Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Total Rugby League

Broadcasting rights go out to tender

Recommended Posts

On 15/09/2020 at 14:34, Rupert Prince said:

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.

What Graham Norton chat show on ITV? It’s on the BBC and has been for years

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The BBC is an old boys club the money being paid to the likes of Zoe Ball is a disgrace to the licence payer.

The sooner BBC Radio 1/2 is shut down the better (No problems with 3/4 etc) however public money in this day and age being used to compete with commercial radio (Which itself is struggling outside of the awful Global/Bauer) is just not on.

Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

The lower tiers should not be broadcast live other than the events , as in Summer Bash and the play offs 

There should be a highlights show , put together by the Clubs themselves if necessary

Why not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, LeeF said:

What Graham Norton chat show on ITV? It’s on the BBC and has been for years

I must clarify...

Norton's production company was sold to ITV Studios in 2012. This produces his chat show and the BBC pay them ... in other words him.    He received 3 million via it in 2018 for example.    The only pay the BBC discloses is for his radio show and Eurovision. I suggest other such deals are done the same way. I have no idea how tax comes into it... I am sure everyone concerned is scrupulous with it.

The point is the BBC have loads  of money and waste loads of it on trivia, and could pay easily more (deservedly) for Rugby League.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I must clarify...

Norton's production company was sold to ITV Studios in 2012. This produces his chat show and the BBC pay them ... in other words him.    He received 3 million via it in 2018 for example.    The only pay the BBC discloses is for his radio show and Eurovision. I suggest other such deals are done the same way. I have no idea how tax comes into it... I am sure everyone concerned is scrupulous with it.

The point is the BBC have loads  of money and waste loads of it on trivia, and could pay easily more (deservedly) for Rugby League.

And as mentioned, ability to pay and ability to justify are two different things. 

I suspect that a lot of what you consider to be "trivia" forms the bulk of the success at BBC Studios (the Beeb's commercial arm). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rupert Prince said:

I am sure everyone concerned is scrupulous with it.

If you know to the penny how much is being spent in this way then you can bet HMRC know too.


Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Share this post


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

Why not?

Because the main focus of the lower tiers should be getting paying spectators through the turnstiles , and that can be affected by TV coverage , and in truth it will never be enough money to make a difference IMO 

The ' event ' games are different , you have the bash which is a large amount of content at reasonable cost to produce , and the play offs , which are higher profile games than regular season and therefore are more valuable

All IMO of course 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, whatmichaelsays said:

And as mentioned, ability to pay and ability to justify are two different things. 

I suspect that a lot of what you consider to be "trivia" forms the bulk of the success at BBC Studios (the Beeb's commercial arm). 

But to labour the point - it's been suggested that the BBC cannot afford a decent tv deal for RL.  I suggest they could, and for the simple reason that they waste money on other things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

But to labour the point - it's been suggested that the BBC cannot afford a decent tv deal for RL.  I suggest they could, and for the simple reason that they waste money on other things.

The point is the other things they according to you " waste" money on are ratings winners. The Beeb's money is from licence payers and government subsidies ie. license payers taxes.RL does very very very well considering it is played in one part of the country. To spend big money on a national RL contract is as wasteful as showing the Highland Games nationally. If next year's WC generates national interest throughout the nation, ah then it's a new situation,  it's up to RL to prove itself as a popular national interest sport.  Just saying " hey we're fantastic,  we're deserving,  give us some dosh "doesn't cut the mustard. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, HawkMan said:

The point is the other things they according to you " waste" money on are ratings winners. The Beeb's money is from licence payers and government subsidies ie. license payers taxes.RL does very very very well considering it is played in one part of the country. To spend big money on a national RL contract is as wasteful as showing the Highland Games nationally. If next year's WC generates national interest throughout the nation, ah then it's a new situation,  it's up to RL to prove itself as a popular national interest sport.  Just saying " hey we're fantastic,  we're deserving,  give us some dosh "doesn't cut the mustard. 

Who says RL is not a ratings winner...?

And in any event, the BBCs job is not to win ratings.  It is to reflect the country.  But it is basterdising it ethos and  producing what I call politely "trivia". The BBC has loads of money, it just chooses to spend it on itself and it's fellow travellers. 

Share this post


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

Who says RL is not a ratings winner...?

And in any event, the BBCs job is not to win ratings.  It is to reflect the country.  But it is basterdising it ethos and  producing what I call politely "trivia". The BBC has loads of money, it just chooses to spend it on itself and it's fellow travellers. 

Let’s not forget they have and always have had the monopoly over radio.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, SL17 said:

Let’s not forget they have and always have had the monopoly over radio.

Well yes.  Although thanks to Radio Caroline we do have commercial radio.  I'm not sure how good it is, but BBC radio seems to me to stultify (is that a word?) the opportunities for local and commercial.

