RL on Channel 4

[DI Keith Fowler]

6 minutes ago, Dallas Mead said:

I’d agree partially, but I don’t think they’re that bothered with the effort and expense it would take to get a bigger audience.  They will have done the figures and it’s probably the case that the ROI isn’t there.

Oh absolutely, but they've not previously factored in that terrestrial coverage might be the boost needed that they cannot provide themselves. It might not take much of a push from them to get improvements if C4 can do some of the hard yards for them. 

[John Rhino]

55 minutes ago, Dallas Mead said:

I’d agree partially, but I don’t think they’re that bothered with the effort and expense it would take to get a bigger audience.  They will have done the figures and it’s probably the case that the ROI isn’t there.

There was an advert for Leeds v Wire during the break in Channel Four news tonight. 

Mentioned it was completely free! 

[Dallas Mead]

9 minutes ago, John Rhino said:

There was an advert for Leeds v Wire during the break in Channel Four news tonight. 

Mentioned it was completely free! 

They’re definitely pushing it

[Futtocks]

2 minutes ago, Dallas Mead said:

They’re definitely pushing it

It's a weird feeling, isn't it?

[Dave T]

2 hours ago, Dallas Mead said:

Doubtful tbh, we’re just a filler for Sky nowadays sadly.  Probably on a par with women’s netball?  They’re owned by Comcast now, thus the focus on American sports like NBA and NFL.

Sky have channels to fill. The money they pay for SL is still one of the higher amounts, more so than the other sports you mention. They should maybe be seen as the filler. 

[Dave T]

4 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

Can see sky dropping usor asking for franchising like their American sports and spread for marketability: 

Pies Saints Wire London Newcastle 

Cat Toulouse Hull York KR 

Take your pick of the rest. 

Not what I want which is why we need to do well on 4 and World Cup.

Sky don't really do that. 

[M j M]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

Sky don't really do that. 

Absolutely. Sky aren't interested in running the sport, they just want the sport to attract the most viewing figures - it's up to them how to do it although they're open to  ideas.

But fantasising that Sky just might be willing to part with tens of millions to prop up a poster's particular madcap vision of random, fan-less teams in random places is not going to get us anywhere.

[gingerjon]

7 hours ago, Dave T said:

Sky have channels to fill. The money they pay for SL is still one of the higher amounts, more so than the other sports you mention. They should maybe be seen as the filler. 

NFL, in particular, is literally four months of channel filler that nicely covers up the fact that there was no alternative bid for the sport *and* that Sky don't have as many sports in their schedule during that time as previously.

[RigbyLuger]

8 hours ago, ShropshireBull said:

As people have mentioned sky now owned by american company .

And their audience is British.

[Tommygilf]

1 hour ago, gingerjon said:

NFL, in particular, is literally four months of channel filler that nicely covers up the fact that there was no alternative bid for the sport *and* that Sky don't have as many sports in their schedule during that time as previously.

True, but they do have their own channel.

[RP London]

On 07/02/2022 at 16:08, Damien said:

This is all really great. Two really well known, national TV presenters in Adam Hills and Helen Skelton with Mark Wilson commentating, who has really impressed me on Premier Sports. Sam Tomkins always comes across really well and is one of our most well known players and Leon Pryce is a good pundit. C4's coverage has great potential and I find the presenting team really exciting. It certainly offers something fresh and vibrant compared to what we see on the BBC and in particular Sky.

Danika Primm has always been good when i've heard her as well.. 

[RP London]

31 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

True, but they do have their own channel.

which will then become sky golf, or sky cricket or sky f1 depending on the season.. 

The NFL produce a load of programming and sky just go.. brilliant that fills up an otheriwse empty pocket of time and channel space.. done!

11 hours ago, DI Keith Fowler said:

Oh absolutely, but they've not previously factored in that terrestrial coverage might be the boost needed that they cannot provide themselves. It might not take much of a push from them to get improvements if C4 can do some of the hard yards for them. 

Didnt they find this with the cricket (or similar) when they allowed Channel 4 to show the WC final for free? it actually meant viewing figures for the sport went up initially as there was interest funnelled their way. Them allowing FTA coverage is not altruistic there is method in this rather than paying more for exclusivity they are learning that paying less and allowing some FTA may well make them more in the long run, for less outlay (not just initially but on advertising on FTA as well!). Those that run Sky are many things but I would rarely say they are stupid.

[Tommygilf]

19 minutes ago, RP London said:

which will then become sky golf, or sky cricket or sky f1 depending on the season.. 

I don't think so, those channels already exist and SSNFL was converted from Sky Sports Action?

[Dave T]

10 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I don't think so, those channels already exist and SSNFL was converted from Sky Sports Action?

It goes back to being Action out of NFL season. 

In reality, NFL is one of those sports that is perfect filler in the UK. It is probably what the definition of filler was created for. 

Loads of content, low price, good for perceptions I. E. Cool, but in reality, low viewers. Changing the logo to Sky Sports NFL is easy. 

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, ShropshireBull said:

Pretty sure  I said they would drop the sport or franchise it. Helps if people actually bother to read...

And people are saying they won't franchise it, because that isn't what they do. 

[gingerjon]

1 hour ago, Tommygilf said:

True, but they do have their own channel.

They do but it is an absolute dumping ground of filler.

[RigbyLuger]

1 hour ago, ShropshireBull said:

And Australia's audience is Australian, so what? In the same way that Sky's owners previously being Aussie and having previously invested in RL shaped their attitude to the sport,  being run by Americans with American attitudes to sport would obviously influence how they see it. 

