Superleague TV audience figures through the roof.

[Scubby]

10 hours ago, Dave T said:

I think there is probably a feeling that in its current guise the TV product of SL has hit a bit of a ceiling. That isn't necessarily a slur on SL, it is the same with RU's Premiership which has lower figures than us and has been relatively static despite all sorts of other growth. I think there are tens of thousands of viewers to go at, but I never see SL getting 300k averages, or 400k and so on. To an extent, it is a filler, it brings in a solid 150k to 200k regularly, and the odd big event gets more. 

I'm not too sure how it becomes more for Sky Sports, obviously better scheduling brings some in, but the peaks were no bigger than now when we had presence on SS1. 

The only fighting chance is probably a real WCC, or some real geographical growth to bring in more staunch fans from across the country, but that hasn't done much for RU. 

That does put us in a tight spot when trying to get Sky to pay more, I think it has to be around content and amount of games etc as I don't see material growth happening at club level. 

That brings us onto internationals, but I think we all agree on that one, there absolutely has to be growth there. 

The question we have to pose centres around a thriving 2022, a feeling of the game on the up and feeling good going into the 2022 RLWC and then asking the question "how much is it worth to you if you lose it?" If it does put a real dent in Sky's staple offering as it is a passing 2nd or 3rd sport to watch for hundreds of thousands of people then there is room to grow that deal back up.

If we appear meek we will be swallowed up. Show Sky what the next 5 years looks like. Get assurances of things like the WCC, Magic, Women's game and other stuff. Even throw in a guaranteed mid-season international.

[The Rocket]

1 hour ago, Scubby said:

The question we have to pose centres around a thriving 2022, a feeling of the game on the up and feeling good going into the 2022 RLWC and then asking the question "how much is it worth to you if you lose it?" If it does put a real dent in Sky's staple offering as it is a passing 2nd or 3rd sport to watch for hundreds of thousands of people then there is room to grow that deal back up.

If we appear meek we will be swallowed up. Show Sky what the next 5 years looks like. Get assurances of things like the WCC, Magic, Women's game and other stuff. Even throw in a guaranteed mid-season international.

Agree with all of that, they have to be pro-active.

I think it would really be worth the RFL`s while to have a strategic review now and decide what region/city is most likely to produce the next sustainable Super League standard team. Then have a serious think about do we sacrifice resources in other areas to throw whatever we can in making it a reality. Newcastle is the obvious choice, but I`d be looking at all potential candidates.

Now for example, does that means putting all your development officers into one area at the expense of others, these are decisions that will have to be considered. I had been thinking of this lately, now that Toulouse are up, what are the things the RFL/Super League can do to fast-track the next team.

I think this has to be the next step, Toulouse are in, great, go to Sky with a five-year plan about who you are going to get up next and how you are going to do it.

 

 

[Damien]

10 hours ago, Dave T said:

Shaking off its Northern Game image is a generation thing. 

During SL we've had teams from Paris, Gateshead, South Wales, North Wales, Cumbria, London, Perpignan, Toronto and now Toulouse. 

I do think the northern game image within the UK goes way beyond Super League. A bigger issue is that there are vast tracts of the UK where there is no Rugby League played or if it is its not at a very serious level and is done so largely by RU players in the off season. I think when people haven't a club within 10s of miles then the makeup of Super League does little to change perceptions.

That said another issue with the expansion sides in SL is that we haven't had an expansion type UK club really make it, in terms of finances and crowds, and stick around in Super League for a sustained period of time. Money has been an issue with every UK expansion side and has caused every one to fail in some shape or form. London were perhaps the closest for a number of years but their fall from grace has undone all of that and its practically going to require starting again.

I do think 2 French teams does make people sit up and take notice that the sport is bigger than they realised. Even Toronto shocked many people people I know who know little of Rugby League. The French teams do also seemingly have the financial might and crowds (hopefully in the case of Toulouse) that has been lacking when it comes to new expansion sides in SL. I know many of us have big hopes from Newcastle and a couple of well backed sides in new areas from within the UK would be great to see but unfortunately we simply don't have that now.

The sport should be looking to use that to grow the competition and make it more attractive to all. If that money is not coming from the UK, and unfortunately the game does not have 12 well backed, well funded elite level English teams, then RL in the UK needs to be looking to see how it can grow SL, and the UK game, on the back of that.

[Dave T]

8 minutes ago, Damien said:

I do think the northern game image within the UK goes way beyond Super League. A bigger issue is that there are vast tracts of the UK where there is no Rugby League played or if it is its not at a very serious level and is done so largely by RU players in the off season. I think when people haven't a club within 10s of miles then the makeup of Super League does little to change perceptions.

