2 Year TV Deal

[wiganermike]

1 hour 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.

The two main obstacles to such a schedule are that 1) Wigan, Hull FC and Huddersfield share with pro football clubs and so Saturday games will often not be possible or practical for those three (The same may also apply to Salford and Leigh as they also ground share). With only two non-Saturday slots it would be awkward fitting those clubs' fixtures into the schedule each week. And 2) that some clubs find Friday night fixtures more advantageous in terms of bringing in revenue from corporate and general attendance when compared to fixtures on other days and would be reluctant to sacrifice a chunk of their income. I think we would just have to accept that some fixtures will clash if all are televised or streamed. The NRL can afford to take the hit to gate money and corporate income by scheduling to suit TV due to the massive income from their rights deals. Over here we just don't get anywhere near enough money from selling the rights to allow our clubs that luxury.

[Dave T]

4 hours ago, M j M said:

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.

I get that, although that number sounds on the high side - but the numbers would need to be worked through. 

Ultimately things need to change as the value for 2 live games per week has gone down substantially for the first time in 25 years (maybe apart from that 2nd contract adjustment). We may need to make an adjustment to become a full TV sport. That doesn't sit too comfortably with me as I don't like the way the NRL has relied on TV money at the expense of bums on seats, but I do think the only way we will start to add real value is by staging games at better times. 

Leed may now reduce their income by £75k if a game moves from Fri to Sat in the current climate, but if regular games are Saturdays then new plans need to be put in place. 

[Dave T]

4 hours ago, wiganermike said:

The two main obstacles to such a schedule are that 1) Wigan, Hull FC and Huddersfield share with pro football clubs and so Saturday games will often not be possible or practical for those three (The same may also apply to Salford and Leigh as they also ground share). With only two non-Saturday slots it would be awkward fitting those clubs' fixtures into the schedule each week. And 2) that some clubs find Friday night fixtures more advantageous in terms of bringing in revenue from corporate and general attendance when compared to fixtures on other days and would be reluctant to sacrifice a chunk of their income. I think we would just have to accept that some fixtures will clash if all are televised or streamed. The NRL can afford to take the hit to gate money and corporate income by scheduling to suit TV due to the massive income from their rights deals. Over here we just don't get anywhere near enough money from selling the rights to allow our clubs that luxury.

We can design our sport to be whatever we want it to be, if we want to try and maximise ourselves as a TV sport, then clashes are problematic, if we are comfortable trying to sell a couple of games a week plus getting a few quid from streaming then we can carry on as we are. 

But tough decisions will need to be made. We can add in Sunday as a day which would resolve the issues, but all clubs just deciding that Friday suits them really isn't showing strategic thinking that's going to change anything. 

[Tommygilf]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

We can design our sport to be whatever we want it to be, if we want to try and maximise ourselves as a TV sport, then clashes are problematic, if we are comfortable trying to sell a couple of games a week plus getting a few quid from streaming then we can carry on as we are. 

But tough decisions will need to be made. We can add in Sunday as a day which would resolve the issues, but all clubs just deciding that Friday suits them really isn't showing strategic thinking that's going to change anything. 

I don't think it would be beyond Super League to do what the NRL do and have Leeds play the majority of their home games on Friday nights.

Without checking, Leeds might well be the only club who, if given the choice, played Friday nights all the time - only rarely if ever moving to Thursdays or Sundays.

[Rugbyleaguesupporter]

Streaming must be handled with care to not obliterate matchday revenue. 

Sky will show games when they want. I hope they drop Thur but if they don't then Thur and Fri Sky and 1 game either Sat pm we presume on bbc or Sat evening on sky (catalans) 

Most weeks 3 games to be streamed.Really careful balance here to be drawn but if all 3 were played on Sunday- possible to do: 

1pm, 3pm, 5pm-£20 for all 3.

I could see 5k buys so £100k a week- which over a season would be around £2m after VAT 

I think £20 a weekend provides balance between attending and extra revenue.

[latchford albion]

Sorry, nothing to do with the TV deal, but if we're talking about BBC promotion of the sport the snooker coverage has just had Luke Gale promoting the World Cup and doing it very well.

