New TV deal negotiations / Perilous finances (Merged threads)

[Big Picture 1,769]

Just now, GUBRATS said:

I said it can 

You haven't given any idea of how it can grow though, despite your experience in RL club management.

[GUBRATS 4,687]

22 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

You haven't given any idea of how it can grow though, despite your experience in RL club management.

My ' experience in RL club management ' ,  well yes I was involved for a few years , but as we see currently , within any organisation that has a committee , there will be several differing opinions on how it is best to proceed , I was often outvoted , and agreements made between the various participants get ignored , so just like you , I won't get what I want either 

[Oldbear 781]

51 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Some of us have been pointing out this fact for the best part of 20 years 

The thing is as I've often put , everybody wants the sport to grow , as long as they and their club are part of it , does that apply to you ?

Actually I don’t mind who makes up the top flight providing its 

1. done fairly, with teams who are viable (prefer P&R but suspect this ship has now sailed)

2. a true benefit to the game in terms of profile, sponsorship income, TV revenue etc

3. safeguards the future of the pro game to keep our young players in the game

4. left alone for a decent time period, no more tinkering!

[Big Picture 1,769]

1 hour ago, Oldbear said:

Actually I don’t mind who makes up the top flight providing its 

1. done fairly, with teams who are viable (prefer P&R but suspect this ship has now sailed)

2. a true benefit to the game in terms of profile, sponsorship income, TV revenue etc

3. safeguards the future of the pro game to keep our young players in the game

4. left alone for a decent time period, no more tinkering!

And if because all but perhaps one of the traditional clubs are (to bring Sean McGuire up again) located in smallish economically disadvantaged towns and that means that they are and always will be unable to deliver "a true benefit to the game in terms of profile, sponsorship income, TV revenue etc", what then?

[Sir Kevin Sinfield 2,029]

8 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

So who can ?

York, Newcastle and Sheffield are 3 clubs in cities with some ambition. It isn’t just about whether an area is deprived or not, clearly Hull with a population of 260,000 add more value than Featherstone with a population of 15,000. Clubs in expansion cities like these should be given extra help, be it more funding or relegation/overseas players exemptions. You might disagree but at least this would be a plan to grow the game, currently there is no plan.

[ATLANTISMAN 902]

2 hours ago, Sir Kevin Sinfield said:

York, Newcastle and Sheffield are 3 clubs in cities with some ambition. It isn’t just about whether an area is deprived or not, clearly Hull with a population of 260,000 add more value than Featherstone with a population of 15,000. Clubs in expansion cities like these should be given extra help, be it more funding or relegation/overseas players exemptions. You might disagree but at least this would be a plan to grow the game, currently there is no plan.

York and Newcastle (Remember basically Newcastle is Gosforth) I agree with, Sheffield although a small loyal following seems to have gone backwards over the last few years although I admire Mark Aston for staying power and dedication:)

 

Paul

Edited October 31, 2020 by ATLANTISMAN

[Oxford 4,996]

7 hours ago, Big Picture said:

And if because all but perhaps one of the traditional clubs are (to bring Sean McGuire up again) located in smallish economically disadvantaged towns and that means that they are and always will be unable to deliver "a true benefit to the game in terms of profile, sponsorship income, TV revenue etc", what then?

The vagueness of terms like "true benefit" along with notions of what clubs contribute are at the root of the problem in any discussion about TV contracts and who is included and who won't be.

Taking the simple argument of expansion, which is very much related to this, the people who argue that we are a small game are very often the same people who argue against reaching out beyond the M62. The same level of holding two competing ideas in your 'ed could be aimed at the expansionist side of the debate.

Often the attempts of either side of all, repeat all, TGG arguments are simply trying to close the other side down, to dismiss and ignore the alternatives.

Essentially though we are quarreling about our prejudices and unclear ideas. Not long ago Salford were constantly being pointed out as bringing nowt to SL and tow finals later this has all but disappeared. There is no doubt that it will re-emerge and we will rehash the same old stuff over and over again. Or we will put off fellow TGG fans of one side so much so that we'll have less freedom of speech than a member of the Labour Party. And maybe that's yet another contradictory idea, that we join social media so we don't have to listen to any alternative views.

