GUBRATS Posted February 2, 2021 Share Posted February 2, 2021 41 minutes ago, Eddie said: It’s very much the image still given off now sadly. RL players must be the all round fittest team sport players out there, but it’s never mentioned. male genitals Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddie Posted February 2, 2021 Share Posted February 2, 2021 18 minutes ago, GUBRATS said: male genitals You don’t think RL players are fitter than any other team sport Gubs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hela Wigmen Posted February 2, 2021 Share Posted February 2, 2021 1 hour ago, whatmichaelsays said: For me, the whole issue with loop fixtures is that it comes from a zero-growth mindset, where the sport isn't thinking about developing the sort of offering that the punters who might buy it want to buy, nor is it thinking about the longer-term. We know that loop fixtures aren't popular with the fan base. We've had comments of "fixture fatigue" in the past and it's one of the most often-discussed issues on forums like this. But we have them because the clubs feel that they need to pad-out the season ticket with stuff that people don't necessarily want. For me, loop fixtures are like those channels that only show repeats of four-year-old episodes of Traffic Cops that are bundled into your Sky Sports package in order to make it look like there is some added value there. You don't watch them, you don't want to pay for them, but you're basically stuck with them. That's why 'unbundled' services like Netflix and NowTV are becoming more popular. You might look at average attendances and think "well fans do like loop fixtures because they're attending", but how much of that attendance is through inertia and compulsion? At some point, generations of fans aren't going to have that inertia of buying season tickets and they won't have that compulsion of turning up to games they don't care for. That's the point where loop fixtures are actively damaging the product over the long term because of instead of actually trying to add value to the ticket to make it more valuable and more in demand, they're relying on propping up that value on an inertia that is eventually going to run out. The issue is that it's not you or I that needs to be sold to. We're already bought in. Ultimately it’s going to be attendances and income generated from hospitality that clubs like about the loop fixtures and while both stand up quite well financially, they’ll remain. Clubs just aren’t going to agree to a twenty-three game season (11 H&A and Magic). Well, not enough of them will, anyway. Extending the division by two probably isn’t a route clubs will favour. Saints, my club, typically tend to get an extra home game against Wigan or Warrington, our two “big ticket” opponents and hospitality is in demand for that. There’s no current Championship club that would have such a demand at the price we charge for Wigan and Warrington (we categorise our hospitality pricing, A-C) and would likely lead to a drop in income. There’s the odd example of Championship clubs who would generate a demand for the odd club but not enough to be of a higher demand for the majority. I suppose it goes back to the governance of the sport, where self-interest reigns supreme, because Saints won’t want to lose an extra home game against Wigan or Warrington in the same way Hull wouldn’t want to lose an extra one against Hull KR or Wakefield losing an extra one vs Cas in favour of playing, say, London, Newcastle or Toulouse, despite the benefits people suggest for the inclusion of these clubs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUBRATS Posted February 2, 2021 Share Posted February 2, 2021 Just now, Eddie said: You don’t think RL players are fitter than any other team sport Gubs? No , it's the other part that was male genitals Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave T Posted February 2, 2021 Share Posted February 2, 2021 2 minutes ago, GUBRATS said: No , it's the other part that was male genitals I agree. It's one of the things that is pretty constant about the players being superheroes and tough. Maybe to an extent that it is off-putting for potential players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddie Posted February 2, 2021 Share Posted February 2, 2021 23 minutes ago, GUBRATS said: No , it's the other part that was male genitals It is portrayed as a northern working class game though, massively. I don’t mind that, but nobody should be surprised that the rest of the world passes by uninterested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUBRATS Posted February 2, 2021 Share Posted February 2, 2021 12 minutes ago, Eddie said: It is portrayed as a northern working class game though, massively. I don’t mind that, but nobody should be surprised that the rest of the world passes by uninterested. Not by the use of pit heads and mills it isn't , most stadia are modern and quality , it's a vibrant sport , regional yes , but not