Premier Sports TV Deal

[glossop saint]

11 hours ago, Tabby said:

One game per week.. Market it. 

How are you anticipating this marketing happening? And who by? Even with the level of marketing applied to the Challenge Cup final, SL Grand Final or International game I can't see many additional people suddenly buying up subscriptions to Premier or a huge increase in spectators.

[Harry Stottle]

16 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Ironically it is usually fans of teams who have either hardly ever been in Super League, or if they have, have done almost nothing in their time there, who are so insistent on this.

Make Elite 1 and the championship equivalents with guaranteed spots in the Super League for each nation - French clubs can come up and go down to their league, British clubs to theirs. Let each decide how they want to do it.

Nothing at all ironic Tommy, albeit I stand accused of being one of the fans you mention. Of course I am insistent on P&R both in equal measures neither do I want to spend eternity in a second tier, nor would I want to see any games be it my club or on TV that have a number of meaning totally pointless games for up to half a season. 

As you know, I think that promotion should always be earned on the field of play, and I can think of nothing more abhorrent than excluding any club from relegation who play in the same division as others who can be subject to jeopardy.

I am lost in your descriptive in last paragraph, how long do you think it would take Elite 1 clubs to get to a standard to compete in SL? we have Championship clubs of a much higher standard than Elite 1 who would require an whole lot of adjustments to make them SL ready - where have I heard that before, How about a play off between the respective nations champions to determine promotion?

Another thing I would say what is ironic is that it is fans of clubs who will never have a fear of relegation who keep mulling over ringfencing clubs.

[Tommygilf]

31 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Nothing at all ironic Tommy, albeit I stand accused of being one of the fans you mention. Of course I am insistent on P&R both in equal measures neither do I want to spend eternity in a second tier, nor would I want to see any games be it my club or on TV that have a number of meaning totally pointless games for up to half a season. 

As you know, I think that promotion should always be earned on the field of play, and I can think of nothing more abhorrent than excluding any club from relegation who play in the same division as others who can be subject to jeopardy.

I am lost in your descriptive in last paragraph, how long do you think it would take Elite 1 clubs to get to a standard to compete in SL? we have Championship clubs of a much higher standard than Elite 1 who would require an whole lot of adjustments to make them SL ready - where have I heard that before, How about a play off between the respective nations champions to determine promotion?

Another thing I would say what is ironic is that it is fans of clubs who will never have a fear of relegation who keep mulling over ringfencing clubs.

Its a case of "what is Super League?"

To you, its the top division of the English game, which Welsh, French, Canadians and everyone inbetween have to join separate to their national domestic competitions. The Premier League.

To me, it should be the top tier of the game in the Northern Hemisphere and the only space in which regular international club fixtures are played. The Champions League.

Each has pros and cons. Your system means clubs can rise through the levels in the English League. It also means that we could be in a scenario where an uncontrollable amount of clubs in the English top flight aren't English. Fans of your approach came up with the idea of limiting the number of non english clubs in the top flight, a process which would have meant any additional non english teams were playing pointless fixtures you we both so dread.

My system relies on national federations deciding how to assign their spots in international competitions, far more like the champions league. It guarantees the number of teams for TV income and allows each nation to change which teams are in each year as they wish. The cons are that Elite 1 and the championship aren't currently equivalent, but neither has proven a good ground to produce a Super League club over the past 7 years so its bald men fighting over a comb.

The reason fans of top clubs are so concerned is because we see that we've had no realistic or consistent challengers bar Warrington (who emerged in the licensing era!) as half the league is constantly focused on not being relegated. We have the freedom of being pretty secure in our position to take a broader approach. Essentially, we want to grow more clubs to be like and challenge and even outgrow ours. We've seen that we simply do not have the resources in the English game to do that from England alone.

[John Drake]

14 hours ago, Damien said:

That was the same as me. I'd have watched the odd Championship game but I had Premier for the NRL. Unfortunately the Championship alone isn't enough of a driver for me to pay an extra £13.

No disrespect to you personally, but this is kind of Rugby League's problem in a nutshell, isn't it?

We all want and expect TV companies to cough up big money to televise our sport, but when push comes to shove, most of us aren't prepared to fork out the money required for them to make a return on such an investment.

Consequently, we get smaller deals and less coverage than other sports.

Effectively, we're the ones telling the TV companies that the Championship isn't worth their time or money here.

[gingerjon]

5 minutes ago, John Drake said:

No disrespect to you personally, but this is kind of Rugby League's problem in a nutshell, isn't it?

We all want and expect TV companies to cough up big money to televise our sport, but when push comes to shove, most of us aren't prepared to fork out the money required for them to make a return on such an investment.

Consequently, we get smaller deals and less coverage than other sports.