That said another issue with the expansion sides in SL is that we haven't had an expansion type UK club really make it, in terms of finances and crowds, and stick around in Super League for a sustained period of time. Money has been an issue with every UK expansion side and has caused every one to fail in some shape or form. London were perhaps the closest for a number of years but their fall from grace has undone all of that and its practically going to require starting again.

I do think 2 French teams does make people sit up and take notice that the sport is bigger than they realised. Even Toronto shocked many people people I know who know little of Rugby League. The French teams do also seemingly have the financial might and crowds (hopefully in the case of Toulouse) that has been lacking when it comes to new expansion sides in SL. I know many of us have big hopes from Newcastle and a couple of well backed sides in new areas from within the UK would be great to see but unfortunately we simply don't have that now.

The sport should be looking to use that to grow the competition and make it more attractive to all. If that money is not coming from the UK, and unfortunately the game does not have 12 well backed, well funded elite level English teams, then RL in the UK needs to be looking to see how it can grow SL, and the UK game, on the back of that.

I agree with this. It is part of the challenge with only focusing on top down expansion - I think the foundations need to be there. We are just not a sport that has a presence in most towns, we aren't in every school, college, university etc. We just aren't a thing for most people. This is why I think we do pretty well with the viewing figures considering. Rugby Union is a thing for very many people - they are definitely aware of it, even if they aren't engaged with it. They are likely to be exposed to it in their educational body and they probably have at least one club in their town or village. 

We need to make sure we grow in these areas, and you are right that top level expansion in the UK has been a failure and the only positive on the horizon (in terms of being a SL presence) is potentially Newcastle and I think they have a long way to go, but at least their journey has started.

It would be great if Toulouse works, on top of Catalans it would show that SL can deliver teams from outside of the UK heartlands that can be a success. The perception of that would be important. 

What I would say is that I do believe that these things are important from a brand perception point of view - a comp that is on the up, getting some wins and positive news rather than failure after failure and the negativity that comes with that. I'm not sure these things are going to be game-changers in terms of viewing figures - IMHO the real way for us to drive value is to drive either competition for rights, or amount of content available - or ideally both. Our numbers have been decent from the start of SL and remain so now, and the value has varied - there is no direct correlation with viewing figs - it is a bigger story than that.

[gingerjon]

54 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

hen have a serious think about do we sacrifice resources in other areas to throw whatever we can in making it a reality. Newcastle is the obvious choice, but I`d be looking at all potential candidates.

The reality, the actual reality, is that the RFL has already cut the cloth as much as it can realistically be expected to do. The family silver has been sold and every penny that it does spend is on what is immediately is in front of it. The amount committed to development is pretty much about the lowest it can be whilst still being considered active. There is no scope to prime one area by reducing resources elsewhere because those resources cannot be reduced.

If Newcastle, or anywhere else, wants to develop rugby league to any level then it's going to have to (continue to) find its own money to do it.

[Eddie]

11 hours ago, Dave T said:

Shaking off its Northern Game image is a generation thing. 

During SL we've had teams from Paris, Gateshead, South Wales, North Wales, Cumbria, London, Perpignan, Toronto and now Toulouse. 

We have, but if you take the most recent SL season all but one team were a few miles from the M62, it is of course still very much a Northern sport in England. 

[Scubby]

2 hours ago, gingerjon said:

The reality, the actual reality, is that the RFL has already cut the cloth as much as it can realistically be expected to do. The family silver has been sold and every penny that it does spend is on what is immediately is in front of it. The amount committed to development is pretty much about the lowest it can be whilst still being considered active. There is no scope to prime one area by reducing resources elsewhere because those resources cannot be reduced.

If Newcastle, or anywhere else, wants to develop rugby league to any level then it's going to have to (continue to) find its own money to do it.

Yes the real review should be on what actually did we do with that £29m pa Sport England grant to grow the game nationally and internationally?

[DC77]

5 hours ago, Scubby said:

The question we have to pose centres around a thriving 2022, a feeling of the game on the up and feeling good going into the 2022 RLWC and then asking the question "how much is it worth to you if you lose it?" If it does put a real dent in Sky's staple offering as it is a passing 2nd or 3rd sport to watch for hundreds of thousands of people then there is room to grow that deal back up.

If we appear meek we will be swallowed up. Show Sky what the next 5 years looks like. Get assurances of things like the WCC, Magic, Women's game and other stuff. Even throw in a guaranteed mid-season international.

