2 Year TV Deal

[RP London]

I think the real argument that shows why BBC is better for us than ITV would is this: 

Highway ran from the early 80s to the early 90s on ITV

Songs of Praise is still going... 

we NEED to be on the BBC or we'll just be a nice man singing hymns on his own in a field.. 

(I may have got lost on this thread).. 

[Spidey]

1 hour ago, Saint Toppy said:

That's not what I said at all - talk about completely missing the point !!!

It doesn't matter how big your potential audience is if the broadcaster doesn't promote the sport in order to attract larger numbers of their viewers to it. The Beeb could have a billion viewers but you wouldn't get any more people watching the game than they have now if they don't tell those billion viewers about us.

RL has always been the poor relation compared to other sports on the Beeb. For instance Yawnion receives a disproportionate amount of promotion compared to the actual viewing figures they receive.

Much better to have a smaller potential audience with someone like ITV but have our sport promoted fully to all of them to attract new viewers, than to have a bigger potential audience on the Beeb but hardly any of them know about our game. Just so you actually get it, lets put that into numbers. If there were say an overall viewing audience of 50M, and the Beeb gets 31% of that, so there's a potential audience of 15.5M. Their lack of promotion means they're only likely to reach a small percentage of those 15.5M. ITV gets 24% (approx 12M) but the extra promotion then reaches a significantly larger number of the 12M. Whichever way you look at it a high percentage of 12M is far better than a low percentage of 15.5M and it likely to bring in far more new fans.

Where’s your data around volumes of promotion on the Beeb, you claim there’s more for RU but its that subjective I doubt you can quantify it other than your impression of it

The Beeb have delivered consistent viewing figures for RL that outways anything that Sky have delivered, you’d risk that starting point around an assumption that ITV would suddenly promote more, what’s that based on?

Whos to say they wouldn’t hide us away on ITV4, like I’m sure they do with the darts for instance 

 

[JohnM]

35 minutes ago, RP London said:

I think the real argument that shows why BBC is better for us than ITV would is this: 

Highway ran from the early 80s to the early 90s on ITV

Songs of Praise is still going... 

we NEED to be on the BBC or we'll just be a nice man singing hymns on his own in a field.. 

(I may have got lost on this thread).. 

But we also need an income. It seems to me that FTA leads to lower crowds. 

[Saint Toppy]

28 minutes ago, Spidey said:

Where’s your data around volumes of promotion on the Beeb, you claim there’s more for RU but its that subjective I doubt you can quantify it other than your impression of it

The Beeb have delivered consistent viewing figures for RL that outways anything that Sky have delivered, you’d risk that starting point around an assumption that ITV would suddenly promote more, what’s that based on?

Whos to say they wouldn’t hide us away on ITV4, like I’m sure they do with the darts for instance 

 

Things like the Yawnion 6N gets week & weeks of build up with continual adverts telling us its coming soon on the Beeb. When have you ever seen anything remotely like that for the CC Final which is RL's showpiece event thats shown on the Beeb ?

Every news broadcast when they reach the sports section, RL is almost always the last sport covered unless its some particularly newsworthy story thats happened such as some scandal. It almost always starts with football, followed by Yawnion, Golf, Athletics or F1

[Eddie]

17 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

Things like the Yawnion 6N gets week & weeks of build up with continual adverts telling us its coming soon on the Beeb. When have you ever seen anything remotely like that for the CC Final which is RL's showpiece event thats shown on the Beeb ?

Every news broadcast when they reach the sports section, RL is almost always the last sport covered unless its some particularly newsworthy story thats happened such as some scandal. It almost always starts with football, followed by Yawnion, Golf, Athletics or F1

And golf and F1 (as well as snooker and arguably cricket) aren’t even sports. 

[RP London]

22 minutes ago, JohnM said:

But we also need an income. It seems to me that FTA leads to lower crowds. 

This is where it gets really tough especially with Rugby League. If we want to appeal to the nation we need more FTA coverage for people to stumble upon us and then get moved to Sky to watch more.. those people not being able to get to games etc. This can lead to a rising of the tide for everyone and better sponsorship and so on and so forth. However, it could mean a small drop in the crowds too.. so there would be some pain. 

Personally I think FTA is worth more than we will lose especially if it is only 1 match a week, and you rotate the clubs involved.. that coupled with the challenge cup, highlights and internationals should give us better coverage and rise the profile in the national consciousness more. 

pay tv is great but its the old argument that you need to know its there to care its there.. I think SKY are starting to see that and hence they are not necessarily looking for exclusivity so much or are happy to put on their own FTA channels (Cricket was one example I seem to remember of actually helping when it was also FTA).

Didnt French RL miss out because they shunned TV thinking exactly as your post mentions, and it nearly wiped them out as other sports took over? We need to be careful and I think the balance seems about right here IMHO

[Rupert Prince]

1 hour ago, gingerjon said:

Isn't Jason Robinson a born again Christian?

There's a crossover angle for us to try in this World Cup year.

