Jump to content

COULD SKY PULL THE PLUG


Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, Eddie said:

I doubt Sky executives come on the TRL forum. 

No but I’m sure they do receive some feedback on their social media responses. Channel 4’s coverage has been great, in typical rugby league fashion many have turned that into a negative reaction towards sky. That’s not a good response for the sport imo. Why can’t people just be positive and give praise to channel 4 without the negativity and attacks on sky sports. The sport needs the money from sky sports and we shouldn’t forget that, a free to air broadcaster could never replace them entirely, they wouldn’t be prepared to shell out £25-£40M a year for our sport.

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites


""attacks on sky sports."

 

Yes. I wonder about that, myself.   Is it because you have to pay for Sky? ( like you do the BBC, of course). Is it because Murdoch was involved and he is still the bête noire of some posters? 

  • Like 1

“If you understand, things are just as they are; if you do not understand, things are just as they are.” Zen Proverb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sir Kevin Sinfield said:

No but I’m sure they do receive some feedback on their social media responses. Channel 4’s coverage has been great, in typical rugby league fashion many have turned that into a negative reaction towards sky. That’s not a good response for the sport imo. Why can’t people just be positive and give praise to channel 4 without the negativity and attacks on sky sports. The sport needs the money from sky sports and we shouldn’t forget that, a free to air broadcaster could never replace them entirely, they wouldn’t be prepared to shell out £25-£40M a year for our sport.

Not often , but a sensible post , exactly right 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, JohnM said:

""attacks on sky sports."

 

Yes. I wonder about that, myself.   Is it because you have to pay for Sky? ( like you do the BBC, of course). Is it because Murdoch was involved and he is still the bête noire of some posters? 

Or is it because aspects of their rugby league television production need reworking?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, JohnM said:

""attacks on sky sports."

 

Yes. I wonder about that, myself.   Is it because you have to pay for Sky? ( like you do the BBC, of course). Is it because Murdoch was involved and he is still the bête noire of some posters? 

I think it's mostly because their approach to the main bit of the coverage that everyone sees - i.e. the commentary and in-play coverage of the match itself - is pretty weak and has been for years.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

I think it's mostly because their approach to the main bit of the coverage that everyone sees - i.e. the commentary and in-play coverage of the match itself - is pretty weak and has been for years.

I do find myself shouting "oh do shut up!" more at the Sky commentary and "Off Side" or "knock on" more at Channel 4 and BBC.. i believe the latter are more Rugby League so i think that is a good barometer.. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sky have us mostly to fill schedules in the summer when football buggers off for the summer and World cups.  

This year it is different as Qatar is november and we are off to so our filler spot is less valuable. .

Because our infrastructure costs are so high we would be part time again and clubs that rent stadiums would be at risk.  But era of big tv deals are over. Premiership football will eventually cut cord and go full streaming, when that happens the Sky model is done. 

Need a weekly game on fta and try to top rights bk to 30 mil. DAZN were in process of buying BT Sport,  when that happens a conversation needs to be had with them. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

Sky have us mostly to fill schedules in the summer when football buggers off for the summer and World cups.  

This year it is different as Qatar is november and we are off to so our filler spot is less valuable. .

Because our infrastructure costs are so high we would be part time again and clubs that rent stadiums would be at risk.  But era of big tv deals are over. Premiership football will eventually cut cord and go full streaming, when that happens the Sky model is done. 

Need a weekly game on fta and try to top rights bk to 30 mil. DAZN were in process of buying BT Sport,  when that happens a conversation needs to be had with them. 

 

BT have rebuffed the DAZN approach and are now in sole talks with Discovery (who own Eurosport) about some kind of joint venture.

Edited by Gerrumonside ref
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Gerrumonside ref said:

BT have rebuffed the DAZN approach and are now in sole talks with Discovery (who own Eurosport) about some kind of joint venture.

Ahh if BT Sport were completely gone I would be more confident. In terms of tv rights then the aim has to be an annual international tournament involving our tv market.  Only realistic way I can see now of us clawing back some of our lost income. Just a fraction of what Union get for their aim would fill the hole left by Sky. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't see Sky dropping RL anytime soon, given the viewing figures and subscription income generated by the sport.  I'd  like Sky to freshen up the commentary team and have people who've played 1, 6, 7 and 9 giving their input.  C4 coverage has the edge for me at present, in that they're not constantly showing replays when the ball is in play.  I find myself shouting 'Get on the f*****g game!' a lot more than 'Gerrem onside' when viewing a game on Sky.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Subscriptions and eye balls are of course important but don't forget their brand.  That is they want to be seen as a sports channel. Not all the sports they show get huge eye balls or hardly if any extra subscriptions from that sports fanbase.

It of course will impact what they are prepared to pay. If RL can maintain its position as a top 3 or 4 UK spectator sport then Sky will want to have it on their sports channel.

Edited by redjonn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, gingerjon said:

I think it's mostly because their approach to the main bit of the coverage that everyone sees - i.e. the commentary and in-play coverage of the match itself - is pretty weak and has been for years.

Yes, there's that, too. But some, I feel sure, maybe the supergreed types, are philosophically opposed to Sky and all its works.

Personally, I find the NRL presentation on Sky to be ahead of Sky and the BBC. Too early to judge C4 but a promising start and that's for sure.

