3 year Sky deal for less than current deal

[Smudger06]

!?! FAKE NEWS !?!

Doubt it. 

[Smudger06]

3 minutes ago, Henson Park Old Firm said:

You'd think in this day an age the SL will sign a deal (even if it's for less) that all games/rounds will be telecast live

That would cost the broadcast partner a whole lot more money though, and hit the clubs takings from the terraces quite a bit. Even the Premier League don't want to have all games live in the home market and insist on the 3pm Saturday Black Out.  

[Tonka]

On the one hand it creates some certainty for the next three years in difficult economic times.  But on the other, any pay cut is bad news.  Coupled with inflation plus clubs having lots huge swathes of revenue this year, the sport will be very much weaker financially (it will vary from club to club and exactly how the SKY money is distributed, but I would imagine the budget is close to halved for many as a combined result of the above).  You can forget increased teams in SL, expansion, competing with the other top tier sports when you're doing it on a shoe string.  It really re-emphases that most clubs are too reliant on SKY money; they really do need other sources of serious revenue.  Maybe this will make that a necessity.   

You've got to take what you can but it's not one to be jumping for joy about

[JohnM]

So it's all true then?  ThE forum has decided? 

[Oxford]

5 minutes ago, JohnM said:

So it's all true then?  ThE forum has decided? 

The Mail "It's there in the paper it must be the TRUTH!"

I like the idea that acronyms will save the universe though!

Like PE & FTA

[DI Keith Fowler]

The thing is with journalism, there's a lot of briefing going on that drives stories like this. This bloke at the Mail won't have made this up out of thin air he'll likely have been given the information by someone with some standing in the game. That doesn't mean it's true, could be quite the opposite in fact.

If someone wanted to amp up pressure on a certain Super League Chief Executive, leaking to a friendly journalist that the deal was a reduction while negotiations were still ongoing is something you could do.

Or, however, if you are in fact a certain Super League Chief Executive looking to soft land some bad news, this could also be a way of doing it also.

So yeah we know nothing but we got 8 pages out of it. 

 

[Dave T]

50 minutes ago, Henson Park Old Firm said:

You'd think in this day an age the SL will sign a deal (even if it's for less) that all games/rounds will be telecast live

That's still pretty rare in UK sport. 

[Tonka]

50 minutes ago, JohnM said:

So it's all true then?  ThE forum has decided? 

There's a few sources reporting a pay cut.  Maybe there won't be, in which case great, but the working assumption is that there is...

[JohnM]

Please don't misunderstand me. Its been a mainly interesting thread, but somewhat of a mixed-metaphorical multi-storey straw house built on foundations of sand.  Clearly (!) , though, some expect/hope/wish for an outcome that allows indulgence in personality-bashing. 

[JohnM]

49 minutes ago, DI Keith Fowler said:

The thing is with journalism, there's a lot of briefing going on that drives stories like this. This bloke at the Mail won't have made this up out of thin air he'll likely have been given the information by someone with some standing in the game. That doesn't mean it's true, could be quite the opposite in fact.

If someone wanted to amp up pressure on a certain Super League Chief Executive, leaking to a friendly journalist that the deal was a reduction while negotiations were still ongoing is something you could do.

Or, however, if you are in fact a certain Super League Chief Executive looking to soft land some bad news, this could also be a way of doing it also.

So yeah we know nothing but we got 8 pages out of it. 

 

Never a truer word (s)

[HawkMan]

Is it possible that Elstone wasn't happy with Sky' s offer, went to talk to BT who offered less and then thought;

" hells bells we better except Sky's deal, and if we announce it and casually mention BT Sky will think , oh we better get back to that Elstone and reaffirm our commitment pronto" 

Well that hasn't happened,  but Sky usually announce any sports deal FIRST before the papers. I can't remember a case where that wasn't so.

[Harry Stottle]

On 24/11/2020 at 02:25, Whippet13 said:

Not yet, but with SL getting 75% as long as it tops £32m, which it likely does, then they get to keep current central funding levels.

Any pain here is going to be at Chammpionship and League 1 level.

I read qoute:-

"Around three-quarters of the money will go to Super League clubs, with the rest split between the RFL and Championship clubs"

Where have you seen the £32M level?

[Damien]

7 hours ago, JohnM said:

The Mail article was by Matt Hughes, their Chief Sports Reporter, who moved from The Times to the Mail in 2019, I've never heard of him, but then, he's probably never heard of me.     

It's a bit odd that someone like that has wrote this article and there is nothing similar elsewhere. The Daily Mail, on the rare occasions that it does print RL stories, normally just prints RL articles from other journalists and news agencies.

[Oxford]

43 minutes ago, Damien said:

......there is nothing similar elsewhere

This is the key point here. Was it just a leak? Why would it have been leaked?

Or is just SL/RFL cocking it up?

[Scotchy1]

I was in favour of the split. I think that SL needs that singular drive and vision and it needs to be empowered to make the best decisions for its growth.

I also think that almost by accident it gives that same power to the lower leagues and offers great opportunity for them to focus on themselves and stop simply being a by product of SL.

I also wanted to give Elstone the time to prove himself. He has done some good things and some bad things imo. I think the presentation of the game is better and he has created a much better look and feel. I think the changes to the on play rules have worked even though they are largely just copied from the NRL.

However on the other side his handling of the Toronto issue has been muddled and poor. His blue sky thinking and 'game changing' plans have been none-existant. And for a man whose sole job is to sell the game he can talk it and its participants and opportunities down an awful lot.

