Sky - please learn from BT sports

[Rugbyleaguesupporter]

Two unfortunate issues. 

1. RU worth more to tv in terms of advertising per viewer 

2. Sky is a premium product. Most Sky Sports subscribers dont think rugby league is so Sky show golf, cricket, even netball or basketball over rugby league promos as they see RL as devaluing their product. 

Fortunately there are 200k or so of us who watch 1 plus game a week- so we are still worth £20m plus to Sky. 

I watch some union on BT. I think Sky coverage is still pretty in depth. 2 programmes often lasting 3 hours. 

I think this is another one where as supporters we need to stop being so negative. Yes I'd like to see some commentary improvements and yes I'd like to see a higher profile from Sky but until we solve issue 2 above, we cant complain too much 

 

[Tommygilf]

2 minutes ago, dealwithit said:

You could write a list of a thousand ways SKY could improve their SL coverage. Start by looking at the FOX coverage in Australia.

Yeah but Fox in Australia's coverage of the NRL isn't too dissimilar to Sky's coverage of Football. The point is BT have a non-mainstream product and still boost it and present it enthusiastically.

[Rupert Prince]

1 minute ago, gingerjon said:

Blackheath is in west London, is it?

Rugby union is a national game. You making up nonsense about an M5 corridor is irrelevant.

Blackheath are not in Premiership.  We broke away from the RU, hence we are mainly northern.  We were for generations the only people playing professional Rugby... and only part time.  That's why many many Welsh players went north. It sustained RL.

Since professionalism many clubs and teams are fewer for the RFU. But those that remained are overwhelmingly not northern.  And there is a huge financial barrier for professional RL in Wales.

You cannot moan about where we are without recognising where and how  we came from.

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

1 hour ago, Wigan Riversider said:

100% with you but can't see it happening.

Well it should so there

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

1 hour ago, M j M said:

This is just rubbish, sorry.

We've a longstanding commercial relationship with them but it doesn't mean our product can't be taken elsewhere.

Agreed

Contracts / agreements change all the time 

Business is business 

[Chris22]

Just for comparison purposes (yes, it is slightly out of date)

 

[Big Picture]

1 hour ago, Chris22 said:

Just for comparison purposes (yes, it is slightly out of date)

 

A picture several thousand words.

[The Rocket]

4 hours ago, Damien said:

That is comparable to the current SL deal. We'll have to wait and see what the new deal is.

Whenever I am comparing broadcast deals I often take into account the number of players  in the first grade squad and of course the number of teams in the competition, this gives me a rough rule of thumb on the value of the contract per player, I know it is very rough but it allows me to have a better comparative value as opposed to the absolute value, especially useful when comparing the much larger afl deal to the NRL deal which doesn`t look as impressive when you realise that the funds have to go much further.

I don`t know how many teams in the union comp over there but I do know they have more players on the field and more on the bench.

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

22 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

Whenever I am comparing broadcast deals I often take into account the number of players  in the first grade squad and of course the number of teams in the competition, this gives me a rough rule of thumb on the value of the contract per player, I know it is very rough but it allows me to have a better comparative value as opposed to the absolute value, especially useful when comparing the much larger afl deal to the NRL deal which doesn`t look as impressive when you realise that the funds have to go much further.

I don`t know how many teams in the union comp over there but I do know they have more players on the field and more on the bench.

12 same as SL

Squads are massively bigger. Sarries will have 40 plus or something stupid

I've just googled that Aussie rules is 18 a side!!!!!  18 for Christ's sake. Its such a boring thing to watch I'm amazed it is even surviving never mind challenging NRL

 

[Big Picture]

4 minutes ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

12 same as SL

Squads are massively bigger. Sarries will have 40 plus or something stupid

I've just googled that Aussie rules is 18 a side!!!!!  18 for Christ's sake. Its such a boring thing to watch I'm amazed it is even surviving never mind challenging NRL

Aussie Rules dominates the non-rugby playing half of Australia, and although rather dull nowadays it was a spectacular sport to watch before the defensive tactic known as "flooding" suppressed attacking play and drastically reduced scoring.  At one time it was much higher scoring than basketball.

[M j M]

Aussie Rules is a great sport. It shares with union the "no idea what's going on" thing but in contrast it's action-packed and highly skilful.

Obviously it's not in the same class as Rugby League but I can see why you could get into it.

[The Rocket]

2 hours ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

12 same as SL

Squads are massively bigger. Sarries will have 40 plus or something stupid

NRL have 30 in the first grade squad,  I imagine that SL has something similar, of course there will be a wide range of salaries within any squad, but for the union to have an extra 10 in that squad suggests that a lot of the extra money in their broadcast deal is spent on players salaries.

The afl run squads, they call them lists, of about 40, their average player salary is similar perhaps a little higher than the NRL, if you run those numbers out over their 18 team competition their big deal doesn`t look as impressive.

Of course another element where the union may have a considerable advantage is with sponsorship and I think I read they get a considerable grant from the money that the 6 - nations brings in.

