Sky Sports halves offer for TV rights

[Harry Stottle]

3 hours ago, Phil said:

What were they supposed to develop in that time span? SL ready 4 year olds?

They developed a 9k support base, not too shoddy I’d say 

I fear they would have been happy to just ship player's in to perform for ever, even for 4 year olds to be brought into existance the egg requires fertilizing, it seems nothing was even being considered to propagate the species in Canada, remember the suggestion by Mr Perez that there would be "ready made for Rugby League athlete's" queuing up to play, and all those auditions in various locations that was lauded with rapturous applause on these pages that came to nothing. Had Toronto been serious about expanding the sport in participation levels they would have taken steps from early doors, that they didn't shouted the message loud and clear.

[whatmichaelsays]

8 minutes ago, Scotchy1 said:

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  

Oh it is absolutely an issue, but it is not the only issue, even though it is often made out to be. In many respects, I would argue, it is far from the biggest issue facing the game and it's certainly not a big enough issue to decide that doing anything else is either impossible or a waste of time. 

Geography might be the reason why it's difficult for someone in Milton Keynes to get to a game on Friday night. It's not the reason why Super League is massively under-utilising its content assets to allow people to enjoy what the sport can offer, nor is it the reason why people (inside and outside the heartlands) feel that RL doesn't offer them what they want.  

We're talking about the value of TV rights here - the very thing that makes RL accessible to people who would otherwise find it inaccessible. 

[Scotchy1]

4 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

Oh it is absolutely an issue, but it is not the only issue, even though it is often made out to be. In many respects, I would argue, it is far from the biggest issue facing the game and it's certainly not a big enough issue to decide that doing anything else is either impossible or a waste of time. 

Geography might be the reason why it's difficult for someone in Milton Keynes to get to a game on Friday night. It's not the reason why Super League is massively under-utilising its content assets to allow people to enjoy what the sport can offer, nor is it the reason why people (inside and outside the heartlands) feel that RL doesn't offer them what they want.  

We're talking about the value of TV rights here - the very thing that makes RL accessible to people who would otherwise find it inaccessible. 

Its not just a question of accessibility, though that is a massive issue. But relevance as well. Most the country has no relevance to RL. 

It isn't an excuse for not doing the other things  but it is a barrier we will hit in everything we do

[Oxford]

We're invisible because the media makes us so. It is not a measure of what we are but a quantifiable idea of how they see us.This is the target,..... goal we should aim all our efforts towards.

Even changing this a little would help. But it's a long term strategy the sort of thing we've more or less never seen in RL.

[newbe]

Could mean a lot of league 1 clubs dropping out without £75,000 a year they get from S/L.

[The 4 of Us]

My late dad (and for those that knew him he did a lot in relation to the amateur game) once said he was happy for RL to have the profile of Cumberland wrestling - it didn’t matter to him, as long as he could continue watching the game. He was into both the pro and amateur games and it’s fair to say he loved the sport.

My view expressed to him was that all branches of the game were as important as the other, and a vibrant pro game needed young kids to want to aspire to play professionally (as well as others to maintain the sport at a community level)

Part of that is having a flagship competition - well received on TV and I’m the press. RL has always done relatively well despite  the size of the sport (remember we may only get 100,000 paying spectators in the 3 “pro” divisions on a very good weekend) but the circles have most definitely been decreasing.

i think the leadership of the sport has been very limited for years, the current administrators have the last in a long list who have failed to drive the game on and the nature of the bigger club owners and smaller “trad” clubs has been safety first meaning they look are maintaining their share of decreasing pot rather than have a business plan to build. 

Sadly, I think it’s getting to the point now where a fully professional top division has to be in doubt. In my mind it had another 5-10 years but I think this year and news of a reduced contract will bring that forward.

I very much hope this is just Sky putting in an early pitch and that the sport has something in the sidelines but if so, that will be a rare case of RL having more than one option. 

The pro game may not be on its death bed yet but it does appear that it’s at the beginning of the end. (And the state of the amateur game is relative to it)

I cannot see that the big club owners will simply allow investments to go down the plug hole and just wonder if some are looking at possibilities beyond our sport. 