Sky has never seen RL as being a marquee sport. As has been documented on here to much disdain It never features on their montages of upcoming sports events (montages which consist of maybe six or seven sports). Voiceover: “A big summer (or Autumn, or Winter, or Spring) on Sky”...RL is never among the events in the clip.

Even advertising a game, outside of the end of an actual RL broadcast does that ever happen? The other rugby code previously did get adverts prior to games (NZ vs Aus bledisloe Cup an example which was once seen as a big time event, but not anymore...by chance I flicked on the channel it was on a few weeks back when previously I’d have know about it days in advance). I think both codes are suffering from the stylistic changes in how they are played, more so RU. “Bigger, fitter, stronger” means a more attritional product, with less gaps for attacking players (ie.potential stars) to exploit than previous. Really standing out is nigh on impossible now. Neither code has had a star (ie.household name) in the UK in a decade and a half (that being J.Wilkinson, because of a kick). There’s no face for the media to use to promote a game/event. 

Big names, big games, big events, that’s what drives interest from both media and viewers. RL lacks this, a problem that RU now shares. There needs to be more substance than a “feeling of a game on the up”. It has to be backed up by tangibles. RL has to do the work in making the game more appealing to Sky.

[sweaty craiq]

15 hours ago, The Rocket said:

The difference here of course, and I`m not being petty, League is a far better TV product than union. If your Super League can get its` geographical spread right, and shake off its` `northern game` image, that 200k base could be significantly increased.

I always like to see peak viewing figures from big events, as being an indicator of potential viewers, the key of course is making some of them regular viewers. The games in Perpignan was a case in point.

Our Northern Base has a greater population than Queensland and NSW combined - once we maximise that potential, and it is reasonably low hanging - then we look elsewhere. North of England and S. France are the two areas we need to conquer

 

[Damien]

16 minutes ago, sweaty craiq said:

Our Northern Base has a greater population than Queensland and NSW combined - once we maximise that potential, and it is reasonably low hanging - then we look elsewhere. North of England and S. France are the two areas we need to conquer

 

I don't think you can count areas where RL is barely played as our northern base. Melbourne has far more of a RL base than Manchester, Liverpool or Sheffield.

[Dave T]

36 minutes ago, Damien said:

I don't think you can count areas where RL is barely played as our northern base. Melbourne has far more of a RL base than Manchester, Liverpool or Sheffield.

I don't think we can get over-specific on stuff like this. People in Manchester and Liverpool have access to SL teams within a short drive, even if the teams are not named after their cities. 

I don't have a Premier League team in my town, but I do have access to teams within half an hour. 

[Damien]

11 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I don't think we can get over-specific on stuff like this. People in Manchester and Liverpool have access to SL teams within a short drive, even if the teams are not named after their cities. 

I don't have a Premier League team in my town, but I do have access to teams within half an hour. 

Hmmm I'm not too sure, to me the base is the places where the sport is actively played and followed. I could go a few miles to Bolton from Wigan and people would be genuinely unaware of Rugby League or that there were even two types of Rugby. There are more GAA clubs in Manchester than RL ones. Its a little like people saying that London has a population of 10+ million to aim at when the reality is very few even know they exist. Yes its all potential markets, and the said people need to be aware that the sports exists, but far from a base in my opinion. RL's base even in the North is small and I have never subscribed to the theory that people in Manchester don't need a team because if they wanted to they could watch one in Wigan. It really doesn't work like that in practice, bar maybe a very tiny number.

[Mr Frisky]

31 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I don't think we can get over-specific on stuff like this. People in Manchester and Liverpool have access to SL teams within a short drive, even if the teams are not named after their cities. 

I don't have a Premier League team in my town, but I do have access to teams within half an hour. 

Well said, apparently in football, some Liverpool and Man United supporters arnt even from those cities......... but I don't belive that.

[RayCee]

1 hour ago, DC77 said:

Sky has never seen RL as being a marquee sport. As has been documented on here to much disdain It never features on their montages of upcoming sports events (montages which consist of maybe six or seven sports). Voiceover: “A big summer (or Autumn, or Winter, or Spring) on Sky”...RL is never among the events in the clip.

A big reason why RL has to be more proactive than other sports. It's not going to get a hand up. 

Some years back I used to subscribe to SkyNZ and whenever I watched a RL match, upcoming RU matches were always being featured in any break they could be slotted in. I wondered if RL was promoted during RU matches but never watched the code so didn't know. Then I read in a TV Guide comments section where a man who watched both sports asked why does SkyNZ promote RU during every RL games but never the other way around. Yet RL is a very popular sport for Sky TV NZ. 

