Sky Sports halves offer for TV rights

[redjonn]

1 hour ago, Mark S said:

It looks to me that someone has started a rumour that that the deal will be  £20m per year so when it comes in at £30m we all breath a sigh of relief and congratulate everyone on a good job. The fact it has dropped from £40m will be glossed over.

This is a tactic that is used my the Tories, and usually works a treat for them.

eerr all political parties when in power do the same... its called managing expectations of which all parties do so. Its a common denominator for all... Managing expectations is something that happens outside of party politics too.

If want to vent at any political party would you mind doing it on a political thread.

Must admit I find it a pain that people have to bring in bias politics into everything - even if I'm probably a a paid up member and supporter of the party I guess you vote for given your comment.,,,

 

[DOGFATHER]

It would be very interesting to know the source of this news. The deal on the table has not been signed, so it is just part of the negotiations, so why has this story been broken and who leaked it? 

There were several reports of a £30M deal likely a few weeks ago, which everyone with an interest in the game seemed disappointed by, and questioning Elstone's worth.

Now this story has broken with an offer of a reported £20M.

It wouldn't surprise me, if somebody had purposefully leaked this story, to get everyone on a downer, and then in a few weeks time, a miraculous turn of events will show that SL has signed a deal with Sky worth what was originally reported £30M. This will make Elstone look like a good negotiator and worth somewhere near the salary he is on.

If this isn't a fake news story, and the £20M deal is genuine, it is hardly surprising Sky would low ball the game that gave it's main sponsorship rights away, in return for no money, and a few pictures on the back of half a dozen Stobart lorries a couple of years ago.

The same game that recently proudly announced the Papa John's sponsorship to the press, a large international brand, which involved the game getting no money from the sponsorship again, got PJ's quite a few column inches in the press, and all it cost them was a sodding free pizza. I bet the marketing team at Papa John's were laughing their heads off that they had got away with that. 

Those sorts of sponsorship deals would be pretty poor for local under 9's team, never mind a sport telling everyone it is TGG, and looking to expand internationally and wishing to be taken seriously. 

People wonder why the game is seen as the amateur, colloquial, tin pot outfit that it really is. Could the brand of RL in this country be more undersold?  Then they wonder why Sky put a derisory offer on the table?

I hope to god, whatever the deal turns out to be. It sees the current power mongers removed from the game completely, with a clear out of the current regime, and the game rises from the ashes with a person at the helm with even an inkling of how to run a sport, because one thing is for sure, the current clowns in charge couldn't open an umbrella, never mind open the game in to new markets.

[Big Picture]

2 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

When Thursday night rugby League between Wakefield and Cas in Wakefield pubs is behind Chelsea vs random Danish team in the Europa League as the first choice for the TVs we need to be worried.

Wakefield v. Castleford being behind Chelsea vs random Danish team in the Europa League shouldn't be at all surprising.  The latter is big time pro sport, the former is not and that's just the way it is.

2 hours ago, Dave T said:

The problem is Phil is that isn't supported by the last 25 years. Rights have gone up each time pretty much, they haven't just halved now because TWP went bust. 

When the last record deal was signed were we all celebrating and saying how well we had done on expansion. 

I don't disagree with the sentiment particularly, but there is far more to this than our actions. 

No Dave, rights haven't gone up each time.  Back in 1999 they went down significantly because the ratings for the tarted-up version of the old RFL Championship served up instead of following the original SL blueprint as they were supposed to do weren't good enough to justify the 87 million £ which Maurice Lindsay was able to negotiate back in 1995.

2 hours ago, whatmichaelsays said:

Again, I think the frustrating part about this discussion whenever it comes up is that it is always seen from the perspective of "how can we get more from Sky?" and that it's "Elstone's job to get as much as possible". Rarely, with the exception of a handful of people, does the discussion get framed as "what more can we offer Sky?" or "how does the sport make the rights more valuable?"

Of course they don't ask those questions, there's no possible way to make the rights more valuable when the game is locked into "smallish economically disadvantaged towns" in the north to quote Sean McGuire's summation of things.

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, Big Picture said:

Wakefield v. Castleford being behind Chelsea vs random Danish team in the Europa League shouldn't be at all surprising.  The latter is big time pro sport, the former is not and that's just the way it is.

It will be to those who consider Wakefield, Cas, St Helens, Leigh, Warrington etc as "Rugby League Areas"

[Dave T]

6 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

Wakefield v. Castleford being behind Chelsea vs random Danish team in the Europa League shouldn't be at all surprising.  The latter is big time pro sport, the former is not and that's just the way it is.

