Broadcasting rights go out to tender

[DoubleD]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

I refuse to believe there are two bundles packaged as:

1 - SLE bundle

2 - RFL bundle (Cup, Champs and Internationals)

I expect there are all sorts of variations.

I do find the bundle split to be rather odd. The RFL bundle is a very diverse one - you might have a broadcaster interested in the international rights but not Champ/League 1. I'm not sure we should be lumping apples with oranges

[Saint Toppy]

23 hours ago, Big Picture said:

Recalling the fact that the BBC can't afford to pay nearly what Sky can, that automatically implies that the Championship and League 1 clubs are in for a big cut in the money they'll receive from TV rights.

Yet they somehow always manage to find enough money for the yawnion 6 nations. Last time they put in a joint bid with ITV worth £65m / year and that was just to televise 25 games. Assuming it was a 50/50 split the good old Beeb was shelling out £32.25M a year to show just 13 yawnion games.

[Dave T]

3 minutes ago, DoubleD said:

I do find the bundle split to be rather odd. The RFL bundle is a very diverse one - you might have a broadcaster interested in the international rights but not Champ/League 1. I'm not sure we should be lumping apples with oranges

I'd be stunned if we were. I expect this split is simply due to the owner of each of the rights. SL rights is SLE, the rest is the RFL.

[Dave T]

4 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

Yet they somehow always manage to find enough money for the yawnion 6 nations. Last time they put in a joint bid with ITV worth £65m / year and that was just to televise 25 games. Assuming it was a 50/50 split the good old Beeb was shelling out £32.25M a year to show just 13 yawnion games.

Whilst it is true that they will certainly find money down the back of the sofa for their favourites, they have also lost a lot of RU over the years. They also don't now have the RU Autumn Internationals, as they have been snapped up by Amazon. 

Frustratingly, the Autumn RL tournaments could be a great replacement, if they pushed them as genuine partners like they did with the RU comps over the years, we could absolutely be delivering a decent return for them. Unfortunately they have little desire to do much other than show games, and this lack of support for growth (including funding) has led to a lack of regular content. Although that is a bit chicken and egg.

There is also a bit of a worry that the BBC are looking to back out of some of the Athletics rights they hold. 

[DoubleD]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

I'd be stunned if we were. I expect this split is simply due to the owner of each of the rights. SL rights is SLE, the rest is the RFL.

That makes more sense.

Because how would they split and allocate the revenue of the RFL bundle? You might get a partner who places significant value on international rights but doesn't value Champ/League 1. As someone else has pointed out, I don't know how we can sell international rights when we don't know what the calendar is. It's probably come at the worst time in terms of doing the international rights. I suppose there's the prospect of an Ashes series but it's not nailed on, or another Kiwi series. Mid season internationals have fallen by the wayside.

The last thing we'd want from the new TV deal is someone acquiring the lower league package and not showing any games, but preventing others from showing them!

[whatmichaelsays]

2 hours ago, Rupert Prince said:

They could afford a good rate, and get a good product in return.  Instead they want to squander it.

Whether they could "afford" it and whether they could "justify" it are two different points. The BBC is a broad church and it needs to produce programming that satisfies a broad range of interests and therefore by definition, the BBC will have some programming that you don't like.  

Commiting large sums to RL coverage doesn't meet that obligation to produce programming with a broad appeal. 

Yes, you can point out examples of programming that you don't like or money that you think could be better spent, but the reality is that said programming most likely, pound for pound, is more justifiable than a big investment in RL 

If RL is such a "good product", why is it that fewer and fewer people seem to be demanding it?  

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, DoubleD said:

That makes more sense.

Because how would they split and allocate the revenue of the RFL bundle? You might get a partner who places significant value on international rights but doesn't value Champ/League 1. As someone else has pointed out, I don't know how we can sell international rights when we don't know what the calendar is. It's probably come at the worst time in terms of doing the international rights. I suppose there's the prospect of an Ashes series but it's not nailed on, or another Kiwi series. Mid season internationals have fallen by the wayside.