[GUBRATS 4,687]

1 hour ago, Sir Kevin Sinfield said:

York, Newcastle and Sheffield are 3 clubs in cities with some ambition. It isn’t just about whether an area is deprived or not, clearly Hull with a population of 260,000 add more value than Featherstone with a population of 15,000. Clubs in expansion cities like these should be given extra help, be it more funding or relegation/overseas players exemptions. You might disagree but at least this would be a plan to grow the game, currently there is no plan.

You might as well just quote any big city in the UK or Europe , Sheffield isn't interested in RL , similarily York , they aren't ' new ' , I've worked with Scourers , no interest whatsoever in either form of Rugby 

Newcastle seem to be going well , SL giant ? , Doubtful IMO , good Championship club chasing SL ? , Possibly 

Big Picture's ' World League ' would be wonderful , more chance of Addington Stanley winning the Champions League final by 2027

[Les Tonks Sidestep 3,180]

15 hours ago, Dave T said:

We know they didn't, because they never screened that 1 L1 game they said they would (other than when TWP provided coverage) and Wood confirmed that L1 was not part of the deal. 

OK so they bought the rights to Championship and CC. Someone (whether Sky or not) put those values on the rights. I've said several times on here that should SL effectively go it alone on a TV deal it would likely come back to bite them. 

[Sir Kevin Sinfield 2,029]

23 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

You might as well just quote any big city in the UK or Europe , Sheffield isn't interested in RL , similarily York , they aren't ' new ' , I've worked with Scourers , no interest whatsoever in either form of Rugby 

Newcastle seem to be going well , SL giant ? , Doubtful IMO , good Championship club chasing SL ? , Possibly 

Big Picture's ' World League ' would be wonderful , more chance of Addington Stanley winning the Champions League final by 2027

In 1997 Sheffield got over 10k home fans, there’s no reason why they couldn’t get that many again or more. York’s fan base has been growing and has the potential to keep going. The true benefit to having more cities and less small towns is adding to our tv viewing figures, that is the only way we will increase the value of our tv deal, which is where the majority of clubs incomes comes from.

[Damien 11,583]

59 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

You might as well just quote any big city in the UK or Europe , Sheffield isn't interested in RL , similarily York , they aren't ' new ' , I've worked with Scourers , no interest whatsoever in either form of Rugby 

Newcastle seem to be going well , SL giant ? , Doubtful IMO , good Championship club chasing SL ? , Possibly 

Big Picture's ' World League ' would be wonderful , more chance of Addington Stanley winning the Champions League final by 2027

I've posted this before but in the 90s when Sheffield was in Super League they got very similar attendances to Warrington and Castleford playing at an awful ground for Rugby League. Warrington and Castleford's attendances have grown considerably since then. There is no reason why the same wouldn't have happened if a Sheffield team had managed to stay in Super League and got their ground situation sorted out.

It seems awfully convenient to write off places as not being interested in Rugby League but the facts don't always support this.

[Hela Wigmen 2,218]

2 minutes ago, Damien said:

I've posted this before but in the 90s when Sheffield was in Super League they got very similar attendances to Warrington and Castleford playing at an awful ground for Rugby League. Warrington and Castleford's attendances have grown considerably since then. There is no reason why the same wouldn't have happened if a Sheffield team had managed to stay in Super League and got their ground situation sorted out.

It seems awfully convenient to write off places as not being interested in Rugby League but the facts don't always support this.

It’s tough to try to use ‘facts’ from up to 25 years ago to try and make a point in the modern day.

[Damien 11,583]

6 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

It’s tough to try to use ‘facts’ from up to 25 years ago to try and make a point in the modern day.

Well its not and is a damn site more relevant than people writing off entire cities as not being interested in RL. Sheffield may well not be interested in lower league RL playing at a very poor stadium but few places are and quite frankly this is the case in the games heartlands like Oldham too.

Edited October 31, 2020 by Damien

[Hela Wigmen 2,218]

1 minute ago, Damien said:

Well its not and is a damn site more relevant than people writing off entire cities as not being interested in RL. Sheffield may well not be interested in lower league RL playing at a very poor stadium but few places are and quite frankly this is the case in the games heartlands like Oldham too.

It really is. You’re trying to use a crowd figure from 23 years ago to try and make a point without even considering the myriad of caveats that go with it. On your thinking, Bradford are the biggest club in this country based upon your crowd figures from nearly 25 years ago and should be fast tracked back to Super League. 