Effectively, we're the ones telling the TV companies that the Championship isn't worth their time or money here.

*For mine* ... if this was a proper deal with half to all Championship games being covered then there's a good chance that Premier would already have my money.

I can understand why the Championship may not want such a deal and also why Premier may not want to do it anyway.

But an additional subscription for one game a week in this day and age?

Meh.

[John Drake]

17 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

That's all very well John and I am happy for those who can take the silver lining from this dark cloud, but good business caters for the majority not the minority in that most people have Sunday off, I would wager playing Monday's will lose more spectator's through the turnstiles than it will gain.

I remember that argument being made against pioneering Thursday night games the last time Premier covered the Championship. Turned out to be quite a success, and clubs made the most of the opportunity presented to them of being on TV. Now Super League is regularly played on a Thursday.

Why should this be any different?

[Tommygilf]

3 minutes ago, John Drake said:

No disrespect to you personally, but this is kind of Rugby League's problem in a nutshell, isn't it?

We all want and expect TV companies to cough up big money to televise our sport, but when push comes to shove, most of us aren't prepared to fork out the money required for them to make a return on such an investment.

Consequently, we get smaller deals and less coverage than other sports.

Effectively, we're the ones telling the TV companies that the Championship isn't worth their time or money here.

But why? Would League 1 football fans pay for Premier on top of Sky sports if the Championship moved over? To force its way in BT sports had to go for the Champions League and Premier League jugulars.

RL isn't big enough and doesn't have a big enough audience to sustain multiple Pay TV deals, and fundamentally the Championship isn't attractive enough on its own to move a mass of people over either. Super League might just be able to manage a move, just.

Like it or not, the reality is that the Championship needs to be on a Pay TV network where there are a large number of existing RL fans to get good viewer numbers. Its never going to be a massive draw because most of the interest in the sport will go to the top division, and even then at the top of that.

[John Drake]

2 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

*For mine* ... if this was a proper deal with half to all Championship games being covered then there's a good chance that Premier would already have my money.

I can understand why the Championship may not want such a deal and also why Premier may not want to do it anyway.

But an additional subscription for one game a week in this day and age?

Meh.

It may not be an extra subscription for a lot of people.

What value to a Championship club fan does Sky have?

Also, the games will be avauilable to Premier's existing subscriber base too, essentially a whole new audience for Rugby League.

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, John Drake said:

It may not be an extra subscription for a lot of people.

What value to a Championship club fan does Sky have?

Also, the games will be avauilable to Premier's existing subscriber base too, essentially a whole new audience for Rugby League.

If we start a numbers (viewers) game, the Premier deal will be far worse for the Championship than a Sky deal. Championship on Sky had some serious numbers. But, Sky weren't interested in taking it serious. 

I can see why they have gone for it over OurLeague, if there is a 6 figure guaranteed sum. I think the viewers are likely to be higher than OurLeague too. 

I can see the attraction of coverage on a proper platform, with games being live from the likes of Newcastle being attractive and being able to follow the season properly each week. 

The reality is there is no big bucks offer out there, and OurLeague is not making millions for anyone, so getting credible coverage and some cash is a reasonable outcome imho. 

[John Drake]

1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

But why? Would League 1 football fans pay for Premier on top of Sky sports if the Championship moved over? To force its way in BT sports had to go for the Champions League and Premier League jugulars.

RL isn't big enough and doesn't have a big enough audience to sustain multiple Pay TV deals, and fundamentally the Championship isn't attractive enough on its own to move a mass of people over either. Super League might just be able to manage a move, just.

Like it or not, the reality is that the Championship needs to be on a Pay TV network where there are a large number of existing RL fans to get good viewer numbers. Its never going to be a massive draw because most of the interest in the sport will go to the top division, and even then at the top of that.

In an ideal world, yes, it would be great if the Championship was covered by the same broadcast deal as the rest of the sport.

But the reality of the situation is that Sky have owned the rights to the Championship for years, but have hardly shown any of it, to a chorus of complaints on here. Now, they are cutting thre amount of money they pay overall, which is hardly a signal that thery are intent on increasing their coverage of the Championship.

Instead of dreaming of impossible things, I much prefer the reality of getting the Championship - which is a fantastic competition, incidentally, to all those talking it down on here - some regular TV exposure, which will enable it to demonstrate to a wider audience than it currently has, just how good it is.

Plus, if the audiences are good on Premier, it helps increase its value for future deals.

[gingerjon]

2 minutes ago, John Drake said:

It may not be an extra subscription for a lot of people.

What value to a Championship club fan does Sky have?

Also, the games will be avauilable to Premier's existing subscriber base too, essentially a whole new audience for Rugby League.

I'm not disagreeing and I did list my subscriptions earlier to give context to my point of view.