Back on track: could Sky pull the plug?  Yes.

Edited by JohnM

“If you understand, things are just as they are; if you do not understand, things are just as they are.” Zen Proverb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SKY are doing a great job with RL this year in terms of matches broadcast with the NRL as well.

Currently there is NO RU on SKY they dropped the Championship and Celtic League a while back and also the England U 20 and England Women.

 

BT is pretty much the RU channel at present.

 

Personally i am happy with that SKY wins hands down every time:)

 

 

 

Paul

Edited by ATLANTISMAN
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course Sky could pull the plug, let's all remember that they effectively put the game on two years' notice to shape up and prove its value or else with this latest contract.

Another way to phrase the question in the OP is: will the game succeed or fail at the task Sky has given it?

Edited by Big Picture
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sky won't pull the plug, simply as there is no other serious bidder for RL, so they can pretty much pay what they like with practically no competition.  The question is more, will they reduce what they are paying for RL, when the next tv rights comes around.

A lot will depend on how much Sky have to pay to keep premiership football, and how much they have left after that to go into rugby league.

RL's problem is that unlike Cricket and Union (the other 2 big UK sports not football), no other broadcaster is willing to spend as much money on RL as sky does, so sky won't go anywhere, as they don't have to.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt Sky would drop Super League. Why would they? It does quite well for them. They reduced the amount they pay for TV rights because they knew they could get away with it. It's a negotiation and unfortunately the timing of the rights renewal was just about the worst for our game because the pandemic left us with very few options but to take whatever Sky were offering.

I know people have been making a lot of fuss about Channel 4's coverage and how they are now a rival to Sky but to be honest I just don't see it being anything but good news for Sky. I'm sure they were as happy as anyone that Channel 4 picked up the rights. I just can't see any scenario where Channel 4 would take over the main Super League broadcasting contract. Picking and choosing games suits them. And if they get amazing viewing figures why would Sky care? If new fans start enjoying rugby league it will direct them to the place where they can watch more of it, which is Sky.

Sky and Channel 4 seem to have a good relationship, hence why when a culturally significant sporting event takes place on Sky there's often a deal done by Channel 4 allowing them to broadcast it free to air. Sky already sold the subscriptions so it doesn't matter too much to them if people watch on a terrestrial channel. The same goes for rugby league. The better Channel 4 do with the coverage the more it directs people towards their own product.

Channel 4 won't take the whole thing and even if they get a bigger slice of the pie, we would still need another broadcaster and that's likely to be Sky.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Gerrumonside ref said:

Or is it because aspects of their rugby league television production need reworking?

Its not polarised, it's graduated. There are a whole raft of reasons, including the one you cite, why the few antis  don't like Sky.

“If you understand, things are just as they are; if you do not understand, things are just as they are.” Zen Proverb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JohnM said:

Its not polarised, it's graduated. There are a whole raft of reasons, including the one you cite, why the few antis  don't like Sky.

I just don’t see the political ownership angle in any of the comments being made about Sky’s coverage.

Maybe you can point out the specific posts for me?

Or else you risk smearing everybody with this accusation.

To be honest I think you’re reading too much into things.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clearly, people will only express their political views on the politics sub forum, not on this one. Asking me to point out specific posts is not really the issue. Nowhere have I smeared everyone, either. Of course, some people like Sky in all its forms and some don't. Some people like Sky's presentation and some don't. Some people like Sky's involvement and some don't. To suggest that people hold their Sky opinions purely based on the issue of the studio presenters seems to be mistaken. 

People do hold strong and irrational views about players, about teams, about stadiums, about referees, about the RFL, etc.erc.etc.. so it is also likely that people hold strong and irrational views about the whole idea of Sky. 

However, back on track. 

Could Sky pull the plug,? Of course they could.

Will Sky pull the plug? No.

  • Like 1

“If you understand, things are just as they are; if you do not understand, things are just as they are.” Zen Proverb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, JohnM said:

Clearly, people will only express their political views on the politics sub forum, not on this one. Asking me to point out specific posts is not really the issue. Nowhere have I smeared everyone, either. Of course, some people like Sky in all its forms and some don't. Some people like Sky's presentation and some don't. Some people like Sky's involvement and some don't. To suggest that people hold their Sky opinions purely based on the issue of the studio presenters seems to be mistaken. 

People do hold strong and irrational views about players, about teams, about stadiums, about referees, about the RFL, etc.erc.etc.. so it is also likely that people hold strong and irrational views about the whole idea of Sky. 

However, back on track. 

Could Sky pull the plug,? Of course they could.

Will Sky pull the plug? No.

You were the one who brought up the the idea that people were politically motivated in their criticism of the Sky coverage of rugby league.

I can quote it back to you if you’d like.

However if you’re now rowing back from that position when asked to provide evidence of it then fair enough.

I think that’s sensible.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

First rule of business, know your market/customers and competition, any source of information is good.

Well they didn’t listen to me when I got rid of sky 20 odd years when they bought the game

sometimes you have to take a step backwards to move forward

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, DEANO said:

Well they didn’t listen to me when I got rid of sky 20 odd years when they bought the game

Why get rid?

“If you understand, things are just as they are; if you do not understand, things are just as they are.” Zen Proverb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...