Elstone has lost the confidence of 2 of the big clubs. His biggest decision to date failed to be backed by 4 of the big 5. 

Elstones appointment had one key public metric. Increase the TV deal. If he fails to do that. For whatever reason. It becomes hard to justify paying out so much for him and his team when the results just aren't there. 

Whilst I understand  the arguments that we can't know for sure what the alternative result would be. There are 2 fundamental question that needs to be asked.

Forgetting covid and its effects. What has changed from 2 and a half years ago to today that we could hold up as reasons why we should expect a higher deal? What are the changes planned moving forward that will do so?

Yes Elstone has given SL a much needed lick of paint but that's the lowest hanging fruit. If our plan is to replace Toronto with Bradford or Leigh for a year and then do what we have been doing for all but about 5 of the last 26 years. I can see why the TV deal isn't growing.

(Saying all that, this looks like an exercise in expectation management. If we expect a significant drop, a small drop seems good)

[Wigan Riversider]

https://inews.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/rugby-league-tv-deal-sky-sports-rights-champions-league-one-rfl-741881

 

Received the above from a mate a few weeks back. 

[fighting irish]

Where've you been Scotchy?

[Smudger06]

7 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

Where've you been Scotchy?

Lost his password. 

[fighting irish]

Ah! 

[Big Picture]

1 hour ago, Wigan Riversider said:

https://inews.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/rugby-league-tv-deal-sky-sports-rights-champions-league-one-rfl-741881

 

Received the above from a mate a few weeks back. 

I see that "One source suggested to i that former RFL chief executive Nigel Wood secured a very lucrative TV deal for rugby league in 2017, and that a reduced contract from 2022 was 'the market correcting itself'".  Any idea that Elstone could get them more money than the last time around seems fanciful.

[The Future is League]

On 26/11/2020 at 19:04, JohnM said:

The Mail article was by Matt Hughes, their Chief Sports Reporter, who moved from The Times to the Mail in 2019, I've never heard of him, but then, he's probably never heard of me.     

Like you i have never heard of him either.

I went on his twitter account and found several Rugby League stories without looking too hard and nothing derogatory about Rugby League.

Perhaps he has friends or family with Rugby League connections. Just saying

[NICK ROBINSON]

There is talk of a reduced broadcasting deal for rugby league from 2022, compared to what appeared to be a very good 200 million 5 year deal done in 2017. Whilst good in numbers, the previous deal seemed to have the highly convoluted Super 8s/Middle 8s structure attached to it together with Thursday night matches. 
  For me the sport went backwards during this time and it is little wonder we are struggling to get an improved deal 5 years later. As well as been difficult to understand to the floating supporter the structure produced more 'dead rubber' fixtures than ever before.  I can remember the slogan ''every minute counts''.
  Things are at an early stage and we don't know the details but if any new deal is not a lot lower than the previous one then maybe we have not done so bad. 
   For me there is never a quick fix for improving rugby league. A simple league format of promotion/relegation between Super League, Championship and League 1 which is more easily understood by the wider sporting audience will promote steady spectator growth. 
   If all clubs had grown their bussiness say just 2 or 3% year on year since Rugby League first had a satellite broadcasting deal in 1996, then we would be in a better place.
      
   

[The Future is League]

5 hours ago, NICK ROBINSON said:

There is talk of a reduced broadcasting deal for rugby league from 2022, compared to what appeared to be a very good 200 million 5 year deal done in 2017. Whilst good in numbers, the previous deal seemed to have the highly convoluted Super 8s/Middle 8s structure attached to it together with Thursday night matches. 
  For me the sport went backwards during this time and it is little wonder we are struggling to get an improved deal 5 years later. As well as been difficult to understand to the floating supporter the structure produced more 'dead rubber' fixtures than ever before.  I can remember the slogan ''every minute counts''.
  Things are at an early stage and we don't know the details but if any new deal is not a lot lower than the previous one then maybe we have not done so bad. 
   For me there is never a quick fix for improving rugby league. A simple league format of promotion/relegation between Super League, Championship and League 1 which is more easily understood by the wider sporting audience will promote steady spectator growth. 
   If all clubs had grown their bussiness say just 2 or 3% year on year since Rugby League first had a satellite broadcasting deal in 1996, then we would be in a better place.
      
   

For me if we get a reduced TV deal Robert Elstone has failed. because part of his remit was to improve the TV deal and get more money coming into Super League overall.

[ATLANTISMAN]

1 hour ago, The Future is League said:

For me if we get a reduced TV deal Robert Elstone has failed. because part of his remit was to improve the TV deal and get more money coming into Super League overall.

All very well and good saying that FIL however its a poisoned chalice, history will judge that Nigel Wood did a good bit of business in securing the last deal.

What we really need to be concentrating on is strong secondary revenue streams a vibrant championship with P and R and a long term International programme with regular matches in London (That my friends is where the money is) 

 

P 

[The Future is League]

2 minutes ago, ATLANTISMAN said:

All very well and good saying that FIL however its a poisoned chalice, history will judge that Nigel Wood did a good bit of business in securing the last deal.

What we really need to be concentrating on is strong secondary revenue streams a vibrant championship with P and R and a long term International programme with regular matches in London (That my friends is where the money is) 

 

P 

Robert Elstone and his staff are being paid good money to improve the current TV deal not to get it reduced.