I know that the Broadcast deal only constitutes 50 % of total afl revenue, whereas in the NRL the tv deal constitutes about 60  - 75% of their total income. That`s a big difference.

Sonsorship income for League is hampered by our smaller geographical footprint than the other code, a steady stream of player scandals doesn`t help, but they have them as well, therefore like yourself that failure to spread the game hinders sponsor growth.

I think it`s important to put tv deals into perspective though, certainly as far as relative value goes, because when you look at some of these deals the headline figure can make us think that our code is valued less than others.

[Ramon Rojo]

Can't stand BT.

Parasites living off the back of what Sky developed.

All they've done is pump up the price of watching Football & Cricket (I wouldn't watch kick & clap if it was on in the back garden).

Sooner they can't feasibly afford to keep up with Sky & other competitors the better.

[Rugbyleaguesupporter]

59 minutes ago, Ramon Rojo said:

Can't stand BT.

Parasites living off the back of what Sky developed.

All they've done is pump up the price of watching Football & Cricket (I wouldn't watch kick & clap if it was on in the back garden).

Sooner they can't feasibly afford to keep up with Sky & other competitors the better.

BT only bought sports as Sky entered broadband market (Sky were parasites living off BT broadband infrastructure) 

Of course you could argue BT are parasites living off taxpayer... but that belongs on another thread and section 

[Harry Stottle]

15 hours ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

Let's get London Broncos in a 13 team super League this year and stick it on BT

Now the reality of your thread emerges. 

Edited January 11 by Harry Stottle

[Tommygilf]

9 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Now the reality of your thread emerges. 

I mean its not. The prominent discussion point here has been about how BT shows enthusiasm and confidence in a sport which isn't football and how that massively contrasts with Sky and Super League/Rugby League in recent times.

[Harry Stottle]

18 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I mean its not. The prominent discussion point here has been about how BT shows enthusiasm and confidence in a sport which isn't football and how that massively contrasts with Sky and Super League/Rugby League in recent times.

Fair enough then.

[Pie tries]

16 hours ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

Have a brief look at it and see what you think

Yes, but whats on the pitch is truly awful and going backwards at a rate of knots...

[Pie tries]

14 hours ago, gingerjon said:

Blackheath is in west London, is it?

Rugby union is a national game. You making up nonsense about an M5 corridor is irrelevant.

Think saying people making stuff up too harsh.

There are only two 'northern' RU clubs - last season there was only one. Both are regional professional sports and both have a very limited pool of clubs that can step up to the top table

[gingerjon]

Just now, Pie tries said:

Think saying people making stuff up too harsh.

There are only two 'northern' RU clubs - last season there was only one. Both are regional professional sports and both have a very limited pool of clubs that can step up to the top table

In the professional era (since 1996) there have been top tier union teams in Leeds, Orrell, West Hartlepool and Doncaster. Mucking around in the division below (so still presumably semi professional) there's been Otley, Manchester and a few others (Darlington?) that I've probably forgotten.

I think you'd struggle to find any part of England where you're not within easy reach of a rugby union team to watch or play for. And that includes everywhere where rugby league is played.

[Harry Stottle]

14 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

In the professional era (since 1996) there have been top tier union teams in Leeds, Orrell, West Hartlepool and Doncaster. Mucking around in the division below (so still presumably semi professional) there's been Otley, Manchester and a few others (Darlington?) that I've probably forgotten.

I think you'd struggle to find any part of England where you're not within easy reach of a rugby union team to watch or play for. And that includes everywhere where rugby league is played.

Isn't RL at whatever level also played in most parts of the country. 

[Blind side johnny]

17 hours ago, Leyther_Matt said:

I was a big advocate of getting rid of Eddie and Stevo, but in hindsight the whole production has been lost without them. 

I believe that it stretches much higher. The director/producer/advocate of RL within Sky also retired at around the same time and the sport lost its internal momentum within the broadcaster. How much influence/encouragement that SL can bring to bear should also be a point of consideration. Those guys must be doing something for their money I would hope.

[gingerjon]

4 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Isn't RL at whatever level also played in most parts of the country. 

Within easy reach? (Let's say within a thirty minute drive, so an hour there and back).

No.

[Blind side johnny]

2 hours ago, Ramon Rojo said:

Can't stand BT.

Parasites living off the back of what Sky developed.

All they've done is pump up the price of watching Football & Cricket (I wouldn't watch kick & clap if it was on in the back garden).

Sooner they can't feasibly afford to keep up with Sky & other competitors the better.

Who are these "other competitors"?

[Dr Tim Whatley]

16 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

I think its just the undercurrent of confidence and enthusiasm they seem to have for it. They advertise it loads, they recruit top former pros for their team, they produce regular additional content, they've bought more of it to suppliment their coverage.

Sky do the same but for Football, the occasional cricket international and golf major. 

Agree on the advertising. The trailers on BT haven't worked on me in terms of getting me to watch it, but they're very polished and I can see how they could engage a floating sports fan. They seem to be on A LOT as well - particularly so during the Big Bash, when I guess BT have to run a lot of their own ads during the many breaks in the Aussie TV coverage.