RL on Channel 4

[graveyard johnny]

1 minute ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

Our kids know their league players but wouldn’t be able to name a single cricketer. 

can they name any married ones?

[Dave T]

9 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

Yep. Not bad but not great. 

Tbh, I suppose we have no idea what is classed as great. Maybe comparisons with the European Rugby they show in the same slot would tell us. 

Apparently it is 50% higher than this slot normally attracts, but God knows what they usually show at that time. 

[Northern Eel]

40 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Tbh, I suppose we have no idea what is classed as great. Maybe comparisons with the European Rugby they show in the same slot would tell us. 

Apparently it is 50% higher than this slot normally attracts, but God knows what they usually show at that time. 

If I was the producer of Celebrity Come Cross-stitch With Me, I would be quaking in my boots right now. 

[Damien]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

Apparently it is 50% higher than this slot normally attracts, but God knows what they usually show at that time. 

To me these are the kind of stats that allow for a true comparison and more importantly allow Channel 4 to judge the value of showing SL. A 50% increase for the time slot is absolutely fantastic and should make Channel 4 very happy.

[Cumbrian Fanatic]

Serious About Rugby League reporting the this was equivalent to 7% of audience share. Not sure what their normal share is, but it's being reported as positive

[Barry Badrinath]

2 hours ago, Dave T said:

Tbh, I suppose we have no idea what is classed as great. Maybe comparisons with the European Rugby they show in the same slot would tell us. 

Apparently it is 50% higher than this slot normally attracts, but God knows what they usually show at that time. 

The simpsons and brooklyn 99 repeats

[Big Picture]

6 hours ago, Waynebennettswinger said:

Not my figures but if this is anything to go by then I find this promising enough - Chris Bland@ChrisBland31@rugbyleagueontv Yesterday's @C4Sport rugby league game between @WarringtonRLFC and @leedsrhinos  got an average of 531'000 viewers, peaking at 735'000. 

6 hours ago, Jughead said:

Jesus. That’s incredible. 

Why would it be incredible?  Challenge Cup matches on the BBC have often had bigger audiences haven't they?

[RigbyLuger]

8 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

Why would it be incredible?  Challenge Cup matches on the BBC have often had bigger audiences haven't they?

BBC1 gets much bigger viewing figures than C4, that's why.

[Womer]

8 hours ago, Eddie said:

 

 

Edited February 13, 2022 by Womer
Wrong post

[Futtocks]

2 hours ago, Barry Badrinath said:

The simpsons and brooklyn 99 repeats

That makes it a flexible slot for C4. If they get the rights for something, even at short notice, repeats can easily be bumped back a week without really upsetting anyone.

[Desert Skipper]

As Dave T pointed out, we need a comparison with their European RU coverage. Can anyone in the know do some digging and bring us some stats?

Either way, it’s more than I expected for a debut on C4. I hope the peak was for the last 20 mins which was gripping stuff. And hopefully some neutral sports fans too, not just RL types.

EDIT: Just realised Dunbar posted the ITV RU Prem numbers. On that basis, we’ve done very well, no? 

Edited February 13, 2022 by Desert Skipper

[Yakstorm]

Average for the actual match (versus the whole broadcast) was over 600K, which is very strong.

Considering average audience for Super League on Sky was 150K last year, its a huge result for the league, especially if we can build on those.

[Dave T]

2 hours ago, Big Picture said:

Why would it be incredible?  Challenge Cup matches on the BBC have often had bigger audiences haven't they?

It's interesting. The numbers have relatively little context. They are far higher than Sky, lower than BBC - so probably where you'd expect them to land. 

Some will rave, some be negative, both with little to support them. 

No surprise, you've gone for the negative route. 

[Dave T]

2 hours ago, Big Picture said:

 

Repeat post

Edited February 13, 2022 by Dave T

[Padge]

Be careful of biting the hand that feeds you.

Sky have pumped millions into RL, it isn't Sky's fault that most of that money has been wasted by the majority of clubs given it

Sky still pay a significant amount of money for RL and though they may have become stale, and you compare Ch4 which was excellent and refreshing, it should be more a case of pushing Sky down the less is more route (commentators, replays) than pushing to ditch Sky for CH4 who will never pay what Sky pay us.

[Eddie]

9 hours ago, Damien said:

Cumbria seems a bit weird in that regard. At Uni I knew people from there who were fanatical RL fans. I also knew people who had played nothing but RU and genuinely knew nothing about RL until they started playing it at Uni.

Big county though isn’t it, I think Norfolk is a similar size and Kings Lynn and Yarmouth might as well be on different planets. Plus how far is it from St Helens to Huyton or Widnes to Speke. 

Edited February 13, 2022 by Eddie

[Waynebennettswinger]

41 minutes ago, Eddie said:

Big county though isn’t it, I think Norfolk is a similar size and Kings Lynn and Yarmouth might as well be on different planets. Plus how far is it from St Helens to Huyton or Widnes to Speke. 

Huyton is roughly 3 decades away from St Helens. 

[Niels]

1 hour ago, Padge said:

Be careful of biting the hand that feeds you.

Sky have pumped millions into RL, it isn't Sky's fault that most of that money has been wasted by the majority of clubs given it

Sky still pay a significant amount of money for RL and though they may have become stale, and you compare Ch4 which was excellent and refreshing, it should be more a case of pushing Sky down the less is more route (commentators, replays) than pushing to ditch Sky for CH4 who will never pay what Sky pay us.