old fashioned , it's nonsense to suggest it is still portrayed as it was in the 60/70s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddie Posted February 2, 2021 Share Posted February 2, 2021 Just now, GUBRATS said: Not by the use of pit heads and mills it isn't , most stadia are modern and quality , it's a vibrant sport , regional yes , but not old fashioned , it's nonsense to suggest it is still portrayed as it was in the 60/70s I think it is on the bbc personally. Sky not so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUBRATS Posted February 2, 2021 Share Posted February 2, 2021 2 hours ago, Oldbear said: Now remember I have not lived in the UK for 12 years, but when I did I would watch the televised Challenge Cup games on the BBC. It always seemed then that the cameras would focus, pre game on a nearby (often derelict), mill, or the local pit head, depending upon where the game was coming from. That was the image being put out to a national audience, I’m not sure if that has changed much, if not then the old stereotype is still being reinforced. Our focus needs to be on the game, it’s exciting, players are fit and talented and it’s great to see, both live and on TV. Never forget your past, but don’t let it frame your future. It has changed massively , the picture you paint was from the 60/70s , you state the Challenge Cup , so potentially smaller clubs in older stadiums , did you recently watch the FA cup tie between Marine and Spurs ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUBRATS Posted February 2, 2021 Share Posted February 2, 2021 2 minutes ago, Eddie said: I think it is on the bbc personally. Sky not so much. Rubbish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddie Posted February 2, 2021 Share Posted February 2, 2021 4 minutes ago, GUBRATS said: Rubbish Just a personal opinion. Maybe as you live in the heartlands and I don’t I see it more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldbear Posted February 2, 2021 Share Posted February 2, 2021 9 minutes ago, GUBRATS said: It has changed massively , the picture you paint was from the 60/70s , you state the Challenge Cup , so potentially smaller clubs in older stadiums , did you recently watch the FA cup tie between Marine and Spurs ? I was thinking early to mid 80’s, right up to early Super League. Challenge Cup on BBC, games at Halifax, Cas, cue long distance panorama shot of pit winding gear or mill chimney, so definitely older stadiums. We only get Sky coverage here in BC so don’t really know how the BBC portrays the game anymore, and I say BBC because that’s where the casual viewers are more likely to come from, rather than Sky. As to second question I’m not and never really have been, a big soccer man, so don’t pay extra to get it here in Canada. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUBRATS Posted February 2, 2021 Share Posted February 2, 2021 4 minutes ago, Oldbear said: I was thinking early to mid 80’s, right up to early Super League. Challenge Cup on BBC, games at Halifax, Cas, cue long distance panorama shot of pit winding gear or mill chimney, so definitely older stadiums. We only get Sky coverage here in BC so don’t really know how the BBC portrays the game anymore, and I say BBC because that’s where the casual viewers are more likely to come from, rather than Sky. As to second question I’m not and never really have been, a big soccer man, so don’t pay extra to get it here in Canada. So 30/35 years ago ? , Yes , the pit and the mill ( the former my grandad worked at all his life and the latter my dad for a lot of his ) that stood behind the railway terrace at Leigh both went in the late 80s , but in no way is the game portrayed that way now , or for the last 20 odd years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddie Posted February 2, 2021 Share Posted February 2, 2021 3 minutes ago, GUBRATS said: So 30/35 years ago ? , Yes , the pit and the mill ( the former my grandad worked at all his life and the latter my dad for a lot of his ) that stood behind the railway terrace at Leigh both went in the late 80s , but in no way is the game portrayed that way now , or for the last 20 odd years Not specifically pits and mills now of course, but it is portrayed, by the bbc especially, as a rather quaint old fashioned northern sport from ex pit and mill towns, and quite frankly the rest of the country are never going to get on board with that. Maybe you don’t notice as you’re from the area, as I’ve moved away I do as it’s more unusual for me to see it. There is no need to mention that it’s a working class sport all the time any more either, it’s just a great game regardless of who has traditionally played it and pigeon holing it like that in the modern day is far too parochial, if the game wants to grow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert Prince Posted February 2, 2021 Share Posted February 2, 2021 4 hours ago, Oldbear said: Now remember I have not lived in the UK for 12 years, but