Broadcasting rights go out to tender

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, whatmichaelsays said:

I don't have old copies of the Radio Times to hand, but Six Nations games have definately been shown on BBC2. The BBC doesn't have the rights to the RUWC, so they clearly don't give it preferential treatment you seem to think they do. 

I have never once claimed the BBC give the RUWC preferential treatment, so I will leave it there.

[gingerjon]

Just now, whatmichaelsays said:

ITV have the exclusive rights for the RUWC. 

Again, I just don't see how being on BBC2 is such a hardship. 

Yes, you're right on that. I was referring specifically to the Six Nations contract.

I personally don't see a difference between BBC1,2 and 4 but lots of people still seem to. I don't know why but they do.

[Dave T]

Just now, whatmichaelsays said:

ITV have the exclusive rights for the RUWC. 

Again, I just don't see how being on BBC2 is such a hardship. 

BBC2 attracts lower figures than BBC1. 

Just like Sky Sports Arena attracts far fewer than Sky Sports Main Event.

[gingerjon]

So, we are all arguing the toss but seem to broadly believe that, whether they pair fairly or not, that internationals, the Challenge Cup and (probably) Championship will go to the BBC, and Super League will remain on Sky?

[Dave T]

5 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

I believe the most recent agreement - which doesn't give the BBC exclusive rights - does specify that all games have to be shown on BBC One?

I can find England Women in football on both BBC Two and BBC Four for qualifiers, friendlies and tournaments not the World Cup but I think Mr T is right that they are always on BBC One for the World Cup itself.

And there is a clear reason for this - BBC One is the flagship channel that delivers highest viewing figures. 

[whatmichaelsays]

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

BBC2 attracts lower figures than BBC1. 

Just like Sky Sports Arena attracts far fewer than Sky Sports Main Event.

It's a simplistic argument. Put the BBC 1 content on BBC 2 and you more than likely reverse the trend. 

In the vast majority of cases it's the content that drives the audience, not the channel number. 

If the demand is there for RL content, people will press the '2' button on their remote to get it. 

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, gingerjon said:

So, we are all arguing the toss but seem to broadly believe that, whether they pair fairly or not, that internationals, the Challenge Cup and (probably) Championship will go to the BBC, and Super League will remain on Sky?

I think more of the same is likely. 

Where that leaves the Championships, I have no idea.

[gingerjon]

4 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I think more of the same is likely. 

Where that leaves the Championships, I have no idea.

I think, personally, in terms of visibility I think would be in a good place. Red button coverage is normally decent and it's well listed (if not promoted) on the BBC Sport website and on the app. It's a major step up from anything to do with Our League or the blink-and-you'll-miss-it outings on Sky.

Money-wise … well, no better or worse off than now, in a broad sense.

[RigbyLuger]

11 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

Again, I just don't see how being on BBC2 is such a hardship. 

Why does an Andy Murray match get put to BBC 1, if they've been already showing another match that they then move over to BBC 2?

[RigbyLuger]

---

[Dave T]

5 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

I think, personally, in terms of visibility I think would be in a good place. Red button coverage is normally decent and it's well listed (if not promoted) on the BBC Sport website and on the app. It's a major step up from anything to do with Our League or the blink-and-you'll-miss-it outings on Sky.

Money-wise … well, no better or worse off than now, in a broad sense.

Yep, my hope is that we just get some coverage, I am less bothered where it is tbh, just some demand from a broadcaster is a starting point. 

[GUBRATS]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

I think more of the same is likely. 

Where that leaves the Championships, I have no idea.

With a highlights show on YouTube

[Rupert Prince]

6 hours ago, Dave T said:

I agree, but I'd be stunned if anybody would claim that that any RLWC ever has received the level of coverage and promotion that the Women's Football World Cup received from the BBC last year, which is my point. We sometimes see a peak of a couple of million for RL internationals, but I refuse to believe that is our cap. If we were treated in the same way as some of these other comps and delivered 5 to 6 times fewer viewers then we wouldn't have a leg to stand on. But we have never benefited from full on BBC support.

Yes.

They go out of their way to promote, virtually from scratch, women's football, frankly because it's the in thing to do.  Its equality innit?  The BBC has been exposed over equal pay, so it is sensitive.

But this is the perverse thing.  The BBC has the remit to support  and promote RL, but it doesn't take the opportunity to.  Of course the RL should push itself, it ... the whole RL ... needs to take a good look at itself, but production of RL by the BBC is begruging.

Of course RL has a big problem with its limited international profile. It has other problems, not least the crippling dichotomy between full time RL and the rest.  But the BBC has loads of money, it just chooses to uneconomically spend it (waste it!) on things that squeezes out RL (and yes, other similar sports). 

