Sky Sports halves offer for TV rights

[Damien]

8 minutes ago, Scotchy1 said:

This isn't true. We have frequently changed numbers mid-contract. 

Indeed. Its just the same as we have changed p&r and things like the super 8s that were supposedly set in stone by Sky. A lot of people seem to make presumptions because it suits an opinion but that is rarely bourne out by reality.

[Big Picture]

2 hours ago, Man of Kent said:

League Express reporting Sky has offered £20m a year for Super League, worth half the current deal, meaning SL revenue could drop by a third. 

https://www.totalrl.com/super-league-receives-tv-rights-blow/

Same story reports Novalpina Capital (who is also eyeing up domestic French RU) have made a £60m formal offer for the management rights for the competition and a third of Super League’s broadcast income for as long as it holds its stake in the competition.

Hmmm.

In truth none of us should be surprised by this.  Ever since the prospect that Toronto would win their way up through the tiers of the pro game SL has been signalling that they don't want that but want to be a small regional league instead.  20 million £ is plenty for such a league.

[GUBRATS]

2 minutes ago, Damien said:

Indeed. Its just the same as we have changed p&r and things like the super 8s that were supposedly set in stone by Sky. A lot of people seem to make presumptions because it suits an opinion but that is rarely bourne out by reality.

But do we know that SKY haven't been consulted on any of those discussions ? , I'd be very surprised if they hadn't ?

[M j M]

1 minute ago, Big Picture said:

In truth none of us should be surprised by this.  Ever since the prospect that Toronto would win their way up through the tiers of the pro game SL has been signalling that they don't want that but want to be a small regional league instead.  20 million £ is plenty for such a league.

You seem to be under the misapprehension that Sky would have paid any more for a league with Toronto in it.

I'm no fan of Leigh being brought in but we need to be clear what Sky want, which is to sell TV subscriptions in the UK and there's not much evidence becoming an international league advances that very much in the short or even medium term. The value of those clubs to the sport is inherent in their developing the sport in those countries and, eventually, getting their own TV deals and becoming glamorous enough to generate higher TV ratings in the UK.

[Niels]

1 hour ago, Tommygilf said:

If it wasn't so damaging to the sport it would be laughable. We get what we deserve

I think that we deserve far more Tommy and need to be more positive about the game. 

The effort the players put in during Covid was exceptional. There was international involvement with a great run in the play offs by Catalans. A local derby grand final which was the most exciting sporting event of the year. 

I don't see what more we could have done. 

Additionally some of the recent sport on tv has been terrible. 

[Man of Kent]

1 minute ago, Big Picture said:

In truth none of us should be surprised by this.  Ever since the prospect that Toronto would win their way up through the tiers of the pro game SL has been signalling that they don't want that but want to be a small regional league instead.  20 million £ is plenty for such a league.

We don’t know the details. If it meant some games are live on FTA - under a separate deal - it might be worth taking a lower Sky deal. Perhaps. 

[Scotchy1]

A few things. 

1. The current deal was not £40m a year the total was around 200m for a 5 year extension. It included the CC rights, sky try etc. If you check SL's accounts its closer to £30m. It also set that price for 7years  

2. Of that around £10m went to the rfl for the things they do and to the lower leagues as a solidarity payment. 

3. This mitigates those headline figures quite a lot and probably makes the share per club similar to where we are next season.

4. The lower leagues would lose pretty much everything and would be promoted to a league with less funding. Not a good position for them

5.losing sky try and the investment in youth there would be terrible.

6. We signed the last deal at a relative high point in the game. 2012 was a peak for the game averaging over 10k with 14 clubs. By 2013 we scrapped that structure signed the new deal and in 2014 P+R returned. We now have an average of about 8.5k with 12 clubs. Tv audiences are also down since that deal was signed. 

 

[foozler]

Sky in 2020 is quite a different beast to when the previous deal was sorted.

Comcast hugely overpaid for the business, Sky subscriptions are only going one way, the US will be looking to cut costs and sadly RL is probably viewed as filler content. Amazon seems intent on going after RU, and BT seems all about soccer, so to be honest Elstone has a pretty weak hand in the negotiations.