[Damien 11,583]

2 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

It really is. You’re trying to use a crowd figure from 23 years ago to try and make a point without even considering the myriad of caveats that go with it. On your thinking, Bradford are the biggest club in this country based upon your crowd figures from nearly 25 years ago and should be fast tracked back to Super League. 

Here we go, strawman argument time. I just don't write entire owns and cities off as not being interested in Rugby League when evidence says otherwise. That is the context of what I was replying to and I am not particularly interested in a completely different debate.

[Hela Wigmen 2,218]

Just now, Damien said:

Here we go, strawman argument time. I just don't write entire owns and cities off as not being interested in Rugby League when evidence says otherwise. That is the context of what I was replying to and I am not particularly interested in a completely different debate.

You’re using evidence from a generation ago and getting upset that it’s not really relevant in the current day. How people consumed sport was very different 23 years ago to how it is now, for example. You don’t seem to have factored that in. 

London got great crowds in the early 90’s and will improved when they’re a Super League side, they barely broke the 3,000 barrier last year, for example. It’s a completely different time and a generation has passed from the 90’s. 

I’m not writing off anyone but basing a whole argument around attendances is as much a strawman argument as writing Rugby League playing cities off altogether. 

[GUBRATS 4,687]

44 minutes ago, Damien said:

Well its not and is a damn site more relevant than people writing off entire cities as not being interested in RL. Sheffield may well not be interested in lower league RL playing at a very poor stadium but few places are and quite frankly this is the case in the games heartlands like Oldham too.

So in that case anywhere currently in the lower leagues playing in ###### stadiums could draw significantly more if successful in SL

 

[bromleybulldog 448]

It wouldn't surprise me to see SL take advantage of the four (apparently) clubs voting against accepting Toronto, to go back to Sky and propose a new breakaway of those clubs who voted 'for', add Toulouse and London and to try and interest Sky in a 'New' SL , all broadcast monies to be paid to them. Toronto and Ottowa to be included if they came up with financial 'guarantees' (ie funds deposited in an escrow account). Solves the 'problem of underachieving small town Northern clubs at a stroke.

 

Well, nothing surprises me in RL these days.

[Rupert Prince 1,530]

3 minutes ago, bromleybulldog said:

It wouldn't surprise me to see SL take advantage of the four (apparently) clubs voting against accepting Toronto, to go back to Sky and propose a new breakaway of those clubs who voted 'for', add Toulouse and London and to try and interest Sky in a 'New' SL , all broadcast monies to be paid to them. Toronto and Ottowa to be included if they came up with financial 'guarantees' (ie funds deposited in an escrow account). Solves the 'problem of underachieving small town Northern clubs at a stroke.

Well, nothing surprises me in RL these days.

Im surprised that anybody votes for Toronto on their previous record and the lack of any clear financial backup.

The only thing i can think is that there is some outside pissible investment into SL generally that requires north american involvement.

[Harry Stottle 4,108]

19 hours ago, THE RED ROOSTER said:

Another long and winding thread - My tuppench ha'pennny worth.

Firstly, the current climate allows companies to cut staff as overheads and TV contracts to increase their profits and gives a ready made , more palatable excuse for something they were intending to do anyway - pandemic or no pandemic. That is the nature of capitalism.

Secondly, to drive up competition you have to have more than one bidder, Rugby League has built it's business model round SKY SPORTS benevolence. In the real world, companies have to operate on the basis of "what if income drops" and plan accordingly. The sporting world operates on the basis that there is always demand for their product. That brand loyalty means that unlike shoppers choosing between Morrisons and Tesco. LIDL RLFC has customers for life and TV Companies should recognise this... Problem is TV companies don't.

Third point taking this into account - how can you sell a sport which has a regional reach in the UK around the M62. The other Sports, with one exception, have national appeal Rugby League does not by choice, so the question of how many households will forgo SKY MOVIES, SKY's multi-channel platform and other sports on SKY just because there is no Rugby League. For sure you have the fanatics on this board, but any calculating SKY exceutive would know when England v Samoa was broadcast on PPV in 2017 it attracted circa 1,000 subscribers. So you could put up with the cancelled subs from the WF7 and M29 postcodes.

Going back to my second point, BT sport are still interested in Gallagher Premiership Rugby Union. If BT wanted to create a "Rugby" channel out of their three channels in the same way SKY have would you subscribe or would you not?. Equally since Union could not get SKY or the BBC / ITV to buy their autumn competition Amazon Prime stepped in with some token games on channel 4. Now perhaps there are some of you think lets go Amazon but what kind of footprint does Amazon have with the general public - the game would dissapear even more from the national consciousness. and come to think of it I am not sure the Amazon Prime subscriber fits the RL demographic to begin with.