[wiganermike]

On 30/04/2021 at 19:22, Tommygilf said:

I don't think it would be beyond Super League to do what the NRL do and have Leeds play the majority of their home games on Friday nights.

Without checking, Leeds might well be the only club who, if given the choice, played Friday nights all the time - only rarely if ever moving to Thursdays or Sundays.

Wigan have played on Friday nights for years now. There will be the odd Sunday game often due to the ground sharing issue or to be marketed as something like a Family Day but these are poorly attended compared to the Friday games and the club have stated that they prefer to have Friday as the regular game day. Unless moving due to TV Wigan like Leeds will play Friday.

Unless there was a significant increase in income for the rights I doubt we will see a situation like with the NRL coverage over here. I doubt as well whether the viewing figures or the advertising income from SL games would be of a sufficient level for it to be attractive to broadcasters. Two/three on TV and the rest on Our League is probably the most we can hope for unless income increased significantly.

[Spidey]

6 hours ago, wiganermike said:

Wigan have played on Friday nights for years now. There will be the odd Sunday game often due to the ground sharing issue or to be marketed as something like a Family Day but these are poorly attended compared to the Friday games and the club have stated that they prefer to have Friday as the regular game day. Unless moving due to TV Wigan like Leeds will play Friday.

Unless there was a significant increase in income for the rights I doubt we will see a situation like with the NRL coverage over here. I doubt as well whether the viewing figures or the advertising income from SL games would be of a sufficient level for it to be attractive to broadcasters. Two/three on TV and the rest on Our League is probably the most we can hope for unless income increased significantly.

It’s not just about Wigan or Leeds, this is about the whole game. Everybody needs to adapt to the change

[M j M]

2 hours ago, Spidey said:

It’s not just about Wigan or Leeds, this is about the whole game. Everybody needs to adapt to the change

When it comes to the fourth-sixth choice games we're in this to maximise revenue streams. If these games are going to be streamed or similar rather than televised it will be a long time before the revenues come close to making it financially desirable to move kick off times away from those which make the most money from actual supporters and corporates at the grounds. Just doing something because it sounds like it might be neat and tidy doesn't make it a worthwhile idea.

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

On 30/04/2021 at 12:18, Maximus Decimus said:

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...

 

People have written the game off at various times for 125 years. It is in far better shape now than it has been for large parts of it's history 

The main threat for me is the same threat union faces. The head injury debate is putting many parents off letting kids play. If you never play the game it's much less likely you'll be a long term fan

I think both codes will exist in 30 years but both will be very different/diminished games with a lot less people playing it. 

[HawkMan]

1 hour ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

 

The main threat for me is the same threat union faces. The head injury debate is putting many parents off letting kids play. If you never play the game it's much less likely you'll be a long term fan

 

A bit of a personal question I know , sorry, but you've previously said you have kids,  so do you worry about your kids playing assuming they want to. If one of them said they would rather play football would would you be okay with that.

Slightly off topic- my brother for his sins is a Union fan and detests football,  never had it on tv in the house , until one day when I visited it was on because his youngest was upset at not being able to join the classroom chatter with mates about the weekend PL matches, so he relented,  and now his son likes football and won't watch Yawnion. My bro did the right thing parentally speaking,  but isn't happy. Oh well.

[JM2010]

6 minutes ago, HawkMan said:

A bit of a personal question I know , sorry, but you've previously said you have kids,  so do you worry about your kids playing assuming they want to. If one of them said they would rather play football would would you be okay with that.

Slightly off topic- my brother for his sins is a Union fan and detests football,  never had it on tv in the house , until one day when I visited it was on because his youngest was upset at not being able to join the classroom chatter with mates about the weekend PL matches, so he relented,  and now his son likes football and won't watch Yawnion. My bro did the right thing parentally speaking,  but isn't happy. Oh well.

I feel the pain. Mine isn't interested in RL, Union or Football. I've made my peace with it now

[Rugbyleaguesupporter]

4 hours ago, M j M said:

When it comes to the fourth-sixth choice games we're in this to maximise revenue streams. If these games are going to be streamed or similar rather than televised it will be a long time before the revenues come close to making it financially desirable to move kick off times away from those which make the most money from actual supporters and corporates at the grounds. Just doing something because it sounds like it might be neat and tidy doesn't make it a worthwhile idea.