The last thing we'd want from the new TV deal is someone acquiring the lower league package and not showing any games, but preventing others from showing them!

Yes, although I expect the RFL have prepared for a lack of Championship deal through the OurLeague platform. If they could get quality coverage though from a freeview broadcaster that would be a real result. I think it is highly likely there will be no cash forthcoming, there never has been really. We need to look how we monetise the Championships without the expectation that we will get a multi-million pound TV deal. We can pretty much guarantee we won't get that.

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

Whether they could "afford" it and whether they could "justify" it are two different points. The BBC is a broad church and it needs to produce programming that satisfies a broad range of interests. Commiting large sums to RL coverage doesn't do that. 

Yes, you can point out examples of programming that you don't like, but the reality is that said programming most likely, pound for pound, is more justifiable than a big investment in RL 

If RL is such a "good product", why is it that fewer and fewer people seem to be demanding it?  

To play devils advocate, the viewing figures on the BBC and Sky Sports have been celebrated as breaking many recent records in recent times. 

Paying audiences are still at a relatively high level, I know we get obsessed about a few hundred here and there, but broadly speaking attendances are holding up well. 

[Scubby]

9 minutes ago, Dave T said:

There is also a bit of a worry that the BBC are looking to back out of some of the Athletics rights they hold. 

I think there's a few hurdles to jump over before that's a done deal.

[whatmichaelsays]

6 minutes ago, Dave T said:

To play devils advocate, the viewing figures on the BBC and Sky Sports have been celebrated as breaking many recent records in recent times. 

Paying audiences are still at a relatively high level, I know we get obsessed about a few hundred here and there, but broadly speaking attendances are holding up well. 

Referencing this piece: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/no-helmets-required/2018/dec/11/rugby-league-power-free-to-air-tv-bbc-england-team

Quote

“Domestic rugby league on the channel is declining with all audiences for live games below the timeslot average,” ...“For context, the 8.5 million people who view rugby league on the BBC this year is the same as the number who tuned in to watch the NFL last season.”
...
The cup crowds don’t help. Empty stands turn off TV viewers, thus devaluing the event for the broadcasters in negotiation and decreasing income from the RFL.

I would also argue that a lot of the SL TV figures have been gerrymandered somewhat. The opening week of Elstone's reign was full of 'box office' fixtures to engineer those feel-good headlines, whilst the Grand Final was the first that I recall, off the top of my head, not to clash with Premier League fixtures. (Not saying that we shouldn't time the GF for the best audience reach, but let's compare apples with apples). 

In fairness, I don't have the time at the moment to pore over attendance figures, but a quick Wiki scan suggests that RL attendances have fallen every year between 2015 and 2019 (often by small amounts as you say, but a fall is still a fall). 

[Gerrumonside ref]

It’s a terrible time for any sport to be negotiating a broadcast deal I believe.

 

[Scubby]

5 minutes ago, Dave T said:

To play devils advocate, the viewing figures on the BBC and Sky Sports have been celebrated as breaking many recent records in recent times. 

Paying audiences are still at a relatively high level, I know we get obsessed about a few hundred here and there, but broadly speaking attendances are holding up well. 

This whole period is really examining what is the value of fans at games to some covered on TV? Cricket feels like nothing is much different because often test crowds are low around the world. Golf is similar where as Football and RL seem more exposed because it is much more fast paced and compact.

Ultimately, it is about how much exciting sport have you got to sell to TV companies in any given year. Currently, we have no internationals and no schedule of internationals (in fact not a single international game scheduled outside the world cup).

[Dave T]

12 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

Referencing this piece: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/no-helmets-required/2018/dec/11/rugby-league-power-free-to-air-tv-bbc-england-team

I would also argue that a lot of the SL TV figures have been gerrymandered somewhat. The opening week of Elstone's reign was full of 'box office' fixtures to engineer those feel-good headlines, whilst the Grand Final was the first that I recall, off the top of my head, not to clash with Premier League fixtures. (Not saying that we shouldn't time the GF for the best audience reach, but let's compare apples with apples). 

