Premier Sports TV Deal

[Tabby]

56 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

I don’t believe for a second that Premier Sport enhances the profile/visibility of RL or will attract new fans.

This is about the RFL effectively selling the right to charge for subscriptions for Championship rugby that, as I say, it could have done itself - and has been doing itself - and probably made more money.

It raises the profile of the game. Far more effective than sitting back thinking what could be done.

[gingerjon]

6 minutes ago, Tabby said:

It raises the profile of the game. Far more effective than sitting back thinking what could be done.

Playing games on a Monday night to a reduced crowd in the ground and to a handful of subscribers on a small market paywalled TV channel raises the profile of the game?

[davet]

The PS subscription works out at 42p a day (31 day month) or £2.88 (4.5 week month).

I SAY AGAIN, 42P A DAY!!

A chocolate bar in our office tuck shop costs more.

Only pay for the subscription through the season, and save 3 or 4 months of money that would then go towards the following seasons costs.

As per usual, those want to watch it and think it is a positive will subscribe and watch, the others will just continuely find a reason to bash the deal and having to folk out again to watch.

If they plan it well, then every club should be at home once and away once in order to give it a balanced view and not put more pressure on away fans of certain teams.

Not sure what everyone else does, but i pay £30 a month for sports on Now TV. Don't deal direct with Sky (yes i know they are the same), but this way i save having to pay an additional £20 for their basic channels which are poor to say the least.

Just to reiterate, 42p a day!!

Does the monday night match also come with a highlights package for the whole weekend of action. This is something that Sky don't seem to have done this season (although i maybe wrong).

People moan about the coverage and then when it arrives we moan about it.

Get your mates round on a monday night, get a take away in, a couple diet cokes, spread the word!!

Why don't we all start to help promote the game as well instead of leaving everything to others.

The sport is worth watching, lets get the enthusiasm building ready for what should be amazing WC in 2022.

No negative responses please or i will report you!!

[Tabby]

4 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

Still in fantasy land it seems. SL will take their £25 million a season.

Which will continually decrease. Whilst Championships exposure will increase therefore increasing revenue.

[whatmichaelsays]

1 hour ago, Man of Kent said:

I don’t believe for a second that Premier Sport enhances the profile/visibility of RL or will attract new fans.

This is about the RFL effectively selling the right to charge for subscriptions for Championship rugby that, as I say, it could have done itself - and has been doing itself - and probably made more money.

The RFL had around half of the season where it was producing and charging for access to RL content. If it has decided not to continue with that and pursue a separate TV deal, I'd suggest there is something in that.

I'm not convinced that streaming is the panacea that many people think it is - and I include the likes of DAZN and Amazon in that. I don't think there is a lot of appetite from the general public to have a large number of different streaming accounts. 

[Dave T]

21 minutes ago, Tabby said:

It raises the profile of the game. Far more effective than sitting back thinking what could be done.

The real risk here is that a couple of weeks ago the two Championship games got 95k and 65 on Sky Sports Mix. 

I assume last week's games got similar, and I expect at least a hundred thousand this weekend - maybe up to double that?

That means that the Championship will have had around half a million viewers over the last few weeks. If you had 50k per Bash game then that is 300k. 

So Sky brought around 750k-1m viewers to the table but paid £0

Premier are likely to bring 5-7.5k per game x 30 = max of 250k viewers but maybe paid £100k.

The clubs need to decide which is most valuable to them. Cash or exposure. But this Premier deal is NOT bringing exposure.

[gingerjon]

1 minute ago, whatmichaelsays said:

I don't think there is a lot of appetite from the general public to have a large number of different streaming accounts. 

Right now, I have subs to BT Sport, Sky, Netflix, Prime and, for my son's birthday, Disney Plus.

And yet, for the past two evenings, I've watched football for free on the DAZN YouTube channel.

I watch more sport than most and yet I don't think I can be alone in thinking: nah, not another one.

(I may be tempted by a one-off payment for a London game but only if they're not as irredeemably bobbins and uninspiring as they turned out to be this year.)

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, gingerjon said:

Right now, I have subs to BT Sport, Sky, Netflix, Prime and, for my son's birthday, Disney Plus.

And yet, for the past two evenings, I've watched football for free on the DAZN YouTube channel.

I watch more sport than most and yet I don't think I can be alone in thinking: nah, not another one.

(I may be tempted by a one-off payment for a London game but only if they're not as irredeemably bobbins and uninspiring as they turned out to be this year.)

HBO Max is on it's way soon too!   

[gingerjon]

Just now, Dave T said:

HBO Max is on it's way soon too!   

Seriously, I pay for all that and I've probably watched more sport for free on YouTube or my bespoke European channels.

[Dave T]

Just now, gingerjon said:

Seriously, I pay for all that and I've probably watched more sport for free on YouTube or my bespoke European channels.

Having read some of the sporting events you follow, I don't think we can use you as any kind of benchmark. I think it is fair to describe your varied tastes as.. unique?  

[gingerjon]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

Having read some of the sporting events you follow, I don't think we can use you as any kind of benchmark. I think it is fair to describe your varied tastes as.. unique?  

Aye, I don't claim to be particularly representative.

Hell, I spend my days talking to strange men about rugby league.

[RigbyLuger]

8 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Right now, I have subs to BT Sport, Sky, Netflix, Prime and, for my son's birthday, Disney Plus.

And yet, for the past two evenings, I've watched football for free on the DAZN YouTube channel.

I watch more sport than most and yet I don't think I can be alone in thinking: nah, not another one.

(I may be tempted by a one-off payment for a London game but only if they're not as irredeemably bobbins and uninspiring as they turned out to be this year.)

You've hit the nail on the head.

