New TV deal negotiations / Perilous finances (Merged threads)

[sweaty craiq]

8 minutes ago, Mr Frisky said:

I wonder if BT are eve slightly interested?

In covid times the RU premiership semi finals peaked at 205k the other week, by pay £40m pa for these rights

[Mr Frisky]

9 minutes ago, sweaty craiq said:

In covid times the RU premiership semi finals peaked at 205k the other week, by pay £40m pa for these rights

So your point is?

I thought BT only showed Football, didn't know RU was on their - suppose it's a good reason not to get BT.

[Hela Wigmen]

A drop in TV money was always going to be the case, Covid or not. Big changes ahead. 

[gingerjon]

Haven’t the packages already been split this time round? Super League is one, Lower tiers plus Cup and internationals the other?

[Sir Kevin Sinfield]

2 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

A drop in TV money was always going to be the case, Covid or not. Big changes ahead. 

Hopefully those changes start by stopping wasting millions (over the tv deal) paying Robert Elstone to achieve absolutely nothing, in fact less than nothing, he hasn’t even managed to achieve a status quo. 

[Hela Wigmen]

3 minutes ago, Sir Kevin Sinfield said:

Hopefully those changes start by stopping wasting millions (over the tv deal) paying Robert Elstone to achieve absolutely nothing, in fact less than nothing, he hasn’t even managed to achieve a status quo. 

And go back to clubs deciding everything, where self interest reigns supreme and we’re working from the bottom up? Yeah, that’s a grand idea. 

[Henson Park Old Firm]

can someone call Peter V'Landy's?

[The Daddy]

DAZN has launched in the UK, maybe they'd be interested 

[Robthegasman]

It is I think clear as day and inevitable that the money will be reduced regardless of who the broadcaster is.The question is by how much and by all accounts the figure of £10m has been suggested.

Logic would suggest to me that firstly the Super League could well be reduced from 12 clubs to 10 or maybe even 8(my guess would be 10 if it happened)in order for Super League clubs to get the same or maybe a bit more money than now.

It will be the Championship and Championship 1 clubs who will suffer the most as many of them are struggling as it is.Many Will I fear fold or simply become amateur clubs/some form of community clubs perhaps?

Some Will of course survive, and I think there will be a new look Championship come 2022,hopefully they will find a good broadcast partner.

 

 

[whatmichaelsays]

Why do people think that RL deserves a bigger TV deal than it currently has? 

The whole argument for a bigger contract seems to be based on nothing more than "we'd like one and we think we deserve it", which doesn't strike me as a good negotiating position. 

We offer a low-value audience to advertisers (at a time when media space is getting cheaper), RL isn't a massive driver of subscriptions and we're not offering anything new to broadcasters that we don't currently offer. 

I'm not privy to the negotiations but if the proposition being put to broadcasters is basically the same as what Elstone and the club execs are offer under the current contract, it deserves to be bent over the barrel. 

[Robthegasman]

10 minutes ago, The Daddy said:

DAZN has launched in the UK, maybe they'd be interested 

Maybe.Perhaps they could do some deal with clubs outside of Super League 

[Toby Chopra]

I don't see why clubs outside superleague would have to fold. The TV handout represents only a small percentage of most teams' income, and they aren't tied into long-term, full time player contracts. The market for part time players will adjust and clubs will find their balance. 

Sure, at the moment clubs aren't generating ANY income, but if that remains the case the Championship/L1 sport is in peril regardless of whether their TV money is cut or not. 

[thebrewxi]

I only watch the NRL these days anyway. If it was on Premier Sports or Our League, or god forbid even terrestrial, I'd probably watch. 

[Sir Kevin Sinfield]

1 hour ago, Hela Wigmen said:

And go back to clubs deciding everything, where self interest reigns supreme and we’re working from the bottom up? Yeah, that’s a grand idea. 

The clubs still decide everything, hence the upcoming clubs vote on whether to ban Toronto Wolfpack. Robert Elstone is simply an advisor/spokesman/tv deal negotiator, and a seriously expensive ineffective one at that. 

[Hela Wigmen]

6 minutes ago, Sir Kevin Sinfield said:

The clubs still decide everything, hence the upcoming clubs vote on whether to ban Toronto Wolfpack. Robert Elstone is simply an advisor/spokesman/tv deal negotiator, and a seriously expensive ineffective one at that. 

I’m not disagreeing with that, it’s how it is. Elstone is essentially a puppet but we need an independent administrator of the game that has complete authority, much like they have in the NRL with V’landys. While I get that the Super League chairmen are, largely, business people and successful ones at that and their opinions should be considered, the power in their hands has a negative effect on the game. Removing the administrator role that Elstone occupies would be a bad move, IMHO, it’s needed, the role just needs adapting and changing. 

[Dave T]

51 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

Why do people think that RL deserves a bigger TV deal than it currently has? 

The whole argument for a bigger contract seems to be based on nothing more than "we'd like one and we think we deserve it", which doesn't strike me as a good negotiating position. 

We offer a low-value audience to advertisers (at a time when media space is getting cheaper), RL isn't a massive driver of subscriptions and we're not offering anything new to broadcasters that we don't currently offer. 

I'm not privvy to the negotiations but if the proposition being put to broadcasters is basically the same as what Elstone and the club execs are offer under the current contract, it deserves to be bent over the barrel. 

The same could have been said about every round of negotiations we have had. 1

[Blind side johnny]

Another snippet, hidden away in Monday's LE, is that 10% of the government loan to RL has been passed across to SLE simply to help their finances. Not the clubs note, just the SLE finances. £1.6M, just like that.