Well Alec Murphy was the the devil incarnate

[emesssea]

On 28/04/2021 at 02:56, Eddie said:

Our League and YouTube will never attract new fans, it’s people channel hopping and landing on RL that will do that, being on some inane freeview channel like Challenge or Pick TV would be preferable to Sky’s YouTube channel imho. 

Some youtubers uploading full Super League and NRL matches and them popping up on my youtube page is the reason I now pay 140 dollars a year and stay up well past midnight to watch the NRL. Anecdotal evidence I know, but I can't be the only one who found a new interest via non-traditional media formats.

Without youtube, I would still be thinking rugby league is a less popular version of union since its only played in Northern England (didn't even know about NRL at the time).

[Tommygilf]

 

[wiganermike]

4 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

 

Good news. The money distributed below SL will obviously not be at the same level as it was but the continuation of at least some central funds could mean the difference between some clubs existing or not existing even though the model for the competitions below SL is likely to be drastically different.

[Dave T]

18 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

 

Some good detail in there, confirms the additional coverage by Sky which is an outstanding part of the deal, and must genuinely be worth a couple of million at least. 

If this all comes off, for the first time in SL we will have:

- Every game available to watch live

- Live SL on another channel (hopefully BBC) 

- Video refs at every game

This is worthy of a lot of positivity.... 

[Spidey]

17 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Some good detail in there, confirms the additional coverage by Sky which is an outstanding part of the deal, and must genuinely be worth a couple of million at least. 

If this all comes off, for the first time in SL we will have:

- Every game available to watch live

- Live SL on another channel (hopefully BBC) 

- Video refs at every game

This is worthy of a lot of positivity.... 

If all games are available live, hopefully no clashes/overlaps

[Maximus Decimus]

21 hours ago, Spidey said:

Where’s your data around volumes of promotion on the Beeb, you claim there’s more for RU but its that subjective I doubt you can quantify it other than your impression of it

The Beeb have delivered consistent viewing figures for RL that outways anything that Sky have delivered, you’d risk that starting point around an assumption that ITV would suddenly promote more, what’s that based on?

Whos to say they wouldn’t hide us away on ITV4, like I’m sure they do with the darts for instance 

 

And Darts is something that doesn't need the viewing figures. It's the second most watched sport on Sky. 

[M j M]

2 minutes ago, Spidey said:

If all games are available live, hopefully no clashes/overlaps

That's probably impossible and financially undesirable  but if we have three or four televised each round (including Saturday late afternoons from France) with the rest available for sale by streaming then it would be a big step forward.

[Maximus Decimus]

20 hours ago, RP London said:

This is where it gets really tough especially with Rugby League. If we want to appeal to the nation we need more FTA coverage for people to stumble upon us and then get moved to Sky to watch more.. those people not being able to get to games etc. This can lead to a rising of the tide for everyone and better sponsorship and so on and so forth. However, it could mean a small drop in the crowds too.. so there would be some pain. 

Personally I think FTA is worth more than we will lose especially if it is only 1 match a week, and you rotate the clubs involved.. that coupled with the challenge cup, highlights and internationals should give us better coverage and rise the profile in the national consciousness more. 

pay tv is great but its the old argument that you need to know its there to care its there.. I think SKY are starting to see that and hence they are not necessarily looking for exclusivity so much or are happy to put on their own FTA channels (Cricket was one example I seem to remember of actually helping when it was also FTA).

Didnt French RL miss out because they shunned TV thinking exactly as your post mentions, and it nearly wiped them out as other sports took over? We need to be careful and I think the balance seems about right here IMHO

FTA is great if your product is good. I don't think the Challenge Cup wins us many fans at the moment because the product looks like something that few people care about. 

[Spidey]

1 minute ago, M j M said:

That's probably impossible and financially undesirable  but if we have three or four televised each round (including Saturday late afternoons from France) with the rest available for sale by streaming then it would be a big step forward.

I don't see it as impossible, 6 games over Thu-Sun is easily achievable, the NRL do a decent job of that

The financials will be the one to look into, however if we're serious about getting decent revenue in from TV / streaming we need to adapt

[Dave T]

Just now, Spidey said:

I don't see it as impossible, 6 games over Thu-Sun is easily achievable, the NRL do a decent job of that

The financials will be the one to look into, however if we're serious about getting decent revenue in from TV / streaming we need to adapt

I think even if we abandoned Sunday I'd try and make that work. Thurs 8pm, Fri 8pm, Sat 1pm, 3pm, 6pm, 8pm could work.

Allows for multiple games to be watched per weekend. We need to take this kind of thing seriously and not just load games on a Friday night.

[M j M]

1 minute ago, Spidey said:

I don't see it as impossible, 6 games over Thu-Sun is easily achievable, the NRL do a decent job of that

The financials will be the one to look into, however if we're serious about getting decent revenue in from TV / streaming we need to adapt

It's practical from a scheduling  perspective but the revenues available from streaming or whatever for the third or fourth - rank rights are unlikely to make it close to financially viable to move non-televised games away from Friday nights or Sunday afternoons.