As to the value for Sky, I come back to the point I made that it's really not a significant number of matches and, for a fan of a specific team, there may only be one or two games a year when you're on and, potentially, that will be an away game (or two away games) that you wouldn't have seen anyway.

My end view on that is that the number who will subscribe based on the offer available - at current prices - is not huge. It will be a small percentage of the number who attend a championship round of fixtures.

The last part is that Premier is, itself, a tiny, tiny channel. We've seen that you can get into the top ten on their BARB figures with three figure audiences. There is potential to reach new people but there's not potential here to reach a lot of new people.

None of which is me saying this deal shouldn't go ahead or it spells the end for rugby league - just be realistic about what it is. It's a very basic deal to a very small channel that will make a difference to a few thousand rugby league fans.

[Dave T]

Just now, John Drake said:

In an ideal world, yes, it would be great if the Championship was covered by the same broadcast deal as the rest of the sport.

But the reality of the situation is that Sky have owned the rights to the Championship for years, but have hardly shown any of it, to a chorus of complaints on here. Now, they are cutting thre amount of money they pay overall, which is hardly a signal that thery are intent on increasing their coverage of the Championship.

Instead of dreaming of impossible things, I much prefer the reality of getting the Championship - which is a fantastic competition, incidentally, to all those talking it down on here - some regular TV exposure, which will enable it to demonstrate to a wider audience than it currently has, just how good it is.

Plus, if the audiences are good on Premier, it helps increase its value for future deals.

Again John, I haven't seen anyone talk down the Championship as a comp. They have discussed the financial value, which is negligible. 

I am OK with realism though, it is never gonna make millions, but if it can get respectable coverage for a 6 figure sum, that's fine. 

[John Drake]

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

If we start a numbers (viewers) game, the Premier deal will be far worse for the Championship than a Sky deal.

Unlikely, given that Premier will be showing one game a week, rather than one game every blue moon.

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, gingerjon said:

I'm not disagreeing and I did list my subscriptions earlier to give context to my point of view.

As to the value for Sky, I come back to the point I made that it's really not a significant number of matches and, for a fan of a specific team, there may only be one or two games a year when you're on and, potentially, that will be an away game (or two away games) that you wouldn't have seen anyway.

My end view on that is that the number who will subscribe based on the offer available - at current prices - is not huge. It will be a small percentage of the number who attend a championship round of fixtures.

The last part is that Premier is, itself, a tiny, tiny channel. We've seen that you can get into the top ten on their BARB figures with three figure audiences. There is potential to reach new people but there's not potential here to reach a lot of new people.

None of which is me saying this deal shouldn't go ahead or it spells the end for rugby league - just be realistic about what it is. It's a very basic deal to a very small channel that will make a difference to a few thousand rugby league fans.

Yes. And I think it is clear that OurLeague couldn't be much more than this either, so being on a professional platform has its advantages for viewers, and reduces risk for the game. 

[Dave T]

Just now, John Drake said:

Unlikely, given that Premier will be showing one game a week, rather than one game every blue moon.

See my earlier post detailing numbers. 

Sky get around about 800k for their 12 or so games a year (Bash and playoffs). 

Premier may attract 5k per game x 30 = 150k. It would need to attract 30k per game to be higher than Sky's numbers, and the Pro16 RU comp (top flight Scottish, Welsh and Irish) can get very low thousands. 

[Harry Stottle]

2 minutes ago, John Drake said:

It may not be an extra subscription for a lot of people.

What value to a Championship club fan does Sky have?

Also, the games will be avauilable to Premier's existing subscriber base too, essentially a whole new audience for Rugby League.

Presumably Premier Sports are entering into this to increase their subscriptions and not as a bonus to it's already customers.

[Archie Gordon]

I think there is something to be said for having a Championship game on TV every week but I think the exposure that Sky has given the POs (60-100k watching) and MPG (140-200k) will be a big loss. I'll be interested to see how those games in particular are marketed. The MPG is a big property - on a par with a SL/CC semi-final.

[Martyn Sadler]

I've now sent 20 questions to the RFL about the Premier deal, some of which were suggested by posters on here, so many thanks to those who responded to my earlier post.

Watch out for the responses in Monday's League Express and on our website.

[Tommygilf]

4 minutes ago, John Drake said:

In an ideal world, yes, it would be great if the Championship was covered by the same broadcast deal as the rest of the sport.

But the reality of the situation is that Sky have owned the rights to the Championship for years, but have hardly shown any of it, to a chorus of complaints on here. Now, they are cutting thre amount of money they pay overall, which is hardly a signal that thery are intent on increasing their coverage of the Championship.