Agreed.

Some very careful thought required. 

I guess discussions over revenue split from streaming will be interesting. 

Shooting from the hip I think ST holders should get free home stream if they can't make the match (not clear if this would apply to Sky games- press release says exclusive but numbers so small it may be possible).

I still think £20 for matches 4 to 6 would be clever- whenever these are played. 

[wiganermike]

11 hours ago, Spidey said:

It’s not just about Wigan or Leeds, this is about the whole game. Everybody needs to adapt to the change

I was merely pointing out that Wigan, like Leeds play on Fridays as it is the most financially lucrative time for the club to play fixtures. Other clubs will reap the most benefit from playing games on a particular day and time slot. That's why all clubs have a regular game day that they use unless having to move for TV. With only two games per week (Catalans' home games aside) currently being televised all clubs are able to use their most financially advantageous slot for home games more often than not. The money from the deal with Sky brings in a sufficient amount to not impact club finances too heavily when moving games under the current scheduling requirements as each club won't often have to sacrifice gate and corporate income by moving their fixtures. Should a situation arise where all games were being broadcast then all clubs would have to move from their most lucrative day/time much more often and so income from the rights would need to increase by an amount per club sufficient to prevent the change impacting the clubs. Obviously for a commercially successful club like Leeds the shortfall caused by switching days is likely to be much higher so the increase in income would need to be greater for it to be viable. As it stands it is unlikely as others have also said that extra income being offered for further streaming/TV rights would be high enough to make fixture switching to suit those broadcasts viable for any clubs. It is also unlikely that the viewing/streaming figures would be enticing enough to attract sufficiently high offers.

[Rupert Prince]

6 minutes ago, wiganermike said:

I was merely pointing out that Wigan, like Leeds play on Fridays as it is the most financially lucrative time for the club to play fixtures. Other clubs will reap the most benefit from playing games on a particular day and time slot. That's why all clubs have a regular game day that they use unless having to move for TV. With only two games per week (Catalans' home games aside) currently being televised all clubs are able to use their most financially advantageous slot for home games more often than not. The money from the deal with Sky brings in a sufficient amount to not impact club finances too heavily when moving games under the current scheduling requirements as each club won't often have to sacrifice gate and corporate income by moving their fixtures. Should a situation arise where all games were being broadcast then all clubs would have to move from their most lucrative day/time much more often and so income from the rights would need to increase by an amount per club sufficient to prevent the change impacting the clubs. Obviously for a commercially successful club like Leeds the shortfall caused by switching days is likely to be much higher so the increase in income would need to be greater for it to be viable. As it stands it is unlikely as others have also said that extra income being offered for further streaming/TV rights would be high enough to make fixture switching to suit those broadcasts viable for any clubs. It is also unlikely that the viewing/streaming figures would be enticing enough to attract sufficiently high offers.

All fair points.  For my favourite, I  the pre SL Sky era, I preferred Sunday PM and it was I think the favoured choice mostly.

Scheduling now seems a dogs breakfast.  If it's suggested that 6 games a weekend are to be put on TV, then I think attendances will disappear.

[Spidey]

2 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

Scheduling now seems a dogs breakfast.  If it's suggested that 6 games a weekend are to be put on TV, then I think attendances will disappear.

The NRL and loads of other sports manage it. Why is it so much of an issue with Rugby League over here

[wiganermike]

2 minutes ago, Spidey said:

The NRL and loads of other sports manage it. Why is it so much of an issue with Rugby League over here

The broadcast rights for those other sports and the NRL bring in many times what the SL rights sell for so they can afford to switch days and times to suit broadcasters without worrying that they lose a proportion of the crowd at the ground as a consequence. Even football, behemoth that it is has the majority of its fixtures kick off at 3 PM Saturday and stipulates that games can't be broadcast then to avoid impacting match attendances and income in the grounds.