The poor profile we have internationally means of course that we can only offer a few CC games a season.  But the real litmus test for how the BBC treats us is the highlights show, and the obscure rescheduling of that speaks volumes.

[Mr Frisky]

6 hours ago, gingerjon said:

Yes, you're right on that. I was referring specifically to the Six Nations contract.

I personally don't see a difference between BBC1,2 and 4 but lots of people still seem to. I don't know why but they do.

Yes agree they are all exactly the same!!!.... hang on there is a BBC4??

[Tommygilf]

 

[Toby Chopra]

3 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

 

A good listen. I'm never quite sure what an "overdependency" on TV money means, though. 

Seems to me that if you can generate a large share of your income thorough TV rights you're doing something right, not wrong. 

[whatmichaelsays]

14 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

A good listen. I'm never quite sure what an "overdependency" on TV money means, though. 

Seems to me that if you can generate a large share of your income thorough TV rights you're doing something right, not wrong. 

I'd agree - and there are few professional sports that don't depend on TV revenue. 

I would suggest that a fair accusation to level at RL is that it doesn't seem to have increased revenue streams other than domestic TV revenue. When you look at the accounts of clubs, a lot of revenue streams remain fairly static. That does make it "over" dependant on an ever-increasing domestic TV deal to simply stand still in real terms. 

Compare with the Premier League, for example, which has successfully managed to increase pretty much every other revenue stream at the same time, alongside having a significant income from domestic TV rights. 

[Tommygilf]

13 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

A good listen. I'm never quite sure what an "overdependency" on TV money means, though. 

Seems to me that if you can generate a large share of your income thorough TV rights you're doing something right, not wrong. 

I think its a vague point, I suppose in his defence it could be seen as the game having expanded everything else so little nor taken advantage of TV to boost them. As in our sponsorships remain relatively low, our teams recognition remains at a certain level etc.

[Tommygilf]

5 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

I'd agree - and there are few professional sports that don't depend on TV revenue. 

I would suggest that a fair accusation to level at RL is that it doesn't seem to have increased revenue streams other than domestic TV revenue. When you look at the accounts of clubs, a lot of revenue streams remain fairly static. That does make it "over" dependant on an ever-increasing domestic TV deal to simply stand still in real terms . 

Compare with the Premier League, for example, which has successfully managed to increase pretty much every other revenue stream at the same time, alongside having a significant income from domestic TV rights. 

Beat me to it!

[whatmichaelsays]

1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

Beat me to it!

You sound like my wife. 

[The Rocket]

14 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

I'd agree - and there are few professional sports that don't depend on TV revenue. 

I would suggest that a fair accusation to level at RL is that it doesn't seem to have increased revenue streams other than domestic TV revenue. When you look at the accounts of clubs, a lot of revenue streams remain fairly static. That does make it "over" dependant on an ever-increasing domestic TV deal to simply stand still in real terms. 

Compare with the Premier League, for example, which has successfully managed to increase pretty much every other revenue stream at the same time, alongside having a significant income from domestic TV rights. 

Yes, every #### playing Touch/Tag Rugby ( League) all over your country should be paying a registration fee and match fee every week that should have been going into Club or RFL coffers for the last 30 years.

[Toby Chopra]

1 hour ago, Tommygilf said:

I think its a vague point, I suppose in his defence it could be seen as the game having expanded everything else so little nor taken advantage of TV to boost them. As in our sponsorships remain relatively low, our teams recognition remains at a certain level etc.

You both make good points. I'd argue, though, that we haven't even been successful in growing our TV revenue either, the way other sports have. The one-time leap in the 90s came from embracing the pay-TV model, which is effectively charging the keenest fans something extra to watch, and we professionalised the game with that income. But in real terms it's barely risen since then.

[Tommygilf]

16 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

You both make good points. I'd argue, though, that we haven't even been successful in growing our TV revenue either, the way other sports have. The one-time leap in the 90s came from embracing the pay-TV model, which is effectively charging the keenest fans something extra to watch, and we professionalised the game with that income. But in real terms it's barely risen since then.

That's absolutely true as well, I suppose its a bit of general malaise as well as a certain comfortableness at the top of the game which has lead to it not kicking on

[Big Picture]

2 hours ago, Toby Chopra said:

A good listen. I'm never quite sure what an "overdependency" on TV money means, though. 

Seems to me that if you can generate a large share of your income thorough TV rights you're doing something right, not wrong. 

All of his podcasts are good.

[EastLondonMike]

Listening to the podcast now and surprised to hear Amazon Prime and Channel 4 have picked up a Union competition to be jointly shown later this year.

I'd hope both Amazon Prime and channel 4 have been approached as part of this SL tender process.