when I did I would watch the televised Challenge Cup games on the BBC. It always seemed then that the cameras would focus, pre game on a nearby (often derelict), mill, or the local pit head, depending upon where the game was coming from. That was the image being put out to a national audience, I’m not sure if that has changed much, if not then the old stereotype is still being reinforced. Our focus needs to be on the game, it’s exciting, players are fit and talented and it’s great to see, both live and on TV. Never forget your past, but don’t let it frame your future. Ages ago we did have Eddie Waring and his dark satanic mills, and the challenge cup... and opposite that we had no amateur RU club coverage and just a few charming internationals, played by lawyers vets doctors and estate agents. And every now and again these strange All Blacks, made up of sheep farmers, came over and beat and trampled over (litetally) everyone. Today the All Blacks are worth 2 billion dollars. Things have changed. We have got a lot of catching up to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert Prince Posted February 2, 2021 Share Posted February 2, 2021 1 hour ago, Eddie said: Not specifically pits and mills now of course, but it is portrayed, by the bbc especially, as a rather quaint old fashioned northern sport from ex pit and mill towns, and quite frankly the rest of the country are never going to get on board with that. Maybe you don’t notice as you’re from the area, as I’ve moved away I do as it’s more unusual for me to see it. There is no need to mention that it’s a working class sport all the time any more either, it’s just a great game regardless of who has traditionally played it and pigeon holing it like that in the modern day is far too parochial, if the game wants to grow. Association Football grew in the midst of mills pits and pubs. It's not held up that. To be honest I don't think the BBC are portraying anything really. The game is hardly on the BBC. But yes indeed, the game needs to move on and in a positive way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zylya Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 On 01/02/2021 at 12:54, The Rocket said: Sky are quoting 1250 pound for " two cameras, graphics, quality commentator and guest analyst". " Second division matches will be free to view for current season ticket holders but will cost the wider public to view". So to break even, lets say at 10 pound per view, Sky would have to sell 125 views to break even. My thoughts were that if properly marketed by the two clubs involved within their local catchment, with RFL marketing on their sites and OurLeague they could attract easily more than this amount of paying viewers. This is not even considering if the RFL took on the production themselves through a sub-contractor, or even if they negotiated to pay extra to Sky to add extra `bells and whistles` to their coverage, i.e. ramped up the quality of the coverage, they might be able to attract a lot more viewers. This would be the RFL opportunity to present the games in a manner seen as more attractive to the audience. And therefore grow the audience of this competition. Good for sponsors, good for the clubs. The Championship has 189 regular season games and 6 playoff games for a total of 195 games. At £1250 per game, you're looking at less than £250k to film/broadcast every single game (£243,750 to be precise). Now, depending on how you look at it, you have several choices. I want to put aside the issue of the pandemic - so imagine that this is for the 2022 season so there's no "we have to give something for season ticket holders" angle. 1. Swallow the £250k as a marketing cost and make these games available on OurLeague. If you go down this route, it's probably also worth having some available as Facebook Live & YouTube Live streams to increase the reach - complete free to air. This will (hopefully) help you get eyeballs on the product, as well as drive signups to the OurLeague app. 2. Charge a membership fee for OurLeague coverage. At £3 per month (not entirely unreasonable, especially if you're a fan of one of the Championship Clubs) and therefore £36/year then you'd be looking at 6,771 people needed to break even - or if you look at it in terms of clubs, just under 500 supporters per club - this obviously assuming that you can't get any neutrals or casual fans interested. If you offer a free one-month trial, you'd need 7387 members (at £33 per year) but you might get more people to sign up than if you don't have a free trial. If you had a one-off payment of £40 for the whole season (rather than a monthly fee) then you'd need just over 6000 subscribers to break even. 3. At £1250 per game, you'd need 125 people per game at £10 each or 250 people per game at £5 each or 500 people per game at £2.50 each etc to break even over the course of the season. 