[M j M]

1 hour ago, Spidey said:

The NRL and loads of other sports manage it. Why is it so much of an issue with Rugby League over here

Have you seen the state of nrl crowds?

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, M j M said:

Have you seen the state of nrl crowds?

It is the one thing that makes me nervous about all games live. Plenty NRL games look rubbish on TV. 

Personally I think if we had 4 of 6 games live per week and the other couple with decent extended highlights, that would be a result. Sports over here don't tend to show all games live. But I think if we want to sell games abroad, there does seem to be an expectation that they can get all games. The problem is that there doesn't appear to be much of a market for it anywhere - but this is now the opportunity, being able to sell the whole package of games to the likes of Oz, NZ, France etc. gives us the best chance of doing better than previously, but I am a touch cynical about the value. 

Ultimately, I'm just not sure how much value there is, or ever will be abroad for SL rights, but I'd like to see us give it the best chance of success before writing it off. 

[Mr Frisky]

26 minutes ago, M j M said:

Have you seen the state of nrl crowds?

One reason is ths match day experience at an NRL match is way behind a SL match.

The atmosphere at a SL match is far and away above an NRL match, as the fans dont really do chants or have the humour we have in the UK - I'd even take a full house at Wigan v Saints or a full house at Leeds under lights on a Friday night above 80k at an origin game- no contest.

Edit to say- and I used to love going to Origin when I lived in Oz but for some reason the fans just don't get it right, as far as atmosphere.  I would say they are a lot more like American sports fans in that respect.

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

8 hours ago, HawkMan said:

A bit of a personal question I know , sorry, but you've previously said you have kids,  so do you worry about your kids playing assuming they want to. If one of them said they would rather play football would would you be okay with that.

Slightly off topic- my brother for his sins is a Union fan and detests football,  never had it on tv in the house , until one day when I visited it was on because his youngest was upset at not being able to join the classroom chatter with mates about the weekend PL matches, so he relented,  and now his son likes football and won't watch Yawnion. My bro did the right thing parentally speaking,  but isn't happy. Oh well.

No worries on the question. It's a dilemna I wrestled with. They now only play football. 2 reasons

1. The head thing. Football has a good level of physicality but to the point I'm comfortable with. I know there are issues with headers but I don't feel it's comparable risk wise. I had and still do get head knocks on union along with all the other bashes (I've had a million breaks/pulls/strains etc. that we all get) 

2. The 'classroom' thing you mentioned - same for me. 

I don't like watching football but I do sometimes put it on for them including going to Kenilworth Road sometimes. I buy them bits of kit

However they come and have a cheer at Broncos in their kit and I make sure they are developing a love of it. Maybe when they are teenagers they'll fancy a go at league if it's their choice. 

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

On 30/04/2021 at 11:26, Man of Kent said:

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

I know what you mean but Thursday night games are great.... NRL recorded game pre finner and SL after. The weekend starts at 6pm Thursday for me

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

8 hours ago, JM2010 said:

I feel the pain. Mine isn't interested in RL, Union or Football. I've made my peace with it now

Have you tried bringing bribes or emotional blackmail (for league that is) 

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

34 minutes ago, M j M said:

Have you seen the state of nrl crowds?

They are certainly hit and miss but still decent overall 

Does AFL broadcast all its games? 

[HawkMan]

15 minutes ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

No worries on the question. It's a dilemna I wrestled with. They now only play football. 2 reasons

1. The head thing. Football has a good level of physicality but to the point I'm comfortable with. I know there are issues with headers but I don't feel it's comparable risk wise. I had and still do get head knocks on union along with all the other bashes (I've had a million breaks/pulls/strains etc. that we all get) 

2. The 'classroom' thing you mentioned - same for me. 

I don't like watching football but I do sometimes put it on for them including going to Kenilworth Road sometimes. I buy them bits of kit

However they come and have a cheer at Broncos in their kit and I make sure they are developing a love of it. Maybe when they are teenagers they'll fancy a go at league if it's their choice. 

Thanks for your reply. Take the kids to Kenilworth Rd eh? That'll turn them off football in favour of RL. 

Seriously though there is a massive game on Tuesday at Luton. Might watch that instead of Europe Semi.