No Dave, rights haven't gone up each time.  Back in 1999 they went down significantly because the ratings for the tarted-up version of the old RFL Championship served up instead of following the original SL blueprint as they were supposed to do weren't good enough to justify the 87 million £ which Maurice Lindsay was able to negotiate back in 1995.

Of course they don't ask those questions, there's no possible way to make the rights more valuable when the game is locked into "smallish economically disadvantaged towns" in the north to quote Sean McGuire's summation of things.

Hence 'pretty much' 

[Big Picture]

10 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

It will be to those who consider Wakefield, Cas, St Helens, Leigh, Warrington etc as "Rugby League Areas"

Which are all smallish economically disadvantaged towns to use Sean McGuire's term for them and thus not important to anyone outside a "Rugby League Area" and therefore not big time pro sport to the great majority of Brits who are the audience Sky and other broadcasters seek to attract.

[Tommygilf]

2 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

Which are all smallish economically disadvantaged towns to use Sean McGuire's term for them and thus not important to anyone outside a "Rugby League Area" and therefore not big time pro sport to the great majority of Brits who are the audience Sky and other broadcasters seek to attract.

That's conjecture, as they're football areas anyway.

[sweaty craiq]

15 hours ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

And the return on that £1000 investment?

Thought the PE was for 30% of any TV deal, making it 10%+, imo it would be better owned by RL fans in a newco investment if your chucking away the family silver like that

[binosh]

2 hours ago, binosh said:

Jesus, some people on here moan about the RFL's management of RL and whine about SL and are actually sat on this forum blaming Leigh for the reduced funding when they cant actually see what's happening in the real world.

Last time we got a great deal, arguably we should have done more with it, this deal has been coming for the last 2 years and all we have done as a sport is moan in the public domain, press and social media about how much worse the next Sky deal is going to be! Why wouldn't sky low ball us?? we have talked our own great game down so much even the most pleb level Sky negotiator would be mad not to bid us in the nuts!!

Since the last deal Sky subscriptions are on the decline, they had a near monopoly on TV & Sport and now they don't, there are now atleast 20 other options for your TV & sport from Prime to Netflix and Sky are slowly losing a grip, it was inevitable that the deal would be less and we have as a sport and fanbase compounded it. you only have to look at all the idiots tagging Sky on Twitter into their rantings about lack of expansion how S**t the RFL & SL are and how inept at negotiations we are to see what im talking about.

This has got absolutely nothing to do with Leigh or Toronto.

Perfect timing. Like this idiot....

[Big Picture]

3 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

That's conjecture, as they're football areas anyway.

No it's not conjecture, the former CEO of one of the game's top pro clubs has clearly stated in interviews with Tony Collins that the game being locked into such towns is the reason why it has so little money.  If the game wants to attract serious money, then it needs to break out of those towns and that's just the way it is.

[sweaty craiq]

13 hours ago, Scotchy1 said:

That's slightly different. But pretty much every sky sports subscriber gets all the sports channels and what sky sell is a package rather than one sport. 

For some SL is a big part of that package no doubt about it. But their decision is still based on the package of sports sky sell.

RL does have a loyal fan base but the number for whom it is the defining factor is really small.

Understanding that is key to SL building its value because if it is to increase its value to Sky, it needs to appeal to the wider sports fan. It needs to be a bigger part of that package for a bigger proportion of that audience. 

So how many is that loyal fan base that is so small? 

 

[whatmichaelsays]

30 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

Of course they don't ask those questions, there's no possible way to make the rights more valuable when the game is locked into "smallish economically disadvantaged towns" in the north to quote Sean McGuire's summation of things.

The bottom line is that the sport simply cannot allow that to become an excuse for not adapting to the realities of the new TV, media and leisure markets. At the risk of labouring the example, darts was never a fashionable entertainment brand for aspirational big-city audiences, and some of it's more notable events are still held in places as exotic and aspirational as Blackpool and Bolton.  

Being based "in deprived northern towns" doesn't prevent RL from doing any of the things that I've noted other sports do to broaden their appeal to TV audiences or new fans. 

Once the sport has done everything that it possibly can to broaden it's appeal in that context and it still isn't working, then I'd conceed that geography is the one thing remaining that is holding the sport back. But I don't think it is, and I certainly don't think that the sport has done what it needs to do to be able to draw that conclusion. 

[sweaty craiq]

Why dont we grow a pair and pull away from Sky completely asking all RL fans to do the same - and do a 1 year FTA deal for whatever we can get

[Tommygilf]

Just now, sweaty craiq said:

Why dont we grow a pair and pull away from Sky completely asking all RL fans to do the same - and do a 1 year FTA deal for whatever we can get

Because RL fans will want to continue watching their favourite football team or F1 drivers or cricketers...