Instead of dreaming of impossible things, I much prefer the reality of getting the Championship - which is a fantastic competition, incidentally, to all those talking it down on here - some regular TV exposure, which will enable it to demonstrate to a wider audience than it currently has, just how good it is.

Plus, if the audiences are good on Premier, it helps increase its value for future deals.

Its not necessarily being covered by the same deal even, just being on the same channel, where the audience is.

No other sport has a level that isn't either their top domestic cup/league or internationals on a channel as their leading product. They just don't drive audience or revenue. 

Nobody is talking down the Championship, quite the opposite, I think people want better for it.

[Harry Stottle]

Let's put this Premier offer into perspective, they are going to show Rugby League as an add on to their already broadcast sports, but the target customers are present RL fans and more precisely Championship fans are there enough who will subscribe?

Sky put RL on as part of their package offer, which with the vast profits they make from other sports they can afford to do so. If Sky broadcast each sport as a separate entity and they each had their own subscription value, would the RL channel get enough customer's to make it worthwhile for Sky?

I think that Premier will be monitoring how many new subscriptions this contract attracts, and I will be surprised if it gets extended upon completing it's 2 year deal.

 

[JohnM]

22 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Presumably Premier Sports are entering into this to increase their subscriptions and not as a bonus to it's already customers.

.amd maybe to get some advertsing revenue, too?

[Harry Stottle]

11 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

I've now sent 20 questions to the RFL about the Premier deal, some of which were suggested by posters on here, so many thanks to those who responded to my earlier post.

Watch out for the responses in Monday's League Express and on our website.

You must be well connected Martyn, today being Friday you expect answers from RL Headquarters in readiness to print for Monday?

[John Drake]

16 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

I'm not disagreeing and I did list my subscriptions earlier to give context to my point of view.

As to the value for Sky, I come back to the point I made that it's really not a significant number of matches and, for a fan of a specific team, there may only be one or two games a year when you're on and, potentially, that will be an away game (or two away games) that you wouldn't have seen anyway.

My end view on that is that the number who will subscribe based on the offer available - at current prices - is not huge. It will be a small percentage of the number who attend a championship round of fixtures.

The last part is that Premier is, itself, a tiny, tiny channel. We've seen that you can get into the top ten on their BARB figures with three figure audiences. There is potential to reach new people but there's not potential here to reach a lot of new people.

None of which is me saying this deal shouldn't go ahead or it spells the end for rugby league - just be realistic about what it is. It's a very basic deal to a very small channel that will make a difference to a few thousand rugby league fans.

If Sky were showing more than just the Summer Bash (when it happens) and the Championship play offs, I could understand the gnashing of teeth going on here with regard to the Championship now going to Premier.

But Sky have treated the Championship with an abject lack of interest ever since they gained the rights (which, incidentally, they only picked up at all because Premier had first demonstrated what great TV it made in the first place).

Now, here we have a channel, committing itself to regular weekly coverage, and we have people turning their noses up, dissing them because they aren't Sky, who haven't exactly fought a battle to hang onto the rights themselves.

Premier have a decent track record in broadcasting Rugby League to a high standard. Not only having pioneered regular weekly Championship broadcasts themselves back in the day, but they also broadcast the 2013 RLWC to great acclaim.

I doubt they will have bumbled blindly into this deal without having a very good idea of how many subscriptions they are likely to sell, and the overall value of that to their business. It's up to our sport. now, to make the most of the opportunity it presents.

I'll wager that before next season is a few weeks old, Premier will have proven themselves a breath of fresh air in the way they present our sport, with new presenters, commentators and broadcasting techniques.

I'm shocked (but not surprised) at the negative reactions on here, to something which has the potential to be hugely positive for the coverage of our sport beyond Super League.

 

[Tommygilf]

4 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Let's put this Premier offer into perspective, they are going to show Rugby League as an add on to their already broadcast sports, but the target customers are present RL fans and more precisely Championship fans are there enough who will subscribe?

Sky put RL on as part of their package offer, which with the vast profits they make from other sports they can afford to do so. If Sky broadcast each sport as a separate entity and they each had their own subscription value, would the RL channel get enough customer's to make it worthwhile for Sky?

I think that Premier will be monitoring how many new subscriptions this contract attracts, and I will be surprised if it gets extended upon completing it's 2 year deal.

 

Premier's numbers are low though, so relatively it doesn't have to be very many to be a success there - which is worth bearing in mind.

[John Drake]

34 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Again John, I haven't seen anyone talk down the Championship as a comp. They have discussed the financial value, which is negligible. 

I am OK with realism though, it is never gonna make millions, but if it can get respectable coverage for a 6 figure sum, that's fine. 

Saying its financial value is negligible IS talking the competition down!

If we don't value it, why on earth should any TV company value it?

Its value may be lower than Super League, but that doesn't mean it has no value.