Jump to content

3 year Sky deal for less than current deal


Recommended Posts

What this whole process shows once again is how critical the 2021 World Cup is for the game in the UK.

We have seen across multiple sports a jump in awareness, participation and popularity following a big event... and ideally an event in which the home team had success.

The deal may well be for broadcasting the sport but the whole commercial aspect will be hinged on the popularity of the sport and how that is changing over time.  A sport that is demonstrably growing is worth far more than one which is static (or falling). And by growing here, I mean across many metrics... attendances, viewing figures, participation, social media profile and more.  A successful World Cup can have a positive effect on all of these and we should try to make that happen and have a real plan to drive momentum in 2022 onwards off the back of it. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 205
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Its good that you have considered all the salient points on this, loaded with all the information (even though there actually isnt any as of yet) and came to this opinion. Well done you.

I'm not clicking on a Mail link - can anyone summarise what it says about BT interest?

Once again the Nigel Wood £40m/year deal from 2014 looks like a brilliant piece of business. I'm glad he gets the recognition he deserves from grateful fans of the game.

2 minutes ago, thirteenthman said:

There was a line in this months Forty 20 about Channel 4 looking at a secondary rights package of 10 SL games a season and a weekly magazine programme. 

Yep, I don't know whether that is fantasy stuff, but imagine if maybe the BBC managed to get something like this, we could then see a decent cluster of games across the year with that and the cup, plus highlights on terrestrial.

Good chance it may just be more of the same, but we'll see.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Gerrumonside ref said:

Is anyone else reporting this?

Not that I can see but the Daily Mail reporter has just tweeted out the story link so I assume he's fairly confident in what he's reporting.

  • Like 1

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)

Link to post
Share on other sites

People arguing that this deal reflects on Elstone as a failure show a misunderstanding of the problem. 

The problem isn't, and never was, a failure of salesmanship. The problem was the value that Super League was offering. 

Super League and the clubs have underinvested in the product it offers and underinvested in building its audience for the best part of a decade, The idea that Elstone could solve that problem in just over a year by "selling it better" was always a nonsense. 

Edited by whatmichaelsays
  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gerrumonside ref said:

Fair enough, I’ve read the link, but there’s not that much detail in the story.

No, it's incredibly 'top level'.

Basically, it's for less money, but it's not disastrous, BT were interested enough to be in the conversation but the deal is with Sky.

Lot of blanks to fill in there.

  • Like 1

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)

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

People arguing that this deal reflects as failure on Elstone show a misunderstanding of the problem. 

The problem isn't, and never was, a failure of salesmanship. The problem was the value that Super League was offering. 

Super League and the clubs have underinvested in the product it offers and underinvested in building its audience for the best part of a decade, The idea that Elstone could solve that problem in just over a year by "selling it better" was always an nonsense. 

Did he, at any point, consider tweeting Triple H?

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)

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Robthegasman said:

As for Elstone I would suggest that the deal he has negotiated with SKY should be classed as failure as it is less than the previous deal.

 And frankly if I was his employer I would be sacking him as he has failed.He has failed the sport.

No, the correct way, especially in a declining rights market, is to try and assess what we might have got had the RFL or a Super League general manager on maybe a third of Elstone's salary been leading negotiations. Up or down vs last time is slightly  irrelevant compared to what value we think was added.

FWIW I remain resolutely against the split of administrations. 

Edited by M j M
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

It was generally accepted on here that we'd probably get a reduced deal, which we have, at least we will know where we are for the next three years. I'm wondering if the comment that this is the first post COVID deal might indicate that the TV goose is about to stop laying golden eggs for all sports.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Chronicler of Chiswick said:

It was generally accepted on here that we'd probably get a reduced deal, which we have, at least we will know where we are for the next three years. I'm wondering if the comment that this is the first post COVID deal might indicate that the TV goose is about to stop laying golden eggs for all sports.

To repeat: there are plenty of examples where it already has.

  • Like 1

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)

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Chronicler of Chiswick said:

It was generally accepted on here that we'd probably get a reduced deal, which we have, at least we will know where we are for the next three years. I'm wondering if the comment that this is the first post COVID deal might indicate that the TV goose is about to stop laying golden eggs for all sports.

Have we really generally accepted that?  We may have a reduced deal and we may not have.  Normally, things in the Daily Mail are scoffed at on here, but in this case, some choose to believe it, possibly because it can be represented as bad news.

Edited by JohnM

Four legs good - two legs bad

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Yep, I don't know whether that is fantasy stuff, but imagine if maybe the BBC managed to get something like this, we could then see a decent cluster of games across the year with that and the cup, plus highlights on terrestrial.

