Jump to content

Sky Sports halves offer for TV rights


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, thirteenthman said:

To be fair, the NRL have always accomodated TV. Every match in the NRL is in a seperate time slot so every game can be shown live on TV. Most weeks of the year there is only one game in the crowd popular Sunday afternoon slot. A Friday 6pm kick off was brought in at the insistance of Fox with little regard as to whether it's good for supporters. And then there's night time Grand Finals and 22 minute half time breaks during Origin games so more ads can be shown. And Channel 9 do show ads during normal matches. 

The AFL does that and more though.  I'm well aware that 9 does commercials during matches, however then the viewers miss some of the action which is very poor.  The AFL operates like North American leagues, they accommodate all the commercials the broadcaster needs to underwrite their high rights fees without the viewers missing any of the action which is as it should be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


15 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

" 800 fans of a small club " ? , So who are you talking about ?

You’ll have to do better than this 

 

“The inevitable consequence of small-minded, pathetic leadership over 10+ years, with a bizarre obsession about how 800 fans of a small village in the north feels about things”

There’s the quote. The actor I’m blaming in that sentence is the weak RFL/SL leadership who put too much emphasis on the feelings of small-mid size clubs’ fans, I was never blaming the fans themselves as you’ve deliberately tried to spin. Come on mate, argue the point if you can, don’t wilfully twist meaning in order to argue with a point I never made. You’re better than that, it’s depressing.

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Big Picture said:

Yeah sure, just like when Brisbane bought London, rebranded them the Broncos and applied their Aussie wizardry in London.  We all know how well that worked.

The AFL has always been willing to tweak their rules and presentation to increase the value of their TV rights, the NRL less so.  For example they went ahead with changing their match timing to have the clock stopped in dead ball situations and enable commercial breaks after goals are kicked, the NRL talked about doing the same but backed away from that.

Commercials during a game is an abomination. North America is different in that commercials draw in viewers; the NFL final the majority of viewers tune in solely for the commercials and half time show.

”This corner kick was brought to you by Barclays Bank”

In other markets the actual game takes precedence, and during half time fewer stay for commercials (surge in the power grid with kettles being turned on for example).

 

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

You’ll have to do better than this 

 

“The inevitable consequence of small-minded, pathetic leadership over 10+ years, with a bizarre obsession about how 800 fans of a small village in the north feels about things”

There’s the quote. The actor I’m blaming in that sentence is the weak RFL/SL leadership who put too much emphasis on the feelings of small-mid size clubs’ fans, I was never blaming the fans themselves as you’ve deliberately tried to spin. Come on mate, argue the point if you can, don’t wilfully twist meaning in order to argue with a point I never made. You’re better than that, it’s depressing.

 

 

Fair enough , so , you are saying it's the RFL management that have put which clubs before RL growth ? , So which clubs ? , And which management , don't hide behind obscurity

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Big Picture said:

The AFL does that and more though.  I'm well aware that 9 does commercials during matches, however then the viewers miss some of the action which is very poor.  The AFL operates like North American leagues, they accommodate all the commercials the broadcaster needs to underwrite their high rights fees without the viewers missing any of the action which is as it should be.

I take your point on in game ads, but there's a lot more the AFL could do. Making room for ads in games is one of the few things the NRL could do. 

Of course Fox in Oz make a  big sell of showing NRL and AFL games with no ads - it's their point of difference from the free to air networks. And it's with Fox that the AFL have just announced an increased TV deal. And yet when the NRL signed a deal with Fox earlier in the year, no value was mentioned, with a possible reduction. And yet, NRL consistently outrates AFL on Fox most weeks of the year. Maybe the man at the top of the NRL isn't all many on here make him out to be. 

Edited by thirteenthman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

Fair enough , so , you are saying it's the RFL management that have put which clubs before RL growth ? , So which clubs ? , And which management , don't hide behind obscurity

Finally, we get there. 
 

I named at least two clubs earlier in this thread, I’m not here for some case-by-case unpicking nonsense, you know exactly what I meant and where my perspective comes from - but you’ve those two to chew on if you like.
 

But let’s be honest you really want to ignore my core point and get into those individual semantics, probably because you can’t argue against it: We are now a part-time, niche regional sport accepting its lot under this new broadcast agreement, because of a failure over the last 25 years to address the core weaknesses of our proposition to our main client - despite having had the time to do so.