Best thing that could happen is the talked about investment in the game by the NRL. I for one would not have an issue with the Aussies running RL in the northern hemisphere.

[Taniwha Warriors]

Wow, thats a huge drop compared to BT and union premiership recent announcement. 

[Tommygilf]

10 minutes ago, Niels said:

I think that we deserve far more Tommy and need to be more positive about the game. 

The effort the players put in during Covid was exceptional. There was international involvement with a great run in the play offs by Catalans. A local derby grand final which was the most exciting sporting event of the year. 

I don't see what more we could have done. 

Additionally some of the recent sport on tv has been terrible. 

Unfortunately though mate effort, whether physical or in the case of getting the game restarted, organisational, doesn't count for anything when TV companies address the value of a product.

We've shrunken our appeal, retreated into ourselves, lost any narrative about the future direction of the game and buried our heads in the sand about the consequences of that. Ask yourself what sky pay for GAA or the Scottish Premiership (around £25 million a season for the latter) and see how they could justify much more to RL? It doesn't have a broad appeal across the North of England let alone the UK as a whole. 

The players deserve far better administration than we have had for a long time.

[Tommygilf]

If this was for preferential treatment for Sky rather than exclusivity I'd be on board.

The lower leagues look to be stuffed however.

[Big Picture]

23 minutes ago, M j M said:

You seem to be under the misapprehension that Sky would have paid any more for a league with Toronto in it.

I'm no fan of Leigh being brought in but we need to be clear what Sky want, which is to sell TV subscriptions in the UK and there's not much evidence becoming an international league advances that very much in the short or even medium term. The value of those clubs to the sport is inherent in their developing the sport in those countries and, eventually, getting their own TV deals and becoming glamorous enough to generate higher TV ratings in the UK.

Going by all the good British press coverage which Toronto generated for the sport, yes a league with Toronto it would certainly be worth more.  That's the sort of press coverage needed to attract new viewers to the sport and sell those TV subscriptions in the UK.

[GUBRATS]

Just now, Big Picture said:

Going by all the good British press coverage which Toronto generated for the sport, yes a league with Toronto it would certainly be worth more.  That's the sort of press coverage needed to attract new viewers to the sport and sell those TV subscriptions in the UK.

Either way , they couldn't put together an acceptable administration , and even if they had , it looks like covid would have put an end to it , which might partly have affected Toulouse's inclusion 

[Scotchy1]

3 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Unfortunately though mate effort, whether physical or in the case of getting the game restarted, organisational, doesn't count for anything when TV companies address the value of a product.

We've shrunken our appeal, retreated into ourselves, lost any narrative about the future direction of the game and buried our heads in the sand about the consequences of that. Ask yourself what sky pay for GAA or the Scottish Premiership (around £25 million a season for the latter) and see how they could justify much more to RL? It doesn't have a broad appeal across the North of England let alone the UK as a whole. 

The players deserve far better administration than we have had for a long time.

That is an interesting point i think.

If you were selling RL, can you ask for more for where we are? Can you sell it on where we will be?

The answer to those things seem to be a clear no.

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

2 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

Going by all the good British press coverage which Toronto generated for the sport, yes a league with Toronto it would certainly be worth more.  That's the sort of press coverage needed to attract new viewers to the sport and sell those TV subscriptions in the UK.

Utter Tosh. If TWP really were that important to TV (ie Sky) they'd still be here.

[Tommygilf]

26 minutes ago, M j M said:

You seem to be under the misapprehension that Sky would have paid any more for a league with Toronto in it.

I'm no fan of Leigh being brought in but we need to be clear what Sky want, which is to sell TV subscriptions in the UK and there's not much evidence becoming an international league advances that very much in the short or even medium term. The value of those clubs to the sport is inherent in their developing the sport in those countries and, eventually, getting their own TV deals and becoming glamorous enough to generate higher TV ratings in the UK.

I'm willing to bet a significant amount of money that the vast amount of sky sports subscribers in the "RL Heartlands" are for football. They don't need to consider selling subscriptions for just RL, because the amount is relatively tiny.