Good chance it may just be more of the same, but we'll see.

When I read it I did think it was probably more speculation than informed insight, but who knows. If the story about Sky is true, then it may well be as you were. If Sky offer more for exclusivity, the clubs will go with the money. 

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

When I read it I did think it was probably more speculation than informed insight, but who knows. If the story about Sky is true, then it may well be as you were. If Sky offer more for exclusivity, the clubs will go with the money. 

*Speculation alert*

It wouldn't surprise me at all if the Sky deal was more money for exclusivity versus a BT deal that had some element of sharing a game or two with an FTA alternative. BT don't seem as hung up on exclusive deals as Sky.

  • Like 3

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)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been pretty consistent on this. I'd accept the 10 million less from Sky on 2 conditions.

1, guaranteed Main Event slots for games.

2, a number of games on main FTA channels (Channel 4, BBC1, ITV).

Overall we should be aiming for a stage where all games are televised in some variety soon, and perhaps should use some PE money to make that happen.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, JohnM said:

Have we really generally accepted that?  We may have a reduced deal and we may not have.  Normally, things in the Daily Mail are scoffed at on here, but in this case, some choose to believe it, possibly because it can be represented as bad news.

Likewise, you take Daily Mail reporting as gospel when it suports your view.

I can confirm 30+ less sales for Scotland vs Italy at Workington, after this afternoons test purchase for the Tonga match, £7.50 is extremely reasonable, however a £2.50 'delivery' fee for a walk in purchase is beyond taking the mickey, good luck with that, it's cheaper on the telly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Just Browny said:

Likewise, you take Daily Mail reporting as gospel when it suports your view.

There's some who actually believes the Daily Mail?

No wonder RL has such a hard time selling itself!

I have said that all this is conjecture and burning the witch stuff. If anyone gets hold of the details of the new contract

Overall I tend to agree with this:

18 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I've been pretty consistent on this. I'd accept the 10 million less from Sky on 2 conditions.

1, guaranteed Main Event slots for games.

2, a number of games on main FTA channels (Channel 4, BBC1, ITV).

Overall we should be aiming for a stage where all games are televised in some variety soon, and perhaps should use some PE money to make that happen.

Also a couple of different magazine programmes within the agreement along the line of those in Oz.

" .......means always being with the oppressed and never the oppressors."-- Marek Edelman

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The Rocket said:

As I said elsewhere our Group Level League in Oz, the equivalent of your League 1, doesn`t get a brass razoo off the NRL, some are attached to small country League`s Clubs or Sporting Clubs but even they don`t tip in much, as one of our Group 3 officials told me recently its all about local sponsors and game day revenue.

English Rugby League probably got a better deal than expected last time and were able to be generous in their funding of lower levels, which is fantastic if you can afford it, might be time that they start standing on their own two feet. There are lots of other ways that SL can help lower levels, I saw Latrell Mitchell umpiring a game of kids cricket here two weekends ago, you should have seen the kids around him, even that sort of thing will help the local Rugby League club next year.

Group Level RL in Oz does not = League 1. Not by a long shot. 

Group Level RL in Queensland or NSW is like Yorkshire Men's League or North West Men's League. It's below NCL Level never mind League 1. I'm sure some of your top Group level sides could be competitive in even the NCL Premier or Div1 but at the end of the day its Regional stuff.   

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Damien said:

Until we hear some actual figures it is impossible to say if this is a good deal or not. If it was not too dissimilar and simply had things like the sky try money stripped out then I'd say most would be happy enough.

That Sky Try money is absolutely critical for the foundations and spreading the game though.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sir Kevin Sinfield said:

It has to be. He was brought in and paid a massive salary to secure a better tv deal and he’s not even come up with one that matches the previous deal. He’s a charlatan who brings nothing to the sport he only takes money out to line his own pockets.

Elstone out!

Was he?

Have you seen his full KPIs/ Objectives or this just your continued irrational hatred of the person.?

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Celt said:

And League 1... Is it not regional?

I mean, the top 8 teams (out of 11) are from the North of England (or Wrexham... A couple of miles away, using players from the North of England).

A couple of token teams propping up the table from other areas, does not somehow mean that lower league English RL is not a regional sport!!

The Rocket was probably being quite polite comparing the likes of West Wales Raiders to Group Level NSW. 

The likes of Hunslet, Barrow Raiders, Workington Town or Keighley Cougars would walk over any NSW Group level side you'd care to present. League 1 is Tier 3, NSW or Queensland Regional RL is Tier 5. 

I'm sure Grafton Ghosts or Macksville will go well against em. Don't let reality get in the way of your weird hatreds though.  

 

  • Like 2
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.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...