The world has changed in the last 12 months and I think it would be naive to think that RL is going to be insulated. 

[Harry Stottle]

3 hours ago, Davo5 said:

What do we do to promote the game nationally,are we not shored up by Sky ?

Yes of course we are Dav, all the way from the bottom of L1 to the top of SL, the question is should we be supplementing the game in France also when we have enough problems of our own, don't get me wrong I very much enjoyed my trip to Catalan and would have done so this past season to Toulouse but for it being cancelled, but do these clubs generate enough intetest here that they improve attendances from the 'home fans' by competing in our League? If not what do they bring to the comp excepting for a nice destination to visit. 

I saw that you said it was your intention to get along to 'Haven more this season, that may be a short lived excersize beyond this season if SL can withhold any funding below their level if the Sky contract is drastically reduced.

[GeordieSaint]

3 hours 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.

The SL only TV rights weren’t £200m over 5yrs; they were (roughly) £140m weren’t they? The other £60m was lower league, Challenge Cup, Sky Try and International rights. We’ve also been informed (or I am pretty certain) these negotiations are for SL only. So it’s a drop of £8m a year; not £20m to SL, which whilst still awful, is slightly better reading. 

Still leaves the rest of the game up the bog if the RFL don’t negiotate anything outside of the recently announced BBC deal...

[Rupert Prince]

44 minutes ago, Michael1812 said:

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

That's worked out well hasn't it?   Did Williams get any money for that, as I understand he did not get any money from Toronto.

[Harry Stottle]

58 minutes ago, Robthegasman said:

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.

I remember only to well the experiment when the 2nd Division was put down to 8 clubs, it is an expierence I should advise never to be repeated, you actually get fed up of seeing the same teams over the season not just the fans but the player's also, to many incidents easily rememberd, Sky viewers who have no affiliation to any of the clubs would get fed up also, if you think that we get to many repeats fixtures on Sky now just wait till it is just 8 clubs to choose from.

[redjonn]

It is not clear to me if the Sky offer is for exclusive rights to all SL games.  As to distinct for a set number of games. That is with the other games able to be flogged elsewhere by SL.

[Rupert Prince]

3 hours ago, Phil said:

No not in that way at all, Sydney is one of the great cities of the world and RL is already the top sport in Oz 

Add up the populations of Greater Manchester/ Merseyside and West Yorkshire.

Population of Sidney is 5 million. 

Why should we suck up to the notion that Sidney is one of the greatest cities in the world. There are 4 major world class football ('soccer') teams in 'Lancashire'.   You've drunk a few too many tinnies.

The whole point of this thread us to do us down and automatically say we are inferior. There is nothing special about Australia ... The RU are predicated towards the M5 corridor and is bereft of RU clubs in the North.  4 to 6 years ago many sports rights were over sold.  

Now we have opportunities too get PE investment, lots of sports have got in before us, but hey presto the usual suspects want to do down the game and the opportunity and want to push everything town to the lowest common denominator.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

Hypothetical question:

If this deal is for half of the previous deal but does not include exclusivity rights (allowing us to sell other games to other broadcasters), would you take it?

I'll assume it includes the same number of games for argument's sake.

[GeordieSaint]

9 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

Hypothetical question:

If this deal is for half of the previous deal but does not include exclusivity rights (allowing us to sell other games to other broadcasters), would you take it?

I'll assume it includes the same number of games for argument's sake.

If they can get a deal elsewhere for other games, you’d be snatching their hands off. 

[Damien]

9 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

Hypothetical question:

If this deal is for half of the previous deal but does not include exclusivity rights (allowing us to sell other games to other broadcasters), would you take it?

I'll assume it includes the same number of games for argument's sake.

That wouldn't be bad at all but I can't see that being the case.

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

3 hours ago, sweaty craiq said:

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

I'd have little faith I'd ever see my initial outlay ever again

[Dave T]

48 minutes ago, redjonn said:

It is not clear to me if the Sky offer is for exclusive rights to all SL games.  As to distinct for a set number of games. That is with the other games able to be flogged elsewhere by SL.