With that in mind the RL games become more about filler content and advertising and that is where the game really suffers, as quite simply our adverts aren't worth anywhere near as much as others. Glamour and interest is quite clearly driven by high profile teams with an interesting story etc. The game doesn't have enough of those.

[M j M]

6 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

Going by all the good British press coverage which Toronto generated for the sport, yes a league with Toronto it would certainly be worth more.  That's the sort of press coverage needed to attract new viewers to the sport and sell those TV subscriptions in the UK.

Yes, it was good in the short-term. And it would have been great for the sport in the long-term. In the bit in between, Toronto would have ended up like Catalans, who produce below-average TV ratings. That's not a problem in itself but they aren't something you can bank when you're negotiating a TV deal which factors in what ratings to expect over the next three or five years. More than anything else this was what Elstone was worried about with Toronto coming in - how that affected how Sky valued the rights.

The offer being reported isn't great but there is absolutely no evidence that it would have been any greater had Toronto remained in the league instead of Leigh.

[Tommygilf]

4 minutes ago, Scotchy1 said:

That is an interesting point i think.

If you were selling RL, can you ask for more for where we are? Can you sell it on where we will be?

The answer to those things seem to be a clear no.

That's my thinking. Nobody really knows what the direction is. 

Are we attempting to become the number 1 rugby competition in the world?

Are we trying to build a strong presence in Northern Cities to be the game that embodies the "Northern powerhouse"?

Are we developing a hipster, counter-culture vibe to attract new fans?

The answer is we don't know, and in the absence of knowing its reasonable people assume the administrators don't know either.

[M j M]

2 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I'm willing to bet a significant amount of money that the vast amount of sky sports subscribers in the "RL Heartlands" are for football. They don't need to consider selling subscriptions for just RL, because the amount is relatively tiny.

I think that is a fundamental misunderstanding of RL's support base. I can see why it would seem that way to someone in a city where soccer is moderately big but it's really not the case for many Rugby League fans outside it. For many Rugby League is first and foremost for them when deciding whether to have a Sky Sports subscription or not.

[Scotchy1]

2 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

That's my thinking. Nobody really knows what the direction is. 

Are we attempting to become the number 1 rugby competition in the world?

Are we trying to build a strong presence in Northern Cities to be the game that embodies the "Northern powerhouse"?

Are we developing a hipster, counter-culture vibe to attract new fans?

The answer is we don't know, and in the absence of knowing its reasonable people assume the administrators don't know either.

Its where the argument re leigh has become confused. 

The problem isnt that leigh were admitted as a last minute option just to get us to 12 for next season. Its not that they are a short term solution. 

Its that there isn't a long term plan. At all. Its just give it a lick of paint and hope. 

[Scotchy1]

6 minutes ago, M j M said:

I think that is a fundamental misunderstanding of RL's support base. I can see why it would seem that way to someone in a city where soccer is moderately big but it's really not the case for many Rugby League fans outside it. For many Rugby League is first and foremost for them when deciding whether to have a Sky Sports subscription or not.

There isn't really many places where RL is big and football isn't. 

 

[Big Picture]

10 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

That's my thinking. Nobody really knows what the direction is. 

Are we attempting to become the number 1 rugby competition in the world?

Are we trying to build a strong presence in Northern Cities to be the game that embodies the "Northern powerhouse"?

Are we developing a hipster, counter-culture vibe to attract new fans?

The answer is we don't know, and in the absence of knowing its reasonable people assume the administrators don't know either.

I think the real answer is none of the above.  No one in either the RFL or SL would have a clue how to do any of those things.

[Dave T]

I recall the thread telling us Bradford were back in SL. 

[PEANUT HEAD]

1 hour ago, The Future is League said:

We have just let in a team into Super who are in a suburb of Wigan and offer nothing to Super League that isn't already there

Wondered when this would get round to leigh.

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

Get it on BT sport... They have all the best union stuff... Creat a cross code channel.... They also have the best cricket.... I'd ditch SKY if it happened