Jump to content

IMG Strategic Partnership Announced


Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Sky buy a certain number of games. There is a massive negative for Sky if a sizeable number of them aren't that interesting.

 

To just address this one, important point - the S8 games came in the form of additional games, not replacements. At times we were seeing 4 games a weekend. We were still seeing Leeds every week, even then! 😆

Link to comment
Share on other sites


2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

To just address this one, important point - the S8 games came in the form of additional games, not replacements. At times we were seeing 4 games a weekend. We were still seeing Leeds every week, even then! 😆

I can't remember the details but weren't they included in the number of Championship games that Sky committed to showing?

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

6 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Saying games are not interesting doesn't mean anything. People still watched on Sky. 

One of the most iconic finishes ever to SL came under S8's (Ryan Hall scoring at Hudds) - a clip still used nowadays on Sky.

But, I don't think we need to discuss structure any more, surely we all have fatigue on that subject!

But if anyone thinks Sky offered £25m down from £40m because we had a certain structure 4 seasons earlier, they want their bumps felt.

It is not just the structure but the legacy the structure created. It's no more apparent than on this board. The hangover is still being felt about a race for the scraps - look at the content on here week in week out. That is Wood's and Rimmer's legacy (I put Rimmer in the past tense because I am not sure he exists).

Edited by Scubby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, gingerjon said:

I can't remember the details but weren't they included in the number of Championship games that Sky committed to showing?

I'm not sure, because when S8's was scrapped, we didn't see Championship games shown IIRC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Scubby said:

It is not just the structure but the legacy the structure created. It's no more apparent than on this board. The hangover is still being felt about a race for the scraps - look at the content on here week in week out. That is Wood's and Rimmer's legacy (I put Rimmer in the past tense because I am not sure he exists).

We need to not give this board of RL tragics who focus heavily on the business side too much credit. 

I can genuinely, hand on heart say that I have never heard any criticism of the RL structure (any of them) from an RL fan in person. And definitely not from a non-RL sports fan.

I don;t know if you follow football, but I am fascinated by the City v Liverpool battle, my enjoyment is not being ruined by the fact that Leeds and Everton are having a high profile battle to avoid relegation.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

We need to not give this board of RL tragics who focus heavily on the business side too much credit. 

I can genuinely, hand on heart say that I have never heard any criticism of the RL structure (any of them) from an RL fan in person. And definitely not from a non-RL sports fan.

I don;t know if you follow football, but I am fascinated by the City v Liverpool battle, my enjoyment is not being ruined by the fact that Leeds and Everton are having a high profile battle to avoid relegation.

 

I am talking about the overload in comments and contributions from posters. The imbalance about promotion and relegation is clear and is a legacy of the game constantly focusing on it for the past x years. This is a natural hangover, as is the 1895 Cup solution to marquee events.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Scubby said:

I am talking about the overload in comments and contributions from posters. The imbalance about promotion and relegation is clear and is a legacy of the game constantly focusing on it for the past x years. This is a natural hangover, as is the 1895 Cup solution to marquee events.

I'm surprised you put that down to S8's - the obsession with P&R has been around way before that. The biggest shockwave around that subject was licensing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

We need to not give this board of RL tragics who focus heavily on the business side too much credit. 

I can genuinely, hand on heart say that I have never heard any criticism of the RL structure (any of them) from an RL fan in person. And definitely not from a non-RL sports fan.

I don;t know if you follow football, but I am fascinated by the City v Liverpool battle, my enjoyment is not being ruined by the fact that Leeds and Everton are having a high profile battle to avoid relegation.

I do agree that people on this board look at the bigger RL picture. However I do know plenty of RL fans that criticise the structure and the repetition the game sees as a result. I don't know anyone that liked the middle 8s for example or who likes loop fixtures. I also know more and more who are beginning to dislike the play off format due to it making the season a procession. For me many of the complaints on this board tally with people I speak to in real life. I also know fans of the sports who find the play off structure bizarre and to them it is unfathomable that the team that finishes top isn't champions. They find that a real oddity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Damien said:

I do agree that people on this board look at the bigger RL picture. However I do know plenty of RL fans that criticise the structure and the repetition the game sees as a result. I don't know anyone that liked the middle 8s for example or who likes loop fixtures. I also know more and more who are beginning to dislike the play off format due to it making the season a procession. For me many of the complaints on this board tally with people I speak to in real life. I also know fans of the sports who find the play off structure bizarre and to them it is unfathomable that the team that finishes top isn't champions. They find that a real oddity.