4. Some combination of the above - perhaps a monthly membership or one-off season fee but with one game per round broadcast on YouTube or a free version on OurLeague. Another thought - you could also have a "playoff pass" where you could get access to all the playoff games toward the end of the season, so if you're interested in the business end of the season, you've got that option. Say, £15 for the 6 playoff games, since you're hoping they'd be the most exciting part of the season. For what it's worth, in terms of numbers, Championship had an average attendance of 2489 in 2019 and 1899 in 2018. So none of the numbers presented in terms of minimum subscribers are completely unreasonable. Now, before you start down that path, you'd need to decide which was more important - whether getting eyes on the product is the most important (in which case as much of it needs to be as free as possible) or whether generating revenue to cover the costs is the most important. In truth, you'd probably look to strike some sort of a balance - making sure that you had enough free content, especially on the major social platforms, to draw new people in. Having all of this video content would also allow the creation of highlights packages that clubs could use on their own social media. I know a lot of these already exist, but you're just trying to drive the maximum value from the content as possible. Even if you assigned £33,750 as marketing budget for free games, you could show one game per round for free and charge for all the rest, including every playoff game, recouping most of the money (and even turning a profit if you got more than the break-even points above). The number of people who could feasibly travel to a game is going to be a lot smaller than the reach that online streaming could have. For example, people who have moved away from the area for work or to another country but still have a love for their club are rarely, if ever, going to attend a game physically. But a £40 ticket to see their team play every game? You might get a customer there, and they're re-engaged in the game. Featherstone went over to Valencia a couple of years ago and made a good impression there - I wonder if anyone in Valencia might want to watch a few of their games. For that matter, loads of new countries are taking up Rugby League - imagine a cheap streaming service for (nearly) top flight RL for players and supporters in countries across Europe. A chance to see a higher level might be something they'd really go for, especially if there is little to no coverage of RL in their country. Likewise, the chance to create new fans and thereby increase merchandise sales etc is another potential upside, especially if clubs work on marketing their fixtures as well. So it wouldn't have to be limited to the existing Championship fans. Having more viewers would also likely increase the value of sponsorship across the Championship. I'm not suggesting that this is a magic fix - all my numbers are "back of a fag packet" but it's got to be worth looking into, right? Even if you did a limited test run for a season - just film one game per round, show some free on OurLeague and some on Facebook/YouTube/Twitch and see what kind of viewership you get. You'd then be able to iron out any kinks and ensure that it had a positive net benefit (since I know someone is going to ask about the impact on live attendance...) EDIT - just to satisfy my own curiosity, I had a check and in the 2019 RFL report, they say that have 130k members on OurLeague, which would mean around 5.2% of members signing up for the Premium version at £3/month would break even on the Championship. Also, the 2019 turnover was £22million so the £250k figure would represent 1% of turnover, so not an insignificant amount of money, but not a disproportionately large risk either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Rocket Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 2 minutes ago, zylya said: The Championship has 189 regular season games and 6 playoff games for a total of 195 games. At £1250 per game, you're looking at less than £250k to film/broadcast every single game (£243,750 to be precise). Now, depending on how you look at it, you have several choices. I want to put aside the issue of the pandemic - so imagine that this is for the 2022 season so there's no "we have to give something for season ticket holders" angle. 1. Swallow the £250k as a marketing cost and make these games available on OurLeague. If you go down this route, it's probably also worth having some available as Facebook Live & YouTube Live streams to increase the reach - complete free to air. This will (hopefully) help you get eyeballs on the product, as well as drive signups to the OurLeague app. 2. Charge a membership fee for OurLeague coverage. At £3 per month (not entirely unreasonable, especially if you're a fan of one of the Championship Clubs) and therefore £36/year then you'd be looking at 6,771 people needed to break even - or if you look at it in terms of clubs, just under 500 supporters per club - this obviously assuming that you can't get any neutrals or casual fans interested. If you offer a free one-month trial, you'd need 7387 members (at £33 per year) but you might get more people to sign up than if you don't have a free trial. If you had a one-off payment of £40 for the whole season (rather than a monthly fee) then you'd need just over 6000 subscribers to break even. 3. At £1250 per game, you'd need 125 people per game at £10 each or 250 people per game at £5 each or 500 people per game at £2.50 each etc to break even over the course of the season. 