Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Chris22

New TV deal negotiations / Perilous finances (Merged threads)

Recommended Posts

Several posts deleted.

No party political grandstanding in here please. There’s a whole sub forum for that. 


.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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


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
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Edited by whatmichaelsays
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 3

Sport, amongst other things, is a dream-world offering escape from harsh reality and the disturbing prospect of change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.


Sport, amongst other things, is a dream-world offering escape from harsh reality and the disturbing prospect of change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Edited by whatmichaelsays
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 ☹️

Edited by Cheshire Setter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1

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...