Bernard Guasch announces an imminent agreement with a major TV channel

[Big Picture]

49 minutes ago, JohnM said:

So the Dragons are paying. Isn't that the sort of thing that comes under the heading "investment", something that has been  theme on here? 

And from what I recall that makes it not as good as the deal knocked back by Robert Elstone last year which reportedly would have paid them the same as the previous deal, 70,000 € a year.

[Dave T]

52 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

And from what I recall that makes it not as good as the deal knocked back by Robert Elstone last year which reportedly would have paid them the same as the previous deal, 70,000 € a year.

No, it was explained a fair bit on here by our knowledgeable posters that Catalans had to pay if they wanted coverage last year. 

The terms were worse last year than the previous year, that's why there was no deal. 

[Tommygilf]

5 hours ago, Dave T said:

I'm not sure there has been as much of a shift as you suggest, but happy to be corrected. Ultimately, this has been the way for a long time with international sports and tournaments that are being syndicated around the world.

The likes of the Premier League decided that they wanted to operate like that as they then control the content and can sell this internationally to their huge markets. RU Prem have done a similar thing, but it'd be interesting to see whether this has led to an increase in TV rights as it should bearing in mind they now pay the costs.

But generally it will be a production company that produces the content, it just depends who pays the bill. Either you give the rights and control to the broadcaster or you keep it yourself and retain more control. Ultimately, somebody pays the bill. 

In SL's case, it is probably difficult to justify retaining production from Sky unless you have a product that others want to buy - and as we can see in France, they don't. 

Sky may have £5m production costs per year for RL, but if we did it in house and covered every game then that more than doubles. You then have to work out how to get that additional £5 or £6m per year from additional games you have to sell.

I know I'm waffling, but what I'm saying is that the model isn't outdated - it is just a question of who pays the production company - those sports that can resell the content widely tend to keep their rights, I think RL's is too much of a gamble and that is why it hasn't happened. 

Tbf I guess by only having a couple of games a week broadcast, (or at least filmed to broadcast quality) we are closer to Scottish Premiership than Premier League. I know which way the future is going though (following the US sports).

I suppose it gives the league more control over broadcasts too and the ability to drive content across all media channels much more rapidly. For example we'd be in a far stronger position to advocate/bargain for a permanent Sky Sports Rugby League channel if we had 6 Super League and 8 NRL games each week to broadcast. Alternatively we'd be better positioned to offer weekly rounds to an FTA partner, say the BBC or Channel 4, as an effective loss leader investment whilst the bulk of broadcasts remained on a subscription service(s). 

Catalans are an obvious stumbling block here, but with Toulouse in the League a home French side would be guaranteed each weekend.

Look at it this way, the likes of Amazon didn't buy rights to the Premier League so they could then hire a 12 man camera team for a couple of evenings a year. Having that production cost in house makes the product much more attractive to broadcasters simply because it means it is available with minimal additional investment, its easy.

How much more attractive (and valuable) is a valid question. However, Sky were willing to show every game in the first 2 rounds if they were kept in the same venue to minimise their costs, suggesting that its as much a financial balancing act for them than a practical one. If Super League took away that direct cost implication, there's nothing to suggest Sky wouldn't be open to more content and Super League’s flexibility when football moves back to its traditional 3pm Saturday blackout etc could be an attractive proposal. 

[Dave T]

8 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

Tbf I guess by only having a couple of games a week broadcast, (or at least filmed to broadcast quality) we are closer to Scottish Premiership than Premier League. I know which way the future is going though (following the US sports).

I suppose it gives the league more control over broadcasts too and the ability to drive content across all media channels much more rapidly. For example we'd be in a far stronger position to advocate/bargain for a permanent Sky Sports Rugby League channel if we had 6 Super League and 8 NRL games each week to broadcast. Alternatively we'd be better positioned to offer weekly rounds to an FTA partner, say the BBC or Channel 4, as an effective loss leader investment whilst the bulk of broadcasts remained on a subscription service(s). 

Catalans are an obvious stumbling block here, but with Toulouse in the League a home French side would be guaranteed each weekend.

Look at it this way, the likes of Amazon didn't buy rights to the Premier League so they could then hire a 12 man camera team for a couple of evenings a year. Having that production cost in house makes the product much more attractive to broadcasters simply because it means it is available with minimal additional investment, its easy.

How much more attractive (and valuable) is a valid question. However, Sky were willing to show every game in the first 2 rounds if they were kept in the same venue to minimise their costs, suggesting that its as much a financial balancing act for them than a practical one. If Super League took away that direct cost implication, there's nothing to suggest Sky wouldn't be open to more content and Super League’s flexibility when football moves back to its traditional 3pm Saturday blackout etc could be an attractive proposal. 

But they don't have these things in-house, they just pay someone. A quick Google search shows you who are being used. RU premiership don't have their own production teams, they contract it out. 

In normal times BT Sport are showing around 70 or 80 RU Prem games, a similar deal to SL. If they went with a traditional setup, only these games would be produced. By RU retaining production and getting somebody to produce it for them they get all 6 games a week produced allowing them to sell them on. 

That's the reason they are doing it, because they want every game produced and able to sell. 

In a perfect world RL would absolutely do this, the challenge is it is a substantial cost and we need to be confident that we can tap into new markets to sell these extra games too. 

On your last para - it doesn't make sense. Sky are about the cost. If we strip £5m of their costs out, we would need to charge them that £5m to cover it. If we covered more games we would have an even higher cost. 

Sky pay us £40m at the moment, their investment may actually be £45m. Taking those costs in house (and then doubling them) has to be paid by somebody. 

The NRL recently highlighted that the broadcasters pick up the costs over there which is worth c$50m per year. 

I do still think this is what we should be looking at by the way, just adding context around why it isn't a no brainer, and this is why I'd be doing everything I could to cultivate value in international markets like Oz, NZ, France (and Europe) for SL. If you can get a small number of millions each year, this could pay for this. 

However, if it doesn't pay for itself, and then go on to drive many additional millions, I'm afraid it is just a vanity project. 

[audois]

“I would like to thank our English Sky Sports partners for understanding the need to broadcast the competition and in particular our club on a French channel. The return of our historic partner and broadcaster beIN SPORTS is excellent news for our supporters and partners, who, during this difficult period, will be able to follow our matches in France and England, regardless of the measures taken in the stadiums. Media exposure was an essential subject for our private and public partners and I believe that we have met their expectations with this agreement. It will be a significant financial investment for the club, but the end justifies the means. Thank you to all the people who got involved in this negotiation, in Perpignan, Paris, London or Manchester. »Bernard Guasch President of the Dragons.