No and no. The sort of attention that Fox pay to promoting league is comparable to the attention Sky pay to promoting their biggest cash cow, which is the Premier League. That's really the comparison here. 

[thebrewxi]

I've only got Watch NRL so no idea what Sky looks like anymore. I'd rather watch NRL and then any free stuff on YouTube or Our League than spend all that money on Sky.

[Eddie]

5 hours ago, SL17 said:

Plus F1,Cricket and Golf. Our national sport is Cricket not Football.

Is it though? I have heard people say that, but realistically it isn’t cricket or anywhere near it, using any metric you can think of. 

[Dunbar]

While we all want Rugby League over here to be presented well, we really are comparing apples and oranges here.

The most watched TV show in Australia last year was a Rugby League game. Not the most watched sports event but the highest rate TV show in the whole year (State of Origin game 1).

Imagine if the Challenge Cup final or the Grand Final was the highest rated TV show in the UK for the whole year! If Rugby League over here had that value to broadcasters the production levels would be through the roof.

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

On 11/09/2020 at 11:01, RSN said:

I've just switched on Eels v Panthers on sky sports and sky sports played the fox league intro to the game. 

The 1st thing I noticed was the how much better the quality of the intro was compared to anything sky sports produce (not just rugby league). The game felt absolutely massive and that every player was a superstar. 

Are sky sports falling behind the rest of the market on these sort of things? Or are the Aussies just better at it than us?

I also think fox sports content is absolutely fantastic. It is very serious at times but they make the game relevant to casual fans with funny content at the same time with Fletch and Hindy ect. Maybe something they can learn from?

I enjoy the Fletch and Hindy stuff a bit.... Johns is funnier though.

The Fan is always a great watch 

I love putting NRL tonight on when I get home while I'm cooking dinner.... Makes the sport feel big and important to have a TV news update of that quality... Megan is very easy on the eye too

Have to say it but Channel 4's coverage of the Heinekin Cup was the best I've seen for either rugby code in the UK lately. A midday 1 hour magazine / tries show to build up to a live game in the late afternoon...... Made it feel fun and exciting....... Yes I get the irony 

[DavidM]

21 minutes ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

Megan is very easy on the eye too

Meeegan

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

Just now, DavidM said:

Meeegan

Mey-gan

[THE RED ROOSTER]

Non contest is it not - It's not actually down to cultural issues but , as has been debated on here several times, SKY in its monopolistic hold on Rugby League without pressure from other suitors, simply has not modernised its approach to presenting Rugby League in the last decade, which sadly may be the result of league moving down in the list of priorities of the channels US ownership.

[DoubleD]

Regardless of the comparisons, Sky’s production of RL has really deteriorated in quality compared with other sports Sky broadcast, and compared with BBC (who have really upped their game). The standard of in game commentary and punditry is frankly embarrassing and cringeworthy. The level of insight amounts to “the forwards ran hard and fast” or “they had a real dig” ..............it really perpetuates the myth that it’s a simple game

[DavidM]

8 minutes ago, DoubleD said:

Regardless of the comparisons, Sky’s production of RL has really deteriorated in quality compared with other sports Sky broadcast, and compared with BBC (who have really upped their game). The standard of in game commentary and punditry is frankly embarrassing and cringeworthy. The level of insight amounts to “the forwards ran hard and fast” or “they had a real dig” ..............it really perpetuates the myth that it’s a simple game

He’s a good / fantastic / quality player . It really is completely awful , and so easy to fix if they got rid of these woodentops who come out with all this repetitive , base rubbish . They add nothing to the coverage unlike down under where they add to it . Tony Rea yesterday was light years ahead of the usual muppets

[Scubby]

6 minutes ago, DoubleD said:

Regardless of the comparisons, Sky’s production of RL has really deteriorated in quality compared with other sports Sky broadcast, and compared with BBC (who have really upped their game). The standard of in game commentary and punditry is frankly embarrassing and cringeworthy. The level of insight amounts to “the forwards ran hard and fast” or “they had a real dig” ..............it really perpetuates the myth that it’s a simple game

Is does feel like Sky are going through the motions to fulfil a TV contract atm. Not a penny more than is necessary to get it done. It shows.

[gingerjon]

4 hours ago, Scubby said:

Is does feel like Sky are going through the motions to fulfil a TV contract atm. Not a penny more than is necessary to get it done. It shows.

Sky don't seem to have much money right now - and if you look at the adverts that come up now so many of them are for their own programmes on their own channels.

[Scubby]

42 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Sky don't seem to have much money right now - and if you look at the adverts that come up now so many of them are for their own programmes on their own channels.

Yep, I wonder what % of subscribers who suspended their accounts during the sport-free period have reactivated? Pay TV is in a lot of turmoil at the moment.

[Wiltshire Warrior Dragon]

7 minutes ago, SL17 said:

Reactivated it, the bill went up. Renegotiated a new deal they are happy so am I.

I am about to contact Sky about ever rising costs.  I understand if you don't want to go into detail, SL17, but what amount (as a number of £s and/or a percentage) did you get knocked off?  As I say, fully understand if you would rather not say.

[Whippet13]

13 minutes ago, Scubby said:

Yep, I wonder what % of subscribers who suspended their accounts during the sport-free period have reactivated? Pay TV is in a lot of turmoil at the moment.

I think they all auto-reactivated, mine certainly did.

[Whippet13]

3 minutes ago, Wiltshire Warrior Dragon said:

I am about to contact Sky about ever rising costs.  I understand if you don't want to go into detail, SL17, but what amount (as a number of £s and/or a percentage) did you get knocked off?  As I say, fully understand if you would rather not say.

You should be able to comfortably get a third off the overall package.

New Sky Sports deals tend to be an 18 months contract these days.

[DavidM]

37 minutes ago, Wiltshire Warrior Dragon said:

I am about to contact Sky about ever rising costs.  I understand if you don't want to go into detail, SL17, but what amount (as a number of £s and/or a percentage) did you get knocked off?  As I say, fully understand if you would rather not say.

I did and I got a discount of nearly 15 quid a month or something . Nice guy was very understanding . They want your custom so they usually try to do something for you , especially if you say your thinking of chucking it in 

[DoubleD]

9 hours ago, Scubby said:

Is does feel like Sky are going through the motions to fulfil a TV contract atm. Not a penny more than is necessary to get it done. It shows.

It certainly appears that’s the case. Perhaps the existing commentators/pundits are contracted for the remainder of the tv deal, so changing would mean additional costs. When Stevo and Eddie went, I was hoping it would lead to a refresh and wholesale changes but sadly it hasn’t. Jenna Brooks is the only positive thing and she was there before, but has merely had a more prominent role with Angela Powers moving on. They haven’t brought anyone new in as far as I’m aware. Stewart Pyke has just come across from darts