I think ultimately the devil will be in the detail. If its £20m for the same SL rights, that is a disaster. If we take back exclusivity, digital rights etc. then it is slightly better and gives us room to try and fill the gap. 

In the Sky News article linked to it did also say over £20m, SO I suppose it depends how much over that mark. 

[Rupert Prince]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

I remember only to well the experiment when the 2nd Division was put down to 8 clubs, it is an expierence I should advise never to be repeated, you actually get fed up of seeing the same teams over the season not just the fans but the player's also, to many incidents easily rememberd, Sky viewers who have no affiliation to any of the clubs would get fed up also, if you think that we get to many repeats fixtures on Sky now just wait till it is just 8 clubs to choose from.

Is there an analogy to be made with Scottish Football Premiership - with 8 clubs.  Their Championship has 10. I simply point out they play more than twice a season... they get by.  I do agree it's not ideal, but likewise there is a major gap between the top 4 or 5 teams in their Premiership and the rest and there is not a practical even 12, never mind 14 or 16, strong top tier.  

(Heaven forbid I point out they had a M8 corridor)

[Scotchy1]

32 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

Add up the populations of Greater Manchester/ Merseyside and West Yorkshire.

Population of Sidney is 5 million. 

Why should we suck up to the notion that Sidney is one of the greatest cities in the world. There are 4 major world class football ('soccer') teams in 'Lancashire'.   You've drunk a few too many tinnies.

The whole point of this thread us to do us down and automatically say we are inferior. There is nothing special about Australia ... The RU are predicated towards the M5 corridor and is bereft of RU clubs in the North.  4 to 6 years ago many sports rights were over sold.  

Now we have opportunities too get PE investment, lots of sports have got in before us, but hey presto the usual suspects want to do down the game and the opportunity and want to push everything town to the lowest common denominator.

You keep repeating this but it isnt comparable. There are some on the m5 obviously, but they have London Irish, Harlequins, leicester, Sale, Newcastle, Wasps, and up until this season Saracens. 

It also looks only at the RU premiership in England and ignores the fact there is a strong RU game in Wales, Scotland and Ireland, and international club competition through the champions cup seeing them play Italian and French clubs too. 

Even just the english version covers the major population centres of the midland, south-west, north west, london and north east. Then you can also add in Cardiff, Swansea, Edinburgh, Dublin and Belfast for the wider nation (accepting Dublins position in Eire)

 

[GUBRATS]

9 hours ago, Spidey said:

There are more premiership football fans in Warrington than attend RL games.    The local team Warrington Town have been trying to tap into that market for years with limited success

I'll rephrase that Spidey

There are more people who will go to the pub or sit at home wearing a football shirt who've not been in a stadium for decades in Warrington than attend RL games at the HJ 

 

[Scotchy1]

Just now, GUBRATS said:

I'll rephrase that Spidey

There are more people who will go to the pub or sit at home wearing a football shirt who've not been in a stadium for decades in Warrington than attend RL games at the HJ 

 

Ah well, if they dont pass the purity test, their money is no good.

[DC77]

4 hours ago, whatmichaelsays said:

To be fair, that's a point I hadn't thought about, but it is a good one. 

My main issue is that I don't think RL has responded to changing viewer habits. 

Let's be honest here, for large parts of the season, watching RL can be a bit of a slog. We know that, because we have phrases like "it's one for the purists" and we also have phrases like "a great advert for the game" (which suggests that most games that don't fit either description are rather unremarkable). The truth is that in a multi-channel, multi-screen environment, you can't afford to have too many of those "one for the purists" games and you can't afford to not have enough of the "great advert" games. 

I said previously that I thought darts was quite clever in how it presents itself and I think this is the context I'm talking about. In darts, the top scores happen frequently enough, and important doubles are hit or missed frequently enough, that the commentators always have something to sound excited about. There is always something for the crowd to stand up for. Whenever a leg opens up with a top score, that little '9' appears on screen to tell you that something big might happen - a really clever trick of TV psychology. In short, what they've done is package lots of short, frequent bursts of excitement that happen frequently enough to keep your attention. In truth, what the PDC did was get the players better so that they produced more of those moments, and they enhanced the TV branding / packaging so that it looked like an arena sport, rather than a tap-room sport. 