RL has to work harder than other codes as it's working class roots means people in higher places usually have no connection with RL. That on top of it being seen as a regional game as well. The lack of forward planning often exhibited by the RL hierarchy doesn't help it sell the product, despite it coming across well as a media sport. 

[Mr Frisky]

6 minutes ago, RayCee said:

A big reason why RL has to be more proactive than other sports. It's not going to get a hand up. 

Some years back I used to subscribe to SkyNZ and whenever I watched a RL match, upcoming RU matches were always being featured in any break they could be slotted in. I wondered if RL was promoted during RU matches but never watched the code so didn't know. Then I read in a TV Guide comments section where a man who watched both sports asked why does SkyNZ promote RU during every RL games but never the other way around. Yet RL is a very popular sport for Sky TV NZ. 

RL has to work harder than other codes as it's working class roots means people in higher places usually have no connection with RL. That on top of it being seen as a regional game as well. The lack of forward planning often exhibited by the RL hierarchy doesn't help it sell the product, despite it coming across well as a media sport. 

The trouble is Harrys grandson is in charge of NZ RL coverage......

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

18 hours ago, HawkMan said:

Not sure what has the pandemic got to do with it, but that was the reason given for allowing Prem to roll over current 4.7 billion tv deal without putting it out to tender. So streaming only won't be anytime soon. But RL can steal a march here, streaming is the future,  and the game has always been innovative,  getting in early with content for those who get most of their entertainment from streaming could be a game changer.

 

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/57098432

Is there any information out there on how many of us subscribe to SKY mostly for RL?

I guess we need to know those like me who would drop SKY if they lost RL 

Then I guess how much would each of those pay for RL streaming 

Personally if SL was about £30 for the three games a week I'd easily pay for that. Only about £3 a game 

Is there anywhere near say 100,000 people who would pay that to improve the deal we get (even assuming production costs and advert gains ?) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[sweaty craiq]

2 hours ago, Damien said:

I don't think you can count areas where RL is barely played as our northern base. Melbourne has far more of a RL base than Manchester, Liverpool or Sheffield.

You've missed the point completely. If a Bolton lad or lass goes on a taster day and likes it, they have clubs within a few miles they can watch live and/or play immediately. Repeat that in Liverpool, Newcastle, Sunderland, Sheffield, Preston, etc. We should be saturating the Northern Uni's with coaches and experiences - but instead RU still dominates here. When resource is limited it must be targeted, a shotgun approach is quickly over diluted - Getting rid of Rimmer would release 5/6 FT development coaches into universities for example.

[Damien]

1 minute ago, sweaty craiq said:

You've missed the point completely. If a Bolton lad or lass goes on a taster day and likes it, they have clubs within a few miles they can watch live and/or play immediately. Repeat that in Liverpool, Newcastle, Sunderland, Sheffield, Preston, etc. We should be saturating the Northern Uni's with coaches and experiences - but instead RU still dominates here. When resource is limited it must be targeted, a shotgun approach is quickly over diluted - Getting rid of Rimmer would release 5/6 FT development coaches into universities for example.

Its not that simple, the game needs a CEO. I'm not saying Rimmer should be that person, he shouldn't be in my opinion, but you cant just get rid of the position.

What you propose with Universities is a completely different debate and my own experience was thoroughly enjoyable and we had many RU and ex RU players playing for our team. The game was also strong at University level with a decent nationwide presence so I'm not sure its a great use of resources. RU dominates at that level quite simply because a lot more RU players go to University. Again though my RL team had a very sizeable RU core and many loved RL and turned to it because of the elitism with the RU sides. I'm not sure how much development officers would improve things and personally think they are better targeted at schools and well before University age.

[Dave T]

3 hours ago, Johnoco said:

Once we maximise it? By doing what? And what might that be, that it couldn't have done in the last 100+ years?

The only way this point works is if you truly believe we have been brilliant for that last 100 years and that we have done everything we can. 

If you don't believe that, then surely we still have an awful lot to go at? 

[dealwithit]

Agree the “northern working class” perception is a generational thing. Unlikely to now be intergenerational thanks to improved living standards, the internet, social media and a bunch of other things.
 

Speaking of perceptions, as a casual viewer I always find it very difficult watching a Castleford home match on TV. The lighting seems poor, the stadium roof looks awful and it just gives a very working class village vibe. If you’re a casual viewer from a non heartlands area with no local club, it’s likely that if you flicked on the TV and saw a Cas home match on that you might stick around for long. 
 

The Sky coverage, including pre and post match, could be a lot better. But I guess Sky don’t feel the need to invest. They get their 200k viewers for a bargain price and don’t have to work too hard for it. 