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

10 hours ago, Big Picture said:

How many viewers does a third of the members (I presume that's what you meant) of your RU club represent?  If that holds with other RU clubs in England, how many viewers in total might that represent?

I meant the players of my RU club I play for. 

I'd say it's representative. There are sometimes the odd older ****head who make anti northern/league jokes but plenty of Rhinos/Saints/NRL gear at training etc too

I'd say a third across southern union fans would be right 

[Scotchy1]

19 minutes ago, sweaty craiq said:

So how many is that loyal fan base that is so small? 

 

What?

[ATLANTISMAN]

The £20M figure has been known for quite a while (Certainly SL would have known it) which is why they are scrambling for a PE deal.

Problem is PE are vultures and £60K is peanuts we would be better off trying to find a really rich oligarch:)

 

P 

 

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

14 hours ago, Robthegasman said:

 

 I would not be surprised if Super League is a 10 team or even an 8 team”Elite”Division

 

8???

If that happened I would genuninely want Broncos to stay on the 14 team Championship.... Lots of variety/teams/fans/grounds to experience 

[Scubby]

2 hours ago, Mark S said:

Could the RFL develop their own streaming service. I have put some very rough numbers together.

To make £20m in subscriptions alone we would need 167K monthly subscribers at £10 per month (which I think is low). Obviously there are will be significant costs (production, development, data security), however this could be covered by additional advertising.

This could be supplemented with a deal with the BBC for highlights or even one game per week plus highlights.

Just an idea.

 

 

Sadly, there would be less than 50k who would subscribe. Sky probably have around the same number of people who specifically subscribe for RL only. I would hazard a guess the rest of the Sky viewing figures are made up of permutations of a few hundred thousand casual sports fans who enjoy RL from time to time.

[Rugbyleaguesupporter]

2 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

Not a chance mate sadly. There's nowhere near enough demand (our fault) for RL specific content. 

RL has a pretty consistent audience on Sky, how much of that is down to the Sky platform vs hardcore RL fans who knows...

Yes, even if you got BBC to film matches for free in exchange for one live game a week: 

£20m is really £25m after VAT 

So £25m/ £100 is 250k subscribers 

Plus set up costs, marketing, security of website etc 

250k subscribers wont happen. 

Sky do a similar calculation for number of subs that will leave- that's how they determine price. Most of sky is fixed costs (they just click a button for you to watch) and they think it's more like 30-40k who might cancel with no Super League 

[Robthegasman]

11 minutes ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

8???

If that happened I would genuninely want Broncos to stay on the 14 team Championship.... Lots of variety/teams/fans/grounds to experience 

Yes 8.

 I think it could well end up being a case of 8 clubs,purely because of money ie not being enough to sustain 12 Super League clubs,especially if it is a 50% cut in funding.

 And I genuinely fear for the clubs outside of Super League.

[Michael1812]

3 hours ago, Rupert Prince said:

Cobblers.  Toronto had nothing to offer.  How many Canadians did it develop.  It just paid mickey mouse money for a past it SBW, money they did not have.

The same SBW that was the main face for Sky’s advertising of Super League. 

[Dave T]

37 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

 

Once the sport has done everything that it possibly can to broaden it's appeal in that context and it still isn't working, then I'd conceed that geography is the one thing remaining that is holding the sport back. But I don't think it is, and I certainly don't think that the sport has done what it needs to do to be able to draw that conclusion. 

I think this is an excellent point. 

[tag]

I really worry for the games future. There is no money in the game which to me equals no future. It will survive in Australia a bit like Aussie rules. Massive there but no one else is bothered. 

[Scotchy1]

43 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

The bottom line is that the sport simply cannot allow that to become an excuse for not adapting to the realities of the new TV, media and leisure markets. At the risk of labouring the example, darts was never a fashionable entertainment brand for aspirational big-city audiences, and some of it's more notable events are still held in places as exotic and aspirational as Blackpool and Bolton.  

Being based "in deprived northern towns" doesn't prevent RL from doing any of the things that I've noted other sports do to broaden their appeal to TV audiences or new fans. 

Once the sport has done everything that it possibly can to broaden it's appeal in that context and it still isn't working, then I'd conceed that geography is the one thing remaining that is holding the sport back. But I don't think it is, and I certainly don't think that the sport has done what it needs to do to be able to draw that conclusion. 

The geography question is an issue. Our really limited geographical spread means for the vast majority of the country the game is neither relevant nor accessible.

There are two fundamental questions we need to ask (and answer) 

1. How do you create an RL fan

2. How do you monetise them.

The fact of the matter is that the geographical question is a problem for both of these things.

Not that these clubs are in those areas, but they are only on those areas