There does seem to be a parallel economy running at certain levels in our game.

[Blind side johnny]

12 hours ago, Sir Kevin Sinfield said:

How convenient for Robert that he can take £0.5M out of the Super League pot, more than any player in Super League, but it’s impossible to judge his performance. What rubbish, get rid of Elstone and give the £50k each saved to the clubs.

You seem to assume that getting rid of a CEO comes cost-free. I suspect not.

[sweaty craiq]

57 minutes ago, Robthegasman said:

It is I think clear as day and inevitable that the money will be reduced regardless of who the broadcaster is.The question is by how much and by all accounts the figure of £10m has been suggested.

Logic would suggest to me that firstly the Super League could well be reduced from 12 clubs to 10 or maybe even 8(my guess would be 10 if it happened)in order for Super League clubs to get the same or maybe a bit more money than now.

It will be the Championship and Championship 1 clubs who will suffer the most as many of them are struggling as it is.Many Will I fear fold or simply become amateur clubs/some form of community clubs perhaps?

Some Will of course survive, and I think there will be a new look Championship come 2022,hopefully they will find a good broadcast partner.

 

 

Couple of points 1) every championship club I am in contact with is in a strong financial position due to full sky money being paid, furlough, and season ticket/sponsors not taking money back ie huge % of income with little paid out. 2) Reduce to 10 and where does that leave Catalans and TW who do not  bring TV money to the table - indeed write off Ottawa etc otherwise we end up with 5/6 UK clubs in a few years. Time for Cats and TW to get a TV deal imo as our first priority in a reduced TV deal is our long term family. 3) Any reduced deal must be stripped of 'perks' eg Internationals, Challenge Cup, Magic, Summer Bash, Champ play offs -  we must get on Terrestrial with these, even if it means no income for a season - think of the next deal if we get the right coverage.

[whatmichaelsays]

23 minutes ago, Dave T said:

The same could have been said about every round of negotiations we have had. 1

In which case, the sport can probably consider itself lucky that it has ridden the crest of a wave when it comes to increasing TV rights. 

But times have changed (even taking COVID out of the picture). TV companies are being more cautious about the escalating cost of TV rights and they're only going to accept those higher costs if they can see the value. They'll begrudingly pay it for sports like football and F1, because those sports drive subscriptions, but they won't pay it for the sports that don't. 

If anyone can point to the increased value that RL is offerering Sky, BT or anyone else in pursuit of this TV contract, I'd love them to do so because I can't see it. 

As ever, it looks like we're offering them exactly the same thing as before, asking more for it, only to then act shocked when it transpires that isn't going work in a depressed market. At no point, it seems, has anyone stopped to question how we provide broadcasters with more value to justify the higher asking price. 

[Cheshire Setter]

1 hour ago, whatmichaelsays said:

The whole argument for a bigger contract seems to be based on nothing more than "we'd like one and we think we deserve it", which doesn't strike me as a good negotiating position. 

I think the argument is that our dollars per viewing figures don’t match up with those for other sports.

There’s obviously a lot more to the equation than just viewing figures but it does seem we get a slightly raw deal. What we can realistically do about that is questionable. Thought times ahead for RL, and that’s why I’m going to savour every moment of RL I can get my eyes on for the foreseeable

[whatmichaelsays]

2 minutes ago, sweaty craiq said:

where does that leave Catalans and TW who do not  bring TV money to the table 

That's curved thinking. No club "brings TV money to the table" because the TV deal is not contingent on any one club. Take Huddersfield out of the league and the TV deal doesn't change - does that mean that Huddersfield "do not bring TV money to the table", in your view?

Some clubs have more value to the TV deal than others, but they're the ones that put bums on sofas - there's nothing to say that couldn't be Toronto or Catalans. 

[whatmichaelsays]

3 minutes ago, Cheshire Setter said:

I think the argument is that our dollars per viewing figures don’t match up with those for other sports.

There’s obviously a lot more to the equation than just viewing figures but it does seem we get a slightly raw deal. What we can realistically do about that is questionable. Thought times ahead for RL, and that’s why I’m going to savour every moment of RL I can get my eyes on for the foreseeable

If we are getting a "raw deal", then it shouldn't be hard for SL to make that case to either Sky, or any prospective replacement. 

But for any broadcaster to justify a big investment in RL, there has to be a pay-off and when you consider the number of subscriptions that RL would drive, or the number of subscriptions that rely on RL, I suspect the number is tiny. That's the result of many years of failure by Super League and the clubs - they had a duty to drive demand for RL content and they've failed to do that. 

The price of media around RL content is also cheap, and is only going to get cheaper with technologies such as Sky Adsmart. Sky pays big for sports like F1 and golf because the media around that content is valuable. Again, Super League and the clubs had a duty to diversify the audience that watches RL, and they didn't do that. 

This reduction in TV value, if it is true, is simply many years worth of chickens coming home to roost. 

[M j M]

1 hour ago, whatmichaelsays said:

We offer a low-value audience to advertisers (at a time when media space is getting cheaper), RL isn't a massive driver of subscriptions 

Upon what do you support these "facts"?

Certainly the RL-specific subscription base is not one to be undervalued.

[Harry Stottle]

12 hours ago, Hela Wigmen said:

And continue the cycle we’re on now of clubs making the decisions and we keep the poor standards we have now? No thanks. A proper leader with the overall authority, and not one whose strings are pulled by a handful of chairmen, is desperately needed. 

Can't see Leneghan, McManus and Moran agreeing to that, at the press conference introducing him I was expecting Elstone to say "A gockle of geer" at any time, it was a farce.