4. Some combination of the above - perhaps a monthly membership or one-off season fee but with one game per round broadcast on YouTube or a free version on OurLeague. Another thought - you could also have a "playoff pass" where you could get access to all the playoff games toward the end of the season, so if you're interested in the business end of the season, you've got that option. Say, £15 for the 6 playoff games, since you're hoping they'd be the most exciting part of the season. For what it's worth, in terms of numbers, Championship had an average attendance of 2489 in 2019 and 1899 in 2018. So none of the numbers presented in terms of minimum subscribers are completely unreasonable. Now, before you start down that path, you'd need to decide which was more important - whether getting eyes on the product is the most important (in which case as much of it needs to be as free as possible) or whether generating revenue to cover the costs is the most important. In truth, you'd probably look to strike some sort of a balance - making sure that you had enough free content, especially on the major social platforms, to draw new people in. Having all of this video content would also allow the creation of highlights packages that clubs could use on their own social media. I know a lot of these already exist, but you're just trying to drive the maximum value from the content as possible. Even if you assigned £33,750 as marketing budget for free games, you could show one game per round for free and charge for all the rest, including every playoff game, recouping most of the money (and even turning a profit if you got more than the break-even points above). The number of people who could feasibly travel to a game is going to be a lot smaller than the reach that online streaming could have. For example, people who have moved away from the area for work or to another country but still have a love for their club are rarely, if ever, going to attend a game physically. But a £40 ticket to see their team play every game? You might get a customer there, and they're re-engaged in the game. Featherstone went over to Valencia a couple of years ago and made a good impression there - I wonder if anyone in Valencia might want to watch a few of their games. For that matter, loads of new countries are taking up Rugby League - imagine a cheap streaming service for (nearly) top flight RL for players and supporters in countries across Europe. A chance to see a higher level might be something they'd really go for, especially if there is little to no coverage of RL in their country. Likewise, the chance to create new fans and thereby increase merchandise sales etc is another potential upside, especially if clubs work on marketing their fixtures as well. So it wouldn't have to be limited to the existing Championship fans. Having more viewers would also likely increase the value of sponsorship across the Championship. I'm not suggesting that this is a magic fix - all my numbers are "back of a fag packet" but it's got to be worth looking into, right? Even if you did a limited test run for a season - just film one game per round, show some free on OurLeague and some on Facebook/YouTube/Twitch and see what kind of viewership you get. You'd then be able to iron out any kinks and ensure that it had a positive net benefit (since I know someone is going to ask about the impact on live attendance...) Haven`t got time to read all of this now, I`ve got to go and do a bit of work, but I am really glad you followed up because I think this topic is worth exploring, the thread seemed to go off on a bit of a tangent about Sky and Super League. Had a quick scan though and I think your last paragraph was roughly in line with what I was thinking, especially if they just wanted to trial it with maybe two of the bigger Championship sides that could help with a bit of their own marketing. With regards your last sentence, I don`t think it`s uncommon for people to come home from a live game and like to watch a replay, I know that I do, if that can be done, on-demand or that sort of thing. Anyway mate thanks for the response will have a proper read later. Rocket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldbear Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 30 minutes ago, zylya said: For example, people who have moved away from the area for work or to another country but still have a love for their club are rarely, if