The Playoffs/Grand Final is probably one that I have heard questioned - but I must admit that was a while ago and people see playoffs as a standard part of the game nowadays. 

I do find people are relatively disinterested in this kind of thing. For example, I may have a view on the Scottish Premier League structure if pushed on it, but not a strong one. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Damien said:

I also know fans of the sports who find the play off structure bizarre and to them it is unfathomable that the team that finishes top isn't champions. They find that a real oddity.

"The Grand Final is like the Super Bowl" tends to sort that quite quickly.

And there is nothing more complicated in sport than the Cymru Premier splitting into two groups of six and then having the bottom three teams from the top six and the top team from the bottom six play off so they can decided who is going to play in the Scottish Challenge Cup next year.

  • Haha 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

1 minute ago, gingerjon said:

"The Grand Final is like the Super Bowl" tends to sort that quite quickly.

And there is nothing more complicated in sport than the Cymru Premier splitting into two groups of six and then having the bottom three teams from the top six and the top team from the bottom six play off so they can decided who is going to play in the Scottish Challenge Cup next year.

The thing is those that no anything about American sports and conferences can see the need for some type of Grand Final. In RL when its a straight forward league not so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Damien said:

The thing is those that no anything about American sports and conferences can see the need for some type of Grand Final. In RL when its a straight forward league not so.

I've not come across anyone finding the concept particularly challenging TBH.

This could be because, being entirely southern based these days, people tend to come across the play offs and the Grand Final and just assume that's how things are.

  • Like 3

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

33 minutes ago, Damien said:

I also know fans of the sports who find the play off structure bizarre and to them it is unfathomable that the team that finishes top isn't champions. They find that a real oddity.

Which sports fans do you find who see the play off structure bizarre and unfathomable?

  • Like 1

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dunbar said:

Which sports fans do you find who see the play off structure bizarre and unfathomable?

Football mainly but for some reason you are twisting words. It is the team not finishing top not being champions that they find unfathomable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Damien said:

Football mainly but for some reason you are twisting words. It is the team not finishing top not being champions that they find unfathomable.

Forget it.  I am not trying to twist words, just have a conversation.  Stop being so defensive. 

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The TV rights point has been done to death I feel. As others have said there are a myriad of factors at play.

With regards to how the offering from the game itself affects the TV deal, the central debate seems to be whether a deal is offered primarily on what is being proposed or what has gone before. It is a bit of both imo.

New systems and structures are obviously important for a broadcaster when deciding whether to back something. The original Super League and arguably the Super 8s concept were proposals backed financially by Sky. These aren't then necessarily "normal" TV deals, in that the broadcaster is backing a change from what has been there before. 

Logic would suggest then that if a new concept succeeds they will continue to back it. If not they will either drop back to previous levels or walk away. Obviously all of this is relative to the general TV rights market too. We have been told repeatedly that the current 2 year TV deal is the game being "put on notice" after stagnation and the 8s (and their demise) not delivering enough to warrant the previous TV deal.

I'm of the view that the work on the next TV deal starts as soon as the ink is dry on the one just signed. From £40 million there should have been massive impetus to develop a product that would at worst retain that relative value. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another major factor in the 2015 onwards TV deal was that it was the first to theoretically guarantee a payment to all SL clubs of what was then the full Salary Cap of £1.8million. That bought a lot of support from some Super League clubs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

The TV rights point has been done to death I feel. As others have said there are a myriad of factors at play.

With regards to how the offering from the game itself affects the TV deal, the central debate seems to be whether a deal is offered primarily on what is being proposed or what has gone before. It is a bit of both imo.