[Man of Kent]

3 minutes ago, Spidey said:

I don't see it as impossible, 6 games over Thu-Sun is easily achievable, the NRL do a decent job of that

The financials will be the one to look into, however if we're serious about getting decent revenue in from TV / streaming we need to adapt

I hate the scheduling of Super League. Too often it seems all over by Friday night, just as the weekend gets going.

[Spidey]

1 minute ago, M j M said:

It's practical from a scheduling  perspective but the revenues available from streaming or whatever for the third or fourth - rank rights are unlikely to make it close to financially viable to move non-televised games away from Friday nights or Sunday afternoons.

One other thing to consider, now that Sky are providing production of all of the games, there may be a limit on how many games can take place at once

[Spidey]

4 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I think even if we abandoned Sunday I'd try and make that work. Thurs 8pm, Fri 8pm, Sat 1pm, 3pm, 6pm, 8pm could work.

Allows for multiple games to be watched per weekend. We need to take this kind of thing seriously and not just load games on a Friday night.

I like that as I can still rock up to Widnes for our weekly bashing on a Sunday and not miss the proper rugby in Super League

[gingerjon]

6 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I think even if we abandoned Sunday I'd try and make that work. Thurs 8pm, Fri 8pm, Sat 1pm, 3pm, 6pm, 8pm could work.

Allows for multiple games to be watched per weekend. We need to take this kind of thing seriously and not just load games on a Friday night.

So, pretty much what the Championship is now doing every weekend?

[Maximus Decimus]

I haven't read the whole thread, and in fact I haven't followed sport that closely for a while so I come at it from a slightly different perspective. 

Personally, the idea that Elstone is largely to blame for the reduced money is very mistaken. The game has been on a downward curve for sometime, and some form of reduction has been an inevitability at some point. Sky weren't always going to keep stabilising or upping the deal just because we wanted them to, especially when they were the only serious bidder. I remember seeing the viewing figures with concern when they created the new channel layout and we were put on Sky Action and Arena; they certainly seemed a lot lower than previously.

If I'm honest, the sport's decline has been something of an inevitability for most of my life. We seemingly arrested this decline around the first decade of the century when crowds were booming at the bigger clubs. However, and I made this point at the time, we were only creating a smaller number of big clubs. At the same time as this apparent boom, RL was effectively slowly disappearing from places where it previously had a decent presence; also the geographical spread was reducing. Even a quick glance of the first SL table demonstrates this. It contains 3 clubs where pro-RL has been reduced from a club similar to Salford or Wakey to a club with a few hundred fans (Oldham, Workington, Sheffield). Importantly, these places haven't been replaced we just have an ever smaller number of them. Also at the same time, media profile continued to decline. 

This isn't nice to hear, and it gives me great sadness but I do believe it is true. I can remember being in school in 1997, and the PE teacher made an offhand comment about how in her opinion RL won't exist in 10 years or so. At the time, I remember arguing with her about how Wigan had just sold out a home game in the cup and I've since thought about it and how wrong she was. Another way to look at it is that she only got the timescales wrong - she was looking at the wider sporting landscape and seeing that RL couldn't compete long-term. This is why I don't blame any single administrator for our woes. Sure they've made some disastrous errors over the years (WCC 97, WC 2000, Gateshead, Celtic Crusaders, Top 8 Playoffs, constant structure tinkering etc) but these are largely inconsequential to the bigger picture.

I liken it to a game of Monopoly. There comes a point where most of the properties are gone and you carry on playing despite knowing which players are eventually going to win out due to what they own. British team sport is like that. Football is the player with Mayfair, Park Lane and most of the green properties with an even distribution across the rest. RU has a green and a smattering of yellows and reds. The best RL has is Bow Street and Pall Mall. It's been this way for a long time, and the reasons RL has been losing out are based on decisions and events made in the distant past. In an age of global sport, big events, money and fame RL had little chance.

To end on a positive note. I once won a game of Monopoly where my best property was Bow Street...

 

[Maximus Decimus]

With regards to the TV deal, I like the fact that it is only for 2 years. Hopefully by then Covid will be as good as over and the game will be in a stronger position to renegotiate back to where it was.

Alternatively, it could allow us to be picked up elsewhere and in a quickly changing landscape this could be beneficial. I'm thinking of a platform like DAZN. They've recently announced a big deal with Matchroom boxing, and have signalled their intent to go for other rights like the Premier League. RL could benefit from an up and coming platform trying to build it's portfolio, and then giving the sport more attention than it currently gets. Whether you're pro-Sky or not, they clearly go through the motions with RL and have for some time.

[M j M]

2 hours ago, Dave T said:

I think even if we abandoned Sunday I'd try and make that work. Thurs 8pm, Fri 8pm, Sat 1pm, 3pm, 6pm, 8pm could work.

Allows for multiple games to be watched per weekend. We need to take this kind of thing seriously and not just load games on a Friday night.

I think Leeds would need to be taking something like £75k a match in streaming or other revenue streams to compensate them for not playing on Friday nights. We need to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater here.