ever, going to attend a game physically. But a £40 ticket to see their team play every game? You might get a customer there, and they're re-engaged in the game. EDIT - just to satisfy my own curiosity, I had a check and in the 2019 RFL report, they say that have 130k members on OurLeague, which would mean around 5.2% of members signing up for the Premium version at £3/month would break even on the Championship. Also, the 2019 turnover was £22million so the £250k figure would represent 1% of turnover, so not an insignificant amount of money, but not a disproportionately large risk either. That’s me, moved to Canada 12 years ago, only seen one live Thunder game since, the L1 playoff at Toronto. If a way can be found, I’d be up for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adelaide Tiger Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 I haven’t come across anything to the contrary so I assume that SL games will still have the Thursday and Friday night SKY slots. If so then post COVID I believe the game needs to more selective about the games it chooses to be televised to alter the perception of casual viewers. Therefore what I suggest is: Thursday Night ‘Battle of the Rivals’ - promoting the genuine and often bitter rivalry between teams. Shorter journey times hopefully will encourage increased attendance. What I am advocating is that teams do not travel over the Pennines on a Thursday nigh. It is non-sensical to have Cas supporters travelling over to say Salford on a Thursday when you could televise both games of Cas v Hull or the two Salford v Warrington fixtures. I am not advocating that the big derby games such as Wigan/Saints, Hull/HullKR, Warrington/Saints, Cas/Leeds etc that attract good attendances are played on a Thursday - they should be reserved for Friday nights. Friday Night is ‘Blockbuster Night’ that shows either the game of the round or a big local Derby Game. This does mean ‘manufacturing’ the fixture list but the objective is to create the perception to the casual viewer that all SL games are well attended. This does mean that no Catalans away games would be televised on a Thursday night, but they may be televised if their game is scheduled as a Blockbuster game due to league position. Another issue would be the short time period to rearrange dates of specific games to accomodate them on blockbuster night but that has happened over the years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldbear Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 13 minutes ago, Adelaide Tiger said: I haven’t come across anything to the contrary so I assume that SL games will still have the Thursday and Friday night SKY slots. If so then post COVID I believe the game needs to more selective about the games it chooses to be televised to alter the perception of casual viewers. Therefore what I suggest is: Thursday Night ‘Battle of the Rivals’ - promoting the genuine and often bitter rivalry between teams. Shorter journey times hopefully will encourage increased attendance. What I am advocating is that teams do not travel over the Pennines on a Thursday nigh. It is non-sensical to have Cas supporters travelling over to say Salford on a Thursday when you could televise both games of Cas v Hull or the two Salford v Warrington fixtures. I am not advocating that the big derby games such as Wigan/Saints, Hull/HullKR, Warrington/Saints, Cas/Leeds etc that attract good attendances are played on a Thursday - they should be reserved for Friday nights. Friday Night is ‘Blockbuster Night’ that shows either the game of the round or a big local Derby Game. This does mean ‘manufacturing’ the fixture list but the objective is to create the perception to the casual viewer that all SL games are well attended. This does mean that no Catalans away games would be televised on a Thursday night, but they may be televised if their game is scheduled as a Blockbuster game due to league position. Another issue would be the short time period to rearrange dates of specific games to accomodate them on blockbuster night but that has happened over the years. Not a bad idea, I agree that teams should not be travelling over the Pennines on a Thursday or even Friday (if possible) night. I do wonder what you do about Catalans home games though, plus how could this idea work should another outpost team (London, Newcastle, Toulouse) make it to SL? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newguy Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 4 hours ago, Rupert Prince said: Ages ago we did have Eddie Waring and his dark satanic mills, and the challenge cup... and opposite that we had no amateur RU club coverage and just a few charming internationals, played by lawyers vets doctors and estate agents. And every now and again these strange All Blacks, made up of sheep farmers, came over and beat and trampled over (litetally) everyone. Today the All Blacks are worth 2 billion dollars. Things have changed. We have got a lot of catching up to do. Some of ye olde All Blacks were dairy farmers too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Rocket Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 2 hours ago, zylya said: The Championship has 189 regular season games and 6 playoff games for a total of 195 games. At £1250 per game, you're looking at less than £250k to film/broadcast every single game (£243,750 to be precise). Now, depending on how you look at it, you have several choices. I want to put aside the issue of the pandemic - so imagine that this is for the 2022 season so there's no "we have to give something for season ticket holders" angle. 1. Swallow the £250k as a marketing cost and make these games available on OurLeague. If you go down this route, it's probably also worth having some available as Facebook Live & YouTube Live streams to increase the reach - complete free to air. This will (hopefully) help you get eyeballs on the product, as well as drive signups to the OurLeague app. 2. Charge a membership fee for OurLeague coverage. At £3 per month (not entirely unreasonable, especially if you're a fan of one of the Championship Clubs) and therefore £36/year then you'd be looking at 6,771 people needed to break even - or if you look at it in terms of clubs, just under 500 supporters per club - this obviously assuming that you can't get any neutrals or casual fans interested. If you offer a free one-month trial, you'd need 7387 members (at £33 per year) but you might get more people to sign up than if you don't have a free trial. If you had a one-off payment of £40 for the whole season (rather than a monthly fee) then you'd need just over 6000 subscribers to break even. 3. At £1250 per game, you'd need 125 people per game at £10 each or 250 people per game at £5 each or 500 people per game at £2.50 each etc to break even over the course of the season. 4. Some combination of the above - perhaps a monthly membership or one-off season fee but with one game per round broadcast on YouTube or a free version on OurLeague. Another thought - you could also have a "playoff pass" where you could get access to all the playoff games toward the end of the season, so if you're interested in the business end of the season, you've got that option. Say, £15 for the 6 playoff games, since you're hoping they'd be the most exciting part of the season. For what it's worth, in terms of numbers, Championship had an average attendance of 2489 in 2019 and 1899 in 2018. So none of the numbers presented in terms of minimum subscribers are completely unreasonable. Now, before you start down that path, you'd need to decide which was more important - whether getting eyes on the product is the most important (in which case as much of it needs to be as free as possible) or whether generating revenue to cover the costs is the most important. In truth, you'd probably look to strike some sort of a balance - making sure that you had enough free content, especially on the major social platforms, to draw new people in. Having all of this video content would also allow the creation of highlights packages that clubs could use on their own social media. I know a lot of these already exist, but you're just trying to drive the maximum value from the content as possible. Even if you assigned £33,750 as marketing budget for free games, you could show one game per round for free and charge for all the rest, including every playoff game, recouping most of the money (and even turning a profit if you got more than the break-even points above). The number of people who could feasibly travel to a game is going to be a lot smaller than the reach that online streaming could have. For example, people who have moved away from the area for work or to another country but still have a love for their club are rarely, if ever, going to attend a game physically. But a £40 ticket to see their team play every game? You might get a customer there, and they're re-engaged in the game. Featherstone went over to Valencia a couple of years ago and made a good impression there - I wonder if anyone in Valencia might want to watch a few of their games. For that matter, loads of new countries are taking up Rugby League - imagine a cheap streaming service for (nearly) top flight RL for players and supporters in countries across Europe. A chance to see a higher level might be something they'd really go for, especially if there is little to no coverage of RL in their country. Likewise, the chance to create new fans and thereby increase merchandise sales etc is another potential upside, especially if clubs work on marketing their fixtures as well. So it wouldn't have to be limited to the existing Championship fans. Having more viewers would also likely increase the value of sponsorship across the Championship. I'm not suggesting that this is a magic fix - all my numbers are "back of a fag packet" but it's got to be worth looking into, right? Even if you did a limited test run for a season - just film one