 

Even in our death throes before we understood exactly how bad the next deal was, we chose a small town on the edge of Wigan in a market we’ve saturated, over an alternative club which had ‘heartland’ heritage, huge commercial potential and based the 4th biggest city in France. That said it all. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course you couls argue that the RFL/SL were only respoding to their core support which a bit like Labour they seemed intent and in danger of losing by their indifference.

I think Leigh were the candidates most likely to make a fist of being in SL and it has to be said the least likely to go under if relegated.

But if we're talking about saturation of the market, which city has two clubs and so falls into this category very neatly if not comfortably?

Edited by Oxford

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, DC77 said:

Commercials during a game is an abomination. North America is different in that commercials draw in viewers; the NFL final the majority of viewers tune in solely for the commercials and half time show.

”This corner kick was brought to you by Barclays Bank”

In other markets the actual game takes precedence, and during half time fewer stay for commercials (surge in the power grid with kettles being turned on for example).

That "abomination" as you call it is standard for sports in North America and in the AFL too nowadays, and it's what underwrites the TV rights money which has made our major league franchises profitable for their owners and fueled the steady rise in the value of those franchises.  Those leagues would all be poorer without it, a lot poorer.  And they don't have to plaster their uniforms with tacky sponsors' ads like over there in Europe.

Saying something like ”This corner kick was brought to you by Barclays Bank” as you did shows that you don't understand it.  I've never seen anyone directly sponsor a particular part of a match, they simply buy time for their ads during it.  The ads are all placed during natural breaks in play, and that's how the AFL does it too.

In any case RL can either adopt that and get higher rights fees underwritten by those commercials, or stay as it's always been and miss out, simple as that.

Edited by Big Picture
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Big Picture said:

That "abomination" as you call it is standard for sports in North America and in the AFL too nowadays, and it's what underwrites the TV rights money which has made our major league franchises profitable for their owners and fueled the steady rise in the value of those franchises.  Those leagues would all be poorer without it, a lot poorer.  And they don't have to plaster their uniforms with tacky sponsors' ads like over there in Europe.

Saying something like ”This corner kick was brought to you by Barclays Bank” as you did shows that you don't understand it.  I've never seen anyone directly sponsor a particular part of a match, they simply buy time for their ads during it.  The ads are all placed during natural breaks in play, and that's how the AFL does it too.

In any case RL can either adopt that and get higher rights fees underwritten by those commercials, or stay as it's always been and miss out, simple as that.

Can RL in the UK embrace that? What are the UK regulations around this stuff? How many more ads do Sky want in their 2hr shows? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Big Picture said:

Saying something like ”This corner kick was brought to you by Barclays Bank” as you did shows that you don't understand it.  I've never seen anyone directly sponsor a particular part of a match, they simply buy time for their ads during it. 

Pitching changes on Chicago Cubs radio are sponsored by Sloan.

If the hitter up first gets on base then that's sponsored by Vinny's Beverage Depot. If the hitter up first doesn't get on base then they'll tell you that if he had then that would have been sponsored by Vinny's Beverage Depot.

Most networks have their car-sponsored 'keys to the game' just before first pitch.

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 comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, DC77 said:

Commercials during a game is an abomination. North America is different in that commercials draw in viewers;

That's only true for the Super Bowl, not for any other game in any other league. And they're specially made commercials, not your typical ones. 

Edited by TheReaper
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

Finally, we get there. 
 

I named at least two clubs earlier in this thread, I’m not here for some case-by-case unpicking nonsense, you know exactly what I meant and where my perspective comes from - but you’ve those two to chew on if you like.
 

But let’s be honest you really want to ignore my core point and get into those individual semantics, probably because you can’t argue against it: We are now a part-time, niche regional sport accepting its lot under this new broadcast agreement, because of a failure over the last 25 years to address the core weaknesses of our proposition to our main client - despite having had the time to do so.

 

Even in our death throes before we understood exactly how bad the next deal was, we chose a small town on the edge of Wigan in a market we’ve saturated, over an alternative club which had ‘heartland’ heritage, huge commercial potential and based the 4th biggest city in France. That said it all. 

About half the tv money went to the RLF.  What did they do with it?  They get BBC money from the Cup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Dave T said:

Can RL in the UK embrace that? What are the UK regulations around this stuff? How many more ads do Sky want in their 2hr shows? 

I'm sure they could embrace it, UK broadcasts of the NFL have commercials during the match don't they?  Fitting them in would almost certainly make a match telecast exceed 2 hours though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

I'm sure they could embrace it, UK broadcasts of the NFL have commercials during the match don't they?  Fitting them in would almost certainly make a match telecast exceed 2 hours though.