It's ok saying it's the cost of a coffee a week or whatever, but, when compared to what you get from Netflix or Prime say, and what financial benefits to the club from your subscription, many will choose just to miss out.

[Man of Kent]

5 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

The RFL had around half of the season where it was producing and charging for access to RL content. If it has decided not to continue with that and pursue a separate TV deal, I'd suggest there is something in that.

I'm not convinced that streaming is the panacea that many people think it is - and I include the likes of DAZN and Amazon in that. I don't think there is a lot of appetite from the general public to have a large number of different streaming accounts. 

In the past 12 months we've had Netflix, Disney, NOW TV and Amazon Prime. It's totally the norm. 

As I said, I find it odd that the RFL has spent what must be a fair wedge on building a platform with 150k+ app users but essentially sold off the value on the cheap. Or so it appears.

[Davo5]

1 hour ago, Martyn Sadler said:

I'm fairly sure that the majority of the sponsorship money will be distributed to clubs in accordance with their finishing positions.

Hopefully not,the huge disparity in funding did nothing for the league last time.

[Martyn Sadler]

There are clearly a lot of questions that need to be asked about this deal, other than the obvious one about the size of the deal, and answers that would ideally be provided.

Let me know what questions you would like to be put to the RFL on this issue.

[Tommygilf]

7 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

So the Champ clubs who got more earned it did they?

I really do not see what relevance that has to do with anything I put?

[whatmichaelsays]

29 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

In the past 12 months we've had Netflix, Disney, NOW TV and Amazon Prime. It's totally the norm. 

As I said, I find it odd that the RFL has spent what must be a fair wedge on building a platform with 150k+ app users but essentially sold off the value on the cheap. Or so it appears.

It might be the norm, but what's not yet really established is how many people are willing to subscribe to at any one time and therefore, in turn, how profitable any new service can be. 

The real selling point of Netflix and Amazon Prime was about "cutting the cord" from your cable or satellite contract for all of this on demand content, but that selling point is undermined as that content is now getting fragmented with every new entrant in the market. We now have Disney+, Discovery+ NOWTV, HBO Max, DAZN, hulu, Britbox, Spotify and the various individual sports platforms that you can sign up for (NFL Gamepass and equivalents) - on top of Sky or Virgin Media - all asking for their £7.99 a month. 

I'm with @gingerjon - I've already got plenty of paid-for content in my life and I don't really see myself taking on much more - unless it was really unmissable, must-watch content. 

I would think/hope that the RFL have used their experience of OurLeague in the early part of this season to get a good indication of the appetite for streamed RL content. I don't think it's the answer. 

[Man of Kent]

5 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

There are clearly a lot of questions that need to be asked about this deal, other than the obvious one about the size of the deal, and answers that would ideally be provided.

Let me know what questions you would like to be put to the RFL on this issue.

I'd like to know why the RFL couldn't have offered its own subscription service via OurLeague after having spent the past few seasons proving the streaming concept (and building 200k members). 

[Damien]

9 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

There are clearly a lot of questions that need to be asked about this deal, other than the obvious one about the size of the deal, and answers that would ideally be provided.

Let me know what questions you would like to be put to the RFL on this issue.

I have a couple:

What is the split between what has been paid for the Challenge Cup and what has been paid for the Championship?

Will this deal fund the Championship and League 1 instead of Championship clubs taking money from the Super League deal?

[Man of Kent]

1 minute ago, whatmichaelsays said:

I'm with @gingerjon - I've already got plenty of paid-for content in my life and I don't really see myself taking on much more - unless it was really unmissable, must-watch content. 

I get that but to x thousand fans, Championship RL IS unmissable, must-watch content they will pay for. That's why Premier Sports is apparently paying the RFL for the rights.

What I'm interested in is whether this Premier Sports is the best value deal for clubs in urgent need of cash, or whether it is a 'Look, we're on TV (sort of!)' vanity deal.   

[gingerjon]

26 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

There are clearly a lot of questions that need to be asked about this deal, other than the obvious one about the size of the deal, and answers that would ideally be provided.

Let me know what questions you would like to be put to the RFL on this issue.

Were Premier Sports the only bidder for Championship RL and was the Challenge Cup required as the sweetener to get the deal over the line?

How will the funding be split? (i.e. will it be a single amount divided between all clubs or will clubs be paid for each time they are the host of a Monday night televised game)

Will there be social media content from matches created and run as matches are happening in order to drive people to sign up and watch in real time? If so, who is responsible for this.

[gingerjon]

2 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

I get that but to x thousand fans, Championship RL IS unmissable, must-watch content they will pay for.

It'll be one game a week which, if you're the away team, you probably wouldn't have seen live anyway.

[David Dockhouse Host]

2 hours ago, Man of Kent said:

I don’t believe for a second that Premier Sport enhances the profile/visibility of RL or will attract new fans.

This is about the RFL effectively selling the right to charge for subscriptions for Championship rugby that, as I say, it could have done itself - and has been doing itself - and probably made more money.

If that's true why so you think they chose to make less money? Who sits down and thinks "I've for a good idea, let's give this to someone else so we can make less"?

[Man of Kent]

Just now, David Dockhouse Host said:

If that's true why so you think they chose to make less money? Who sits down and thinks "I've for a good idea, let's give this to someone else so we can make less"?

'Cos it might be a vanity thing. The RFL knew what was coming and has been trying to get a TV deal for ages. Remember those Channel 4 rumours?  

[Tommygilf]

44 minutes ago, Tabby said:

Which will continually decrease. Whilst Championships exposure will increase therefore increasing revenue.

We're in delusional territory now but I'll humour you. Super League may decrease, but it will always be more than the Championship. It is in the Championship's interest for Super League to have a good TV deal as it increases the chances of an improved TV deal being secured by them.