As for how good the BBC production of RL goes... it's a bit of a mixed bag.  However Rochdal born Mark Chapman is I think excellent and worth 10 Linakers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, whatmichaelsays said:

And as mentioned, ability to pay and ability to justify are two different things. 

I suspect that a lot of what you consider to be "trivia" forms the bulk of the success at BBC Studios (the Beeb's commercial arm). 

Mrs Browns Boys perfectly illustrating this point

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Rupert Prince said:

Who says RL is not a ratings winner...?

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

Quote

 

The audience for this year’s Challenge Cup was the lowest on record. Just 4.5 million watched the seven ties on BBC TV, down from 7.9 million in 2011.

“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.”

 

 

10 hours ago, Rupert Prince said:

And in any event, the BBCs job is not to win ratings.  It is to reflect the country. 

Exactly, so spending a significant amount of money on, and dedicating a significant amount of air time to, a northern oddity where the average crowd is lower than the average attendance at Lincoln City, is not "reflecting the country". 

And the BBC does have an obligation to producing commercially successful shows. The money that the commercial arm of the BBC, BBC Studios, generates effectively subsidises the licence fee. 

Edited by whatmichaelsays

Share this post


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

Mrs Browns Boys perfectly illustrating this point

#@%$# !!!

Don't get me started about Mrs Brown's @#%*ing Boys.     You will be mentioning @#%*ing Michael @#%*ing Macintire next!

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I am inclined to agree that the license fee model is outdated in the Netflix age, I think if rugby league had to rely on the free market for its terrestrial coverage we might find our position even more precarious. 

I'm not sure there would be a queue of private broadcasters willing to take the risk of the production costs and national airtime for a regional sport with middling brand value. 

The BBC can take that sort of risk and make a long term comittment because RL ticks other boxes for them - regional interests for the SL and CC, and 'National moments' for England and the Wembley CC final. I very much doubt a private broadcaster would be signing up to be host broadcaster for the World Cup. The relationship with the BBC (and Sky for that matter) works pretty well in my view. 

It doesn't HAVE to be those two broadcasters - it could be Channel 4 (which also has a public service remit) and Amazon for SL - but my guess is that the new contracts will broadly look like the old contracts becasue that's what works best for broadcasters. 

And given everything we've been through recently, such an outcome would be considered a triumph as it secures the sport for another 5 years. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

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

 

Exactly, so spending a significant amount of money on, and dedicating a significant amount of air time to, a northern oddity where the average crowd is lower than the average attendance at Lincoln City, is not "reflecting the country". 

And the BBC pay peanuts for RL, in no sort of context and promote it accordingly. (But this moves us into the realms if developing SL ... and associated expansion ... as the flagship of RL at the expense of everything else including relegation... so may be we should leave that aside)

It's interesting that RL is compared to NFL, where the BBC show late night highlights.   NFL is even more stop start than RU, but it gets an audience.  It suggests to me there is no need to make our game even more faster and also the BBC benefit from promoting the best bits of NFL in its 'highlights.

But even if RL were an 'oddity' that's not the point.  The BBC can afford to pay a fair price for RL, and it ought to promote it because it's constitution is designed to support a relatively minor sport.  And in terms of its attendances, and history. ethos and community links its not much of an oddity and deserves appropriate recognition.

The BBC has loads of money, wastes money, and can afford a fair price, a better price, for its RL coverage (in so far that it covers it at all)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

Although I am inclined to agree that the license fee model is outdated in the Netflix age, I think if rugby league had to rely on the free market for its terrestrial coverage we might find our position even more precarious. 

I'm not sure there would be a queue of private broadcasters willing to take the risk of the production costs and national airtime for a regional sport with middling brand value. 

The BBC can take that sort of risk and make a long term comittment because RL ticks other boxes for them - regional interests for the SL and CC, and 'National moments' for England and the Wembley CC final. I very much doubt a private broadcaster would be signing up to be host broadcaster for the World Cup. The relationship with the BBC (and Sky for that matter) works pretty well in my view. 

It doesn't HAVE to be those two broadcasters - it could be Channel 4 (which also has a public service remit) and Amazon for SL - but my guess is that the new contracts will broadly look like the old contracts becasue that's what works best for broadcasters. 

And given everything we've been through recently, such an outcome would be considered a triumph as it secures the sport for another 5 years. 

Yes good comments.  But sport is relatively cheap.  Drama is very expensive and it's a moot point is any of it is worthwhile as a product.   So I repeat again, within it's sphere RL deserves a fair and better price.  But you are correct RL will do well to retain what it gets. It deserves more (even before it, RL, improves itself), and the BBC could pay more if it did not waste more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

And the BBC pay peanuts for RL, in no sort of context and promote it accordingly. (But this moves us into the realms if developing SL ... and associated expansion ... as the flagship of RL at the expense of everything else including relegation... so may be we should leave that aside)

It's interesting that RL is compared to NFL, where the BBC show late night highlights.   NFL is even more stop start than RU, but it gets an audience.  It suggests to me there is no need to make our game even more faster and also the BBC benefit from promoting the best bits of NFL in its 'highlights.