[M j M]

39 minutes ago, dealwithit said:

 

Speaking of perceptions, as a casual viewer I always find it very difficult watching a Castleford home match on TV. The lighting seems poor, the stadium roof looks awful and it just gives a very working class village vibe. If you’re a casual viewer from a non heartlands area with no local club, it’s likely that if you flicked on the TV and saw a Cas home match on that you might stick around for long. 
 

Nah we know from Sky and the games they choose that they absolutely loathe the swathes of empty seats, not so much the poorer grounds (although I'm sure they prefer more modern tv facilities). It might freak you out for some reason but it doesn't the casual viewer.

[Tabby]

1 hour ago, dealwithit said:

Agree the “northern working class” perception is a generational thing. Unlikely to now be intergenerational thanks to improved living standards, the internet, social media and a bunch of other things.
 

Speaking of perceptions, as a casual viewer I always find it very difficult watching a Castleford home match on TV. The lighting seems poor, the stadium roof looks awful and it just gives a very working class village vibe. If you’re a casual viewer from a non heartlands area with no local club, it’s likely that if you flicked on the TV and saw a Cas home match on that you might stick around for long. 
 

The Sky coverage, including pre and post match, could be a lot better. But I guess Sky don’t feel the need to invest. They get their 200k viewers for a bargain price and don’t have to work too hard for it. 

Why wouldn’t it be intergenerational in the future? It’s been generational for 140 years. Social media just born at 25 years ago? Probably less. So there is room for manoeuvre in getting this sport moving. 
 

Personally I couldn’t careless how many are there.It’s the game I enjoy.

[Dave T]

2 hours ago, Johnoco said:

The world was a different place 100 years ago, it was even 50 .....or 30 come to think of it. It didn't stand still, it changed. RL missed the boat to be brutally honest.

I don't know why the assumption is that northerner's are some sort of blood brothers, as they've never (on the whole) instinctively shown affinity for RL before and in certain places, the reaction is positively hostile.

Oh I absolutely agree with that, but I dont think that changes the fact there is still scope for growth in the North of England. 

RL is so small it has opportunities everywhere. I don't buy that RL has missed any boat, there was never one opportunity to do something, if we aren't where we wanna be we can do something about it. 

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, Johnoco said:

Without being rose tinted, there was a time (before I was into RL) when Wigan, Hull Kingston Rovers, Wakefield Trinity were nationally recognised sports clubs (to name 3) Probably due to Grandstand and Eddie Waring etc but nonetheless genuinely famous. 

The game should have taken advantage of that, everywhere, but particularly the North. It didn't. 

I don't see that it will be able to attract northerners now, in a much different world. Especially when a club like Sheffield are seen as outliers and essentially a drain on resources. 

The boat was when hearts and minds were being won by association football.  

I do think there is an element of rose-tinted specs there - had there been a forum like this at any stage of RL history I suspect we would hear the same criticism as now. 

I'm also not sure what 'capitalise on' means in reality. Awareness and being a household name is often quoted, but what good did any of that do? Surely if it was all so good we'd have benefited from great TV deals, great crowds, great sponsors. In reality we have always been a bit of a niche sport. 

I don't understand your point that 'we won't be able to attract Northerners now'. We do that every day. 

[Dave T]

49 minutes ago, Johnoco said:

It's not rose tinted, I aren't saying everything was rosy, or even any sort of critique about the game back then. Just that it had more nationwide fame than it does today.

'Capitalise on', means building clubs or assisting fledgling clubs, (professional, amateur or social)  outside the traditional areas. It may have resulted in a genuinely nationwide game with a bit of time and investment. But the game has never been interested in the long game. 

And if we're attracting northerners, then surely that would be reflected in bigger attendances. Instead of which, they seem to be reducing.

 

Attract northerners? great I hope they do. But pinning the games hopes on mythical hordes of northerners isn't going to produce a result. 

The world is a different place - we have this conversation a lot on these boards, but viewing habits have changed and that may lead to a change in awareness. However we need to be careful not to overstate the awareness of the game from years ago - it didn't show in crowds. 

On your second point - this is where the whole 'awareness' point become interesting - people just being aware of the game doesn't mean it can just expand into new areas easily - it still requires huge investment - which RL doesn't and has never had access to. 

On your third point - the trends are up. Crowds in SL are better than they were pre-SL. We have grown.

Your last point doesn't make sense. You are just being dismissive of those not currently going - well that includes all those from all over the world then. The point stands - unless you think we have been perfect ad done everything right (you don't believe that) then there is still scope for growth in the North. You literally can't have that both ways. We have either saturated the North, or there is still scope.