game per round, show some free on OurLeague and some on Facebook/YouTube/Twitch and see what kind of viewership you get. You'd then be able to iron out any kinks and ensure that it had a positive net benefit (since I know someone is going to ask about the impact on live attendance...) EDIT - just to satisfy my own curiosity, I had a check and in the 2019 RFL report, they say that have 130k members on OurLeague, which would mean around 5.2% of members signing up for the Premium version at £3/month would break even on the Championship. Also, the 2019 turnover was £22million so the £250k figure would represent 1% of turnover, so not an insignificant amount of money, but not a disproportionately large risk either. Absolute gold Zylya, there`s a lot of sense in that post. Initially when I read the OP I thought that this is an opportunity for the RFL to take their destiny into their own hands. If you are talking about the 2022 season then perhaps the 1250 pound Sky offer to produce games would not stand but it may give a rough rule of thumb of what you get for that amount of money. I know that a lot of Universities and Colleges run `Film and Television Schools` over here and imagine you have the same, perhaps they could tender or it might be interesting of what they may provide gratis. I know that our Government is very big on Tertiary sector and Private sector collaboration (could be Grants available) and some of these outfits might have some new and innovative ideas they would like to try out in a real time setting. Could be interesting. With your comments regards international audiences there was an article in the paper over here last year by Roy Masters who commented that the NRL views its` worldwide NRL platform `watchNRLcom` as a money making venture in developing countries at the expense of development. Its` $US149 price tag for a season pricing many developing League countries out of the market. The example that Masters used was Jamaica, who have qualified for the RLWC, but with an average income of $US193/month or are students, they simply cannot afford that amount of money. The end result being your average Jamaican player couldn`t name 4 NRL or Super League clubs. Even worse Jamaican coach Romeo Monteith said: " Most times when new players join the sport and I send them to watch games on YouTube, they end up watching union clips and 7`s games which are readily available." So anything that could provide these audiences with relatively high level League would be fantastic. I think Championship level League would more than suffice. There was a release during the year by the RFL announcing the 150 000 subscriber of OurLeague so this is something they are definitely looking to grow. All your ideas do not even consider the prospect that the clubs could market this in their local media like newspapers, radio etc. and when I see that other thread about Martin Shaw taking a prominent role in a media group, all these things represent possibilities. Seriously mate you should print out a copy of your post and address it direct to the Head of the RFL, Ralph Rimmer I think, you can`t muck around with good ideas you have to aim high, just to let you know many years ago I wrote a letter to John Quayle head of the NSWRL back then, before NRL, he wrote back and thanked me, it`s worth a try. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fighting irish Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 5 hours ago, The Rocket said: Seriously mate you should print out a copy of your post and address it direct to the Head of the RFL, Ralph Rimmer I think, you can`t muck around with good ideas you have to aim high, just to let you know many years ago I wrote a letter to John Quayle head of the NSWRL back then, before NRL, he wrote back and thanked me, it`s worth a try. I've seen so many good ideas generated on this forum Rocket and I agree with you, that the post you refer to is worthy of being promoted. I wonder, how many (forum generated ideas) are actually forwarded to the RFL/SL and then, what proportion of those are given any real consideration. A hundred good ideas generated - 10 sent on to RFL - 2 read and given any serious thought. - 0 implemented??? As a group, we should crank up they 100/10 ratio. Maybe then, we'll get the last number off ground zero. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bedfordshire Bronco Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 13 hours ago, GUBRATS said: Not by the use of pit heads and mills it isn't , most stadia are modern and quality , it's a vibrant sport , regional yes , but not old fashioned , it's nonsense to suggest it is still portrayed as it was in the 60/70s I'd say when the BBC show internationals / CC the potential is for it to be seen as an exciting and attractive spectacle Obviously hard for me to be objective but it 'feels' exciting when it's on terrestrial.... I am sure the average punter sees it as such Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.