 

No more cricket, rugby union, netball, GAA etc. all of which have little footprint in the USA.

The owners are going to provide what the audience want to pay for, regardless of whether they like it or understand it.

[The Rocket]

59 minutes ago, RP London said:

Didnt they find this with the cricket (or similar) when they allowed Channel 4 to show the WC final for free? it actually meant viewing figures for the sport went up initially as there was interest funnelled their way. Them allowing FTA coverage is not altruistic there is method in this rather than paying more for exclusivity they are learning that paying less and allowing some FTA may well make them more in the long run, for less outlay (not just initially but on advertising on FTA as well!). Those that run Sky are many things but I would rarely say they are stupid.

We`ve seen this in Oz where Netball, soccer and union all went behind paywalls to maximise broadcast revenue only for everyone of them to find themselves withering on the vine so to speak.

All three have emerged now with both union and soccer having a 1 game per week FTA primetime slot ( 7.30p.m. Saturday), the rest of their games behind a streaming service paywall linked to their FTA broadcaster. Both have probably roughly doubled what they were getting behind the pay TV paywall for their televised FTA match each week. Both networks have tended to be very secretive about the flow on effects to the games behind the paywall, although of course both have been talking it up.

What interests me about the C4 deal is whos` idea it was to only go for the 10 games, obviously the motives are similar to what has happened to the aforementioned sports in Oz and as you mentioned above, and is there any chance if it a success is there any chance of C4 taking over the whole show with a deal similar, both monetarily and exposure wise, to both what union and soccer have in Oz. BTW soccer is getting about $40m Oz (21.5m pound) and union $30m Oz ( 16m pound) and both were coming off very low bases on Pay TV which no doubt affected their negotiating power with their new FTA and Streaming deals.

 

[Eddie]

4 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

We`ve seen this in Oz where Netball, soccer and union all went behind paywalls to maximise broadcast revenue only for everyone of them to find themselves withering on the vine so to speak.

All three have emerged now with both union and soccer having a 1 game per week FTA primetime slot ( 7.30p.m. Saturday), the rest of their games behind a streaming service paywall linked to their FTA broadcaster. Both have probably roughly doubled what they were getting behind the pay TV paywall for their televised FTA match each week. Both networks have tended to be very secretive about the flow on effects to the games behind the paywall, although of course both have been talking it up.

What interests me about the C4 deal is whos` idea it was to only go for the 10 games, obviously the motives are similar to what has happened to the aforementioned sports in Oz and as you mentioned above, and is there any chance if it a success is there any chance of C4 taking over the whole show with a deal similar, both monetarily and exposure wise, to both what union and soccer have in Oz. BTW soccer is getting about $40m Oz (21.5m pound) and union $30m Oz ( 16m pound) and both were coming off very low bases on Pay TV which no doubt affected their negotiating power with their new FTA and Streaming deals.

 

Mate if channel 4 took it all on it would be the best thing that’s happened to RL in England since 1895, but they just have one channel so are unlikely to want to show more than one game a week live. 

[Smudger06]

2 hours ago, ShropshireBull said:

Pretty sure  I said they would drop the sport or franchise it. Helps if people actually bother to read...

So they will be dropping or franchising the Premier league by your logic. 

[Smudger06]

Franchising is nothing to do with subscription TV its about terrestrial media markets.....they have a different set of games live in each of the us media markets. In the UK we only have an half hour segment of local news and weather that's everything else is highly centralised. Not a great deal of room or need for seperate TV markets.....

[Eddie]

1 minute ago, Smudger06 said:

Franchising is nothing to do with subscription TV its about terrestrial media markets.....they have a different set of games live in each of the us media markets. In the UK we only have an half hour segment of local news and weather that's everything else is highly centralised. Not a great deal of room or need for seperate TV markets.....

In England. In Scotland, Wales and NI they have a fair amount of their own programming (to be pedantic). But otherwise yes agreed. 

[Tommygilf]

10 minutes ago, Smudger06 said:

So they will be dropping or franchising the Premier league by your logic. 

In fairness the owners of 6 clubs (3 Americans) wanted to do just that last year.

[Smudger06]

1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

In fairness the owners of 6 clubs (3 Americans) wanted to do just that last year.

They wanted to form their own league  not franchise the Premier League....

[Dave T]

19 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

We`ve seen this in Oz where Netball, soccer and union all went behind paywalls to maximise broadcast revenue only for everyone of them to find themselves withering on the vine so to speak.

All three have emerged now with both union and soccer having a 1 game per week FTA primetime slot ( 7.30p.m. Saturday), the rest of their games behind a streaming service paywall linked to their FTA broadcaster. Both have probably roughly doubled what they were getting behind the pay TV paywall for their televised FTA match each week. Both networks have tended to be very secretive about the flow on effects to the games behind the paywall, although of course both have been talking it up.

What interests me about the C4 deal is whos` idea it was to only go for the 10 games, obviously the motives are similar to what has happened to the aforementioned sports in Oz and as you mentioned above, and is there any chance if it a success is there any chance of C4 taking over the whole show with a deal similar, both monetarily and exposure wise, to both what union and soccer have in Oz. BTW soccer is getting about $40m Oz (21.5m pound) and union $30m Oz ( 16m pound) and both were coming off very low bases on Pay TV which no doubt affected their negotiating power with their new FTA and Streaming deals.

 

As always, it is almost impossible to compare sports broadcasting in Oz to the UK. The amount of money and time invested in sports broadcasting in Oz is massively different to the UK.