I agree with this.

Sky have produced coverage for 25 years, 2 to 3 games a week. 

A new broadcaster is bound to seem refreshing and different in comparison. 

It isn't really fair to make comparisons. Also they are targetting very different audiences. 

[Damien]

2 minutes ago, Niels said:

I agree with this.

Sky have produced coverage for 25 years, 2 to 3 games a week. 

A new broadcaster is bound to seem refreshing and different in comparison. 

It isn't really fair to make comparisons. Also they are targetting very different audiences. 

We can absolutely make comparisons between the quality of coverage,  which is what people are doing.

[Niels]

Just now, Damien said:

We can absolutely make comparisons between the quality of coverage,  which is what people are doing.

You can make comparisons as long as you take into account context. 

People are extolling Channel 4 coverage because it is new and different. 

It's like after being married for 25 years and meeting someone new and fresh. Once the novelty wears off them people want to return to the familiar.

Personally, I thought the  Channel 4 commentary was too basic for me and I didn't like the constant stressing about it being on Terrestrial tv. 

But that's why I pay over £100 per month for Sky. 

[Wiltshire Warrior Dragon]

50 minutes ago, Eddie said:

Big county though isn’t it, I think Norfolk is a similar size and Kings Lynn and Yarmouth might as well be on different planets. Plus how far is it from St Helens to Huyton or Widnes to Speke. 

Whether you see Cumbria as big, Eddie, may depend on your background.  I lived and worked for about twenty years in the North Riding/North Yorkshire.  The latter in particular tempts me to reply to you by saying that, no, Cumbria is not terribly big.  Remember that, by road, from east to west in North Yorkshire is about 140 miles!

Also remember that 'Cumbria' is a modern creation; historically it was two counties, Cumberland and Westmoreland.

I think the thing about rugby culture in 'Cumbria' is that league has very much been along the Cumberland coast and a little bit inland, as far as I can see. 

That said, there have been exceptions, if I remember correctly, especially in the early days.  Some of the excellent historians on these fora, like Padge, have previously produced interesting copy from newspapers of a century or more ago, and I seem to recall seeing that Kendal Wasps competed - however briefly - in NU competition. 

As ever, i stand to be corrected, especially at this time on a Sunday night, as fatigue from multi-tasking in a church service this evening and the effects of an agreeable red start to kick in!

[The Rocket]

On 12/02/2022 at 22:02, Damien said:

How good is this? The best English RL promo I've seen I reckon:

 

@fighting irish couldn`t see your name on the `like` list, thought you might have missed it, bought a tear to my eye and gave me goose bumps, ridiculous or not I think he says what we all feel. Rocket.

[Damien]

3 minutes ago, Niels said:

You can make comparisons as long as you take into account context. 

People are extolling Channel 4 coverage because it is new and different. 

It's like after being married for 25 years and meeting someone new and fresh. Once the novelty wears off them people want to return to the familiar.

Personally, I thought the  Channel 4 commentary was too basic for me and I didn't like the constant stressing about it being on Terrestrial tv. 

But that's why I pay over £100 per month for Sky. 

Too basic? Sky with the likes of O'Connor and McDermott is as basic as it gets!

People aren't extolling C4 because it was new, they are extolling it because it was noticeably better. People complain about Sky precisely because it is familiar and hasn't improved for donkeys years. Its a tired, crowded format that favours quantity and noise over quality and has regressed.

To most people different is good and is precisely what they have been after. You obviously like it but its quite evident that many think Sky's coverage is poor. That isn't even just as a comparison to C4 but also as a comparison to other Sky offerings.

Very few would think we can do away with Sky. We can't, the money is vital. However that does not mean that Sky can't do much better and can't be pushed into raising their game through competition. 

[Niels]

23 minutes ago, Damien said:

Too basic? Sky with the likes of O'Connor and McDermott is as basic as it gets!

People aren't extolling C4 because it was new, they are extolling it because it was noticeably better. People complain about Sky precisely because it is familiar and hasn't improved for donkeys years. Its a tired, crowded format that favours quantity and noise over quality and has regressed.

To most people different is good and is precisely what they have been after. You obviously like it but its quite evident that many think Sky's coverage is poor. That isn't even just as a comparison to C4 but also as a comparison to other Sky offerings.

Very few would think we can do away with Sky. We can't, the money is vital. However that does not mean that Sky can't do much better and can't be pushed into raising their game through competition. 

Terry, Barrie and JJB work hard and are extremely knowledgeable and don't deserve the unwarranted criticism. I don't know if you have ever watched the video analysis at the end, but it is certainly not basic. 

My point is, comparing one programme with a station that has over 25 years is not a true comparison. 

I think you are confusing difference and loyalty. 

[Man of Kent]

1 minute ago, Niels said:

Terry, Barrie and JJB work hard and are extremely knowledgeable and don't deserve the unwarranted criticism. I don't know if you have ever watched the video analysis at the end, but it is certainly not basic. 

My point is, comparing one programme with a station that has over 25 years is not a true comparison. 

I think you are confusing difference and loyalty. 

To be fair, many (most?) of us have slagged off Terry O’Connor for years. His line of ‘bash ‘em up’ punditry was always a bit old hat but he seems like a dinosaur now.