Sky ratings for the super bowl are far less than RL Championship play offs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sweaty craiq said:

Sky ratings for the super bowl are far less than RL Championship play offs

No surprise there.  The Super Bowl kicks off at about 6:30 PM EST which is 11:30 PM GMT and it's on a Sunday night.  The late kickoff time will certainly reduce the TV audience for it in the UK.

Edited by Big Picture
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, sweaty craiq said:

Sky ratings for the super bowl are far less than RL Championship play offs

It’s also broadcast live on the BBC

  • Like 2

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 comment
Share on other sites

On 25/12/2020 at 19:34, thirteenthman said:

To be fair, the NRL have always accomodated TV. Every match in the NRL is in a seperate time slot so every game can be shown live on TV. Most weeks of the year there is only one game in the crowd popular Sunday afternoon slot. A Friday 6pm kick off was brought in at the insistance of Fox with little regard as to whether it's good for supporters. And then there's night time Grand Finals and 22 minute half time breaks during Origin games so more ads can be shown. And Channel 9 do show ads during normal matches. 

The NRL tv deal brings in so much money, wasn’t it something like $2 billion?
While Super League’s looking at £20 million.

The biggest question we need to be asking is how can we be more appealing to tv audiences and channels to up that figure. Mr Elstone obviously believes replacing Toronto Wolfpack and Sonny Bill Williams with Leigh and Andrew Thornley is the answer.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Big Picture said:

I'm sure they could embrace it, UK broadcasts of the NFL have commercials during the match don't they?  Fitting them in would almost certainly make a match telecast exceed 2 hours though.

Not all of them. Many breaks go instead to a UK studio or prepared highlight packages 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Sir Kevin Sinfield said:

The NRL tv deal brings in so much money, wasn’t it something like $2 billion?
While Super League’s looking at £20 million.

The biggest question we need to be asking is how can we be more appealing to tv audiences and channels to up that figure. Mr Elstone obviously believes replacing Toronto Wolfpack and Sonny Bill Williams with Leigh and Andrew Thornley is the answer.

Dead right , because the TV deal was only put together in the last week ? 🤔

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Big Picture said:

I'm sure they could embrace it, UK broadcasts of the NFL have commercials during the match don't they?  Fitting them in would almost certainly make a match telecast exceed 2 hours though.

 

45 minutes ago, Scotchy1 said:

Not all of them. Many breaks go instead to a UK studio or prepared highlight packages 

Yup, I don't know the detail for live sport nowadays, and cricket has plenty of breaks, but I believe the regulation in the UK is far more stringent than in the US and Australia. 

There is also the fact that to UK audiences it would be a huge turnoff, having watched US and Australian sport broadcasts I found it extremely jarring - but that would settle down over time as audience's got used to it. 

But we also shouldn't overestimate the demand here - sport in the UK has relatively low figures, even big events on Sky are low numbers. The biggest events with huge figures are generally on the BBC with no advertising. Watching BT Sport in the gym recently I was shocked by how few advertisers they had in their programmes, and I'm sure we all recall the ads on repeat on Premier for the last World Cup. 

The market is very very different in the UK to America and Australia, whilst we can clearly learn things from each other, people need to stop thinking everything can just be transferred over. 

If there was such demand for companies having presence during our games getting 150k, I think they'd be better spending a bit of money on pitch branding. Either the market isn't there or we are particularly poor at tapping into that one - probably a bit of both. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sir Kevin Sinfield said:

The NRL tv deal brings in so much money, wasn’t it something like $2 billion?
While Super League’s looking at £20 million.

The biggest question we need to be asking is how can we be more appealing to tv audiences and channels to up that figure. Mr Elstone obviously believes replacing Toronto Wolfpack and Sonny Bill Williams with Leigh and Andrew Thornley is the answer.

The Aussie deal is probably around £140m per annum with a new SL deal probably around £25m to £30m depending on where they end up, plus some more for the Cup from the BBC and anything else that can be scraped together for any other rights, although that is likely to be zero. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dave T said:

For the level of coverage it gets, Sky Sports NFL returns surprisingly low figures each week. 

yep,  I suspect with Sky being owned by US company together with the deal with NFL in USA to help promote the game globally its more about strategic intent and hence investment in growing the audience. As discussed in previous threads.

Sky can find other broadcast fillers cheaper than RL as I don't see RL being as important to Sky as once was.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...