But even if RL were an 'oddity' that's not the point.  The BBC can afford to pay a fair price for RL, and it ought to promote it because it's constitution is designed to support a relatively minor sport.  And in terms of its attendances, and history. ethos and community links its not much of an oddity and deserves appropriate recognition.

The BBC has loads of money, wastes money, and can afford a fair price, a better price, for its RL coverage (in so far that it covers it at all)

What would be a fair price?


Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

and it ought to promote it because it's constitution is designed to support a relatively minor sport. 

This sort of thinking is all kinds of wrong and is a massive problem in the sport. 

The BBC is not our PR agency. It is not the BBC's job to "promote" RL. It has a job to report RL in context of public interest, but it does not have any obligation to "promote it" in any way, shape or form. 

If the BBC (or Sky or any other broadcaster for that matter) isn't paying enough attention to RL, then the fault and the responsibility for addressing that lies squarely with Super League, the RFL and/or the clubs. They're the ones who should be adding value to the product and creating the demand for RL.

If there was more demand for RL content, broadcasters would respond to that demand and the value of RL content would increase as a result. 

Again, I'm not disputing that the BBC could afford to pay big bucks for RL content. I'm saying that they couldn't editorially, commercially or politically justify doing so. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

Yes good comments.  But sport is relatively cheap.  Drama is very expensive and it's a moot point is any of it is worthwhile as a product.   So I repeat again, within it's sphere RL deserves a fair and better price.  But you are correct RL will do well to retain what it gets. It deserves more (even before it, RL, improves itself), and the BBC could pay more if it did not waste more.

The BBC make a fortune on re selling programming around the world, DVDs etc... Drama especially.. RL will not cover that so it may be cheaper to produce but it makes less in the long term.. 

Mrs Brown's Boys, for example, has been a success in this way.. god knows why but still.. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, whatmichaelsays said:

This sort of thinking is all kinds of wrong and is a massive problem in the sport. 

The BBC is not our PR agency. It is not the BBC's job to "promote" RL. It has a job to report RL in context of public interest, but it does not have any obligation to "promote it" in any way, shape or form. 

If the BBC (or Sky or any other broadcaster for that matter) isn't paying enough attention to RL, then the fault and the responsibility for addressing that lies squarely with Super League, the RFL and/or the clubs. They're the ones who should be adding value to the product and creating the demand for RL.

If there was more demand for RL content, broadcasters would respond to that demand and the value of RL content would increase as a result. 

Again, I'm not disputing that the BBC could afford to pay big bucks for RL content. I'm saying that they couldn't editorially, commercially or politically justify doing so. 

100% agree with this, in fact the BBC have shown if a hitherto minority sport becomes big news it will  broadcast it as it is obliged to do. I'm thinking of women's football and netball. The women's WC football got the nation to take notice,  I personally didn't watch, but nevertheless it got good ratings and now there's more of it on BBC, SKY BT all recognized there was an audience and responded.  So if RL has a good WC and people respond positively and want more, then it's a whole new situation. 

RL for a minority sport does well, I don't see any field Hockey on the BBC, or British Basketball or Ice Hockey,  RL has nothing to complain about. If any sport has something to complain about it's Cricket,  the BBC shamefully abandoned it, except for TMS. It's even possible to make a case that the BBC should have bid to show one EPL match a week.on FTA, but the cost would be too astronomical,  and why , because football can guarantee audiences  and is a Sky subscription driver thus can ask for vast tv deals, but RL can't. I fully understand how aggravating that is , how deeply hurtful it is,  but that's the way of it. 

Edited by HawkMan
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

This sort of thinking is all kinds of wrong and is a massive problem in the sport. 

The BBC is not our PR agency. It is not the BBC's job to "promote" RL. It has a job to report RL in context of public interest, but it does not have any obligation to "promote it" in any way, shape or form. 

If the BBC (or Sky or any other broadcaster for that matter) isn't paying enough attention to RL, then the fault and the responsibility for addressing that lies squarely with Super League, the RFL and/or the clubs. They're the ones who should be adding value to the product and creating the demand for RL.

If there was more demand for RL content, broadcasters would respond to that demand and the value of RL content would increase as a result. 

Again, I'm not disputing that the BBC could afford to pay big bucks for RL content. I'm saying that they couldn't editorially, commercially or politically justify doing so. 

The BBC haven’t paid attention to RL as SKY had the monopoly. Let’s get things in perspective and stop selling game short.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, SL17 said:

The BBC haven’t paid attention to RL as SKY had the monopoly. Let’s get things in perspective and stop selling game short.

Yep, the BBC have steadfastly ignored RL by broadcasting the Challenge Cup for decades!!!

Share this post


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

Yep, the BBC have steadfastly ignored RL by broadcasting the Challenge Cup for decades!!!

It ended up being a joint venture. So much for being exclusive.

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...