Finally, as I have said before and others in this thread have cottoned on to Comcast / NBC own SKY they are american with an american agenda driven by the bottom line. They can have an NFL channel because they get cheap NFL / NBC content to use. They will stick with Soccer, Cricket , Golf, Motor Racing becuse there is a market for it. Theres a market for a cheap filler sport with the emphasis on cheap. The Aussies had an emotional attachment to the game the US owners do not have. Emotional attachments are important, why else do you think a lot of club owners waste millions of pounds and suffer abuse from keyboard klatterers long after in any other Business it would have been time to quit. They do it because they have an attachment  to their club and the game. TV Executives have no such attachment, for them its the bottom line as the game is about to find out.

And that is a totally rational argument why Rugby League is heading for a a big reduction in any future Sky Contract, the result will be interesting for the clubs who are totally reliant on that funding just to complete each season, welcome to the real world.

[Damien 11,583]

18 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

So in that case anywhere currently in the lower leagues playing in ###### stadiums could draw significantly more if successful in SL

 

I think its fairly obvious that most clubs would attract more fans in Super League than outside of it. The increase in away fans would see to that as much as anything. Decent facilities are also much more attractive to new comers than dilapidated stadiums or glorified park fields. It should also be obvious that the potential audience and upside of a city of 600,000 is considerably more than a town of 40,000.

If Oldham, Bradford, Swinton etc had got stadiums in the manner that Leigh, Widnes or Salford did then I am certain their situations would be far different. Lets face it some clubs have only benefitted or faded due to a quirk of fate and the actions, or lack of action, from the local council.

[ATLANTISMAN 902]

23 minutes ago, bromleybulldog said:

It wouldn't surprise me to see SL take advantage of the four (apparently) clubs voting against accepting Toronto, to go back to Sky and propose a new breakaway of those clubs who voted 'for', add Toulouse and London and to try and interest Sky in a 'New' SL , all broadcast monies to be paid to them. Toronto and Ottowa to be included if they came up with financial 'guarantees' (ie funds deposited in an escrow account). Solves the 'problem of underachieving small town Northern clubs at a stroke.

 

Well, nothing surprises me in RL these days.

MMMM thats an interesting one

Hope that they don't read this forum you have just put an idea in their heads

[GUBRATS 4,687]

4 minutes ago, Damien said:

I think its fairly obvious that most clubs would attract more fans in Super League than outside of it. The increase in away fans would see to that as much as anything. Decent facilities are also much more attractive to new comers than dilapidated stadiums or glorified park fields. It should also be obvious that the potential audience and upside of a city of 600,000 is considerably more than a town of 40,000.

If Oldham, Bradford, Swinton etc had got stadiums in the manner that Leigh, Widnes or Salford did then I am certain their situations would be far different. Lets face it some clubs have only benefitted or faded due to a quirk of fate and the actions, or lack of action, from the local council.

Quite often the strength of a club comes to the fore when times are hard , not when all is going well 

As Robin has posted , when Mark Aston finally isn't around to run the Eagles , they could well dissapear

[Damien 11,583]

12 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Quite often the strength of a club comes to the fore when times are hard , not when all is going well 

As Robin has posted , when Mark Aston finally isn't around to run the Eagles , they could well dissapear

One constant I have seen in Rugby League is that the moment a team loses its ground and home and becomes a nomad then it struggles badly. What happened in as strong a Rugby League area as Oldham show that. That is before you get into the nonsense merger with Huddersfield that destroyed the club. It is absolutely no surprise that Sheffield in its current form is struggling. 

One thing is for certain though. Contraction and losing clubs benefits no one, no matter what short term views some people may have.

[GUBRATS 4,687]

2 minutes ago, Damien said:

One constant I have seen in Rugby League is that the moment a team loses its ground and home and becomes a nomad then it struggles badly. What happened in as strong a Rugby League area as Oldham show that. That is before you get into the nonsense merger with Huddersfield that destroyed the club. It is absolutely no surprise that Sheffield in its current form is struggling. 

One thing is for certain though. Contraction and losing clubs benefits no one, no matter what short term views some people may have.

Indeed , that applies to all clubs , be an Oldham or a Toronto