T20 pulls the same trick - regular fours, sixes and wickets that are designed to keep the excitement there and build the tension throughout the innings. The whole structure of the game (and the upcoming Hundred) is designed to make you think that every ball could either be a six or a wicket, rather than a bat away for a dot ball. 

Soccer Saturday is another example. Soccer Saturday is just watching blokes watching a TV that you can't see - if you pitched that idea to a TV exec, you'd be laughed out of the room. But it works, because it only focuses on the exciting parts of the match. NFL RedZone does the same for American Football - you only see the game when it looks like something exciting is going to happen. 

Super League doesn't have enough of those moments. Yes, you can have moments of brilliance, but for the most part, they're the exception rather than the norm. Of the 80 minutes you sit through, 75 of them are probably sat through an attritional forward battle. Of the other five, maybe two of them are Instagram-worthy. 

In today's TV market, you need more of that. It's why I'm a big advocate of short-form concepts like Nines and why I'm a big fan of fewer, more intense games - because there is absolutely zero marketable value in an increased quantity of unremarkable games producing a lot of content that people won't care about. 

You should be working for the RFL.

I come from a non RL devotee perspective, and have frequently made comments about the way the game is played today, as opposed to the BBC Grandstand era, as to why I don’t think it grabs the attention. The game was far more open, far more attacking, defences much looser, which allowed for those eye catching runs the like of Offiah, Robinson and Hanley made, runs that made him a star. He could never make those runs today, thus he would not be a star. Stars create new viewers who want to watch them, new players who want to emulate them. Making the game much harder to play, an increase in defensive quality, has only led to a decrease in eye catching attacking play, and less headlines.

A Rangi Chase move went viral about five years ago. The question RL authorities should have been asking is “how do we have more of those”? But in such an increasing attritional, defensively sound game such moments are scarce. The emphasis on being a forward dominated game, on watertight defences, it strangles creative play, and it’s creative play that generates most interest. 

I notice you didn’t mention RU. With cross pollination between the codes (for example RU hiring RL defensive coaches) It’s in the same boat as RL with this increasing focus on attritional play. Emphasis is on bulking up, downing protein shakes, spending hours in the gym, and then trying to batter the opposition into submission come game day. Line breaks are now a rarity, skilful play an endangered species. RU hasn’t had a star name in over 15 years. The club game is in financial turmoil. RU survives as the international game is keeping it afloat, and people like me watch the international game not because of the product (it’s generally terrible now), but because of the ‘event’ status that a Six Nations has. RL doesn’t have this ‘event’ luxury to fall back on.

You made a point that RL caters to the same RL audience, to purists, and I agree this is a problem. You won’t widen your fan base by doing this. I’d pay to watch a Garry Schofield, but wouldn’t for blokes that smash into the opposition (of course that’s part of the game, always has been, but there was a much better balance of this and creative play). 

[Rupert Prince]

16 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I think ultimately the devil will be in the detail. If its £20m for the same SL rights, that is a disaster. If we take back exclusivity, digital rights etc. then it is slightly better and gives us room to try and fill the gap. 

In the Sky News article linked to it did also say over £20m, SO I suppose it depends how much over that mark. 

The SportsPro website claims "all sports" will get reduced tv rights following COVID.  There may be sites and comments on this.

There has been a lot of hysteria being generated and other issues are being conflated in it.

The last Football round of rights went down by 11%, and if COVID is a factor then we might well get less than 11%.  As I regularly point out, the wider RFL fraternity need to organise its structure & organisation in a rational and viable way.  Self interest has been stopping it.

[Spidey]

6 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

I'll rephrase that Spidey

There are more people who will go to the pub or sit at home wearing a football shirt who've not been in a stadium for decades in Warrington than attend RL games at the HJ 

 

You’d be surprised on the amount of residents of Warrington who actually go to games. I know plenty of season ticket holders of Everton, Liverpool, Man City & Man Utd. I’m not talking Joe Bloggs in the pub  

[DC77]

2 hours ago, Scotchy1 said:

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  

I’ve tried to give an answer above.