In fairness, I don't have the time at the moment to pore over attendance figures, but a quick Wiki scan suggests that RL attendances have fallen every year between 2015 and 2019 (often by small amounts as you say, but a fall is still a fall). 

Yes, as usual I don't disagree with much of what you say, I think the figures that we return are a mixed bag, but we have had some real successes. 

I'm not sure the numbers we are seeing are as a result of falling demand though I suppose is my point (I know that sounds backward!). I think as a sport we have a relatively small hardcore, but then we can pick up a decent audience of casual sports fans who I personally find tend to have a respect for RL and are happy to watch it if it is there in front of them, but don't have a deep interest in it (the importance of an England team they can identify with is the clear answer). As you point out, the Grand Final had record figures, but in 18m if that Grand Final clashes with football fixtures and RU internationals, I expect we would be back to the 300k, so whilst worth celebrating, we haven't moved the dial.

Of course on the flip-side, the BBC have also messed around with our slots quite a bit too, flicking between BBC1 and 2, Friday nights, Saturday and Sunday and Saturday early evening. We also have scheduled the Cup poorly. 

But the overall point is that I think we are probably as popular as we always have been. A small hardcore following and an attractive enough product to appeal to casual fans.

On attendance, these things ebb and flow, I am less concerned about this as a whole, although I think the clubs should be really focused. But we know that we have introduced unpopular Thursday evening games, lost Bradford (club mix is quite important for SL) so some losses there are expected. There are some concerns though with the likes of Wigan and Leeds falling back into the pack.

[Spidey]

2 hours ago, gingerjon said:

Have you told BARLA?

BARLA is largely irrelevant nowadays, the vast majority of clubs play in RFL organised leagues. BARLA organise a few cups and county games and that’s about it

[Toby Chopra]

3 hours ago, Sir Kevin Sinfield said:

International rights should be sold separately, not as part of a package along with rights for the Championship and Challenge Cup.

There just isn't enough inventory to make that viable. 6 games every 4 years? Also, the FA, ECB and RFU all bundle stuff together, rugby league needs to stop this never ending quest to reinvent the wheel. We just need to be a normal sport, doing normal sports TV things. 

[Toby Chopra]

3 hours ago, Dave T said:

I refuse to believe there are two bundles packaged as:

1 - SLE bundle

2 - RFL bundle (Cup, Champs and Internationals)

I expect there are all sorts of variations.

Why do you find 2 bundles so surprising? It's pretty much what we have now isn't it, except with Championship moved into 'Bundle 2'? 

SL is a self contained product which lends itself well to a pay TV broadcaster with exclusive, or near exclusive, control, and is always going to be a revenue maximiser for the sport. I'd be shocked if we did anything different. 

Many have wanted championship "freed" from Sky, and now we may have that, so it'll be interesting to see what anyone else does with it. As others have said, a weekly red button/online game on the beeb like the early round of the CC seems a no brainer. Modern technology means such broadcasts are a lot cheaper than they used to be.

It won't generate much revenue, but that's not the point. 

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

Why do you find 2 bundles so surprising? It's pretty much what we have now isn't it, except with Championship moved into 'Bundle 2'? 

SL is a self contained product which lends itself well to a pay TV broadcaster with exclusive, or near exclusive, control, and is always going to be a revenue maximiser for the sport. I'd be shocked if we did anything different. 

Many have wanted championship "freed" from Sky, and now we may have that, so it'll be interesting to see what anyone else does with it. As others have said, a weekly red button/online game on the beeb like the early round of the CC seems a no brainer. Modern technology means such broadcasts are a lot cheaper than they used to be.

It won't generate much revenue, but that's not the point. 

Because Championship Rugby League is nothing like International RL, and they won't be sold as a bundle. There is not an ounce of logic for those being bundled together beyond they are the same sport.

Similarly, Amazon may want to become the home of International Rugby (both codes) and want the England internationals, but not be interested in the Cup or Championships.

The packages will be flexible and varied.

[Tommygilf]

I think there's a good argument to dovetail the Championship with either Super League or England/Challenge Cup. On its own its unlikely to be a huge revenue source but could form a supporting spot for either of those two entities.

With Super League it could mean a regular 1 or 2 fixtures a week on Sky, perhaps taking Thursday nights and a Sunday slot. 

With the Challenge Cup/England bundle it could be a way to keep some form of live RL on regularly on that platform between the intermittent cup and international games. 

[Gerrumonside ref]

The Championship (which in my opinion will need to be reformed) is crying out for exposure.

If it has been bundled separately to the SLE package then that is probably a good thing.

Those clubs need a highlights package and a live game so fans can follow the narrative of the season.

[Dave T]

Nothing needs to be bundled with anything tbh. All you risk doing is de-valuing something people want by forcing them to show something they don't want. If they want it they will pick up those rights too.

[THE RED ROOSTER]

Be caeful what you wish for when getting an alternative sports TV platform

Quote

Amazon deal spells decline 

Amazon's new contract to broadcast rugby's Autumn Nations Cup is causing concern among administrators in all sports despite the welcome addition of another major player to the TV rights market.

The retail giant have agreed to pay £15million for the rights, around half the value of Sky Sports' previous deal to televise England's autumn internationals. Sky showed little interest due to concerns regarding the competition's structure and uncertainty over the venues and participants, with Georgia replacing Japan at the last minute, thus allowing Amazon to seal the rights on the cheap.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-8728597/SPORTS-AGENDA-Michael-Vaughans-late-Covid-19-test-latest-lockdown-woe.html

The sports rights market is in declin,e any keyboard pounding about a substantially reduced deal for Super League should bear this in mind.

While posters may experience shadenfreude about Unions predicament . Please bear in mind that if you opt for another TV platform with even less of a market share that not free to air.. Do not be surprised if the game fallas even furter away from the consciousness of the UK sporting public..

[Rupert Prince]

17 hours ago, Rupert Prince said:

The BBC could afford if it wanted to. But it wastes shed loads of money on its dark dim dramas and sleazy soap operas, and crass comedians.  The BBC could afford it, it rakes in billions and it is supposed to have a constitution to support diversity.

It is in fact far worse an that. Gary Linaker is paid 1.7 million!  And Graham Norton gets neary 800,000.  Official BBC figures.  But its even worse than even that.  Thanks to a dubious relationship  between ITV and Graham Norton and the BBC,  Norton makes 3.6 million a year off the BBC books... The BBC produce his ITV chat show and they pay for it.

The BBC has loads of money. Thanks to it now forcing over 75s to pay, it can earn a minimum 5.5 million pounds a year!!

It could pay a fair price in money and screen time for Rugby League. Rugby League which is one of the most exiting products on TV, a product that deserves exposure.

[gingerjon]

19 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

It could pay a fair price in money and screen time for Rugby League. Rugby League which is one of the most exiting products on TV, a product that deserves exposure.

You're right. You never see rugby league on the BBC.

[Eddie]

2 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

I think there's a good argument to dovetail the Championship with either Super League or England/Challenge Cup. On its own its unlikely to be a huge revenue source but could form a supporting spot for either of those two entities.

With Super League it could mean a regular 1 or 2 fixtures a week on Sky, perhaps taking Thursday nights and a Sunday slot. 

With the Challenge Cup/England bundle it could be a way to keep some form of live RL on regularly on that platform between the intermittent cup and international games. 

England games should be on the BBC imho, as they’re the ones that the whole of the country are most likely to watch. I’d have that as a separate entity, though would be good to keep the CC on the BBC also.
I can’t imagine any national broadcaster would want to show a championship game, certainly not the BBC. 

[Eddie]

10 minutes ago, SL17 said:

Why?

Why wouldn’t the BBC want to screen a second tier game in a minority sport played almost exclusively in a small area of the country to the whole country? Let me think