New systems and structures are obviously important for a broadcaster when deciding whether to back something. The original Super League and arguably the Super 8s concept were proposals backed financially by Sky. These aren't then necessarily "normal" TV deals, in that the broadcaster is backing a change from what has been there before. 

Logic would suggest then that if a new concept succeeds they will continue to back it. If not they will either drop back to previous levels or walk away. Obviously all of this is relative to the general TV rights market too. We have been told repeatedly that the current 2 year TV deal is the game being "put on notice" after stagnation and the 8s (and their demise) not delivering enough to warrant the previous TV deal.

I'm of the view that the work on the next TV deal starts as soon as the ink is dry on the one just signed. From £40 million there should have been massive impetus to develop a product that would at worst retain that relative value. 

Yes, its sort of my point, irrespective of what the concept was and whether we were a fan, they backed the innovation, we backed out and the money went back to original levels. There is a clear case that the broadcaster saw real value in it, but we failed to make it work. 

It would be interesting to understand more about the 2 year reason, because it could be that was all we were prepared to accept at £25m. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

Yes, its sort of my point, irrespective of what the concept was and whether we were a fan, they backed the innovation, we backed out and the money went back to original levels. There is a clear case that the broadcaster saw real value in it, but we failed to make it work. 

It would be interesting to understand more about the 2 year reason, because it could be that was all we were prepared to accept at £25m. 

Do you know how much the deal prior to 2015 was worth?

I think one thing Nigel Wood (and perhaps Blake Solly too) was good at building coalitions to support ideas. A good number of Super League clubs were brought on side by the a new deal "covering" the salary cap and on the other side Sky must have seen that as a way to increase competitiveness. Several SL relegation threatened clubs and the Championship will have also been massively in favour of the massive sums that would be pouring into the Championship as a result too and Sky bought that to make the 8s competitive they needed to up funding to the Championship. League 1 having over a million a season seems almost like a frivolity now! 

Those coalitions however were fragile, indeed brittle, and fell apart very quickly. As too it seems did Sky's belief in the concept they had been sold by Mr Wood (gone are the red button games etc.), as apparently no pressure came from Sky to keep the 8s either. Sky took a punt, RL "benefited" for several years, it didn't pay off for them and they've now reduced the offer on the table.

I agree the logic behind 2 years would be interesting to see. Given the previous 2 deals were based on "big ideas" (Licensing and 8s), I find the argument that RL is being given 2 years to sort something out quite compelling. £25 million in and of itself is fairly in line for a regional league with a solid if not spectacular level of interest (Scottish Premiership being the obvious comparison), but 2 years seems rather short.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tommygilf said:

Do you know how much the deal prior to 2015 was worth?

I think one thing Nigel Wood (and perhaps Blake Solly too) was good at building coalitions to support ideas. A good number of Super League clubs were brought on side by the a new deal "covering" the salary cap and on the other side Sky must have seen that as a way to increase competitiveness. Several SL relegation threatened clubs and the Championship will have also been massively in favour of the massive sums that would be pouring into the Championship as a result too and Sky bought that to make the 8s competitive they needed to up funding to the Championship. League 1 having over a million a season seems almost like a frivolity now! 

Those coalitions however were fragile, indeed brittle, and fell apart very quickly. As too it seems did Sky's belief in the concept they had been sold by Mr Wood (gone are the red button games etc.), as apparently no pressure came from Sky to keep the 8s either. Sky took a punt, RL "benefited" for several years, it didn't pay off for them and they've now reduced the offer on the table.

I agree the logic behind 2 years would be interesting to see. Given the previous 2 deals were based on "big ideas" (Licensing and 8s), I find the argument that RL is being given 2 years to sort something out quite compelling. £25 million in and of itself is fairly in line for a regional league with a solid if not spectacular level of interest (Scottish Premiership being the obvious comparison), but 2 years seems rather short.

An article in the I states

2004 - £63m for 5 years (£12.5m pa) 

2009 - £50m for 3 years (£16.5m pa) 

2012 - £90m for 5 years (£18m pa) 

2017 - £200m for 5 years (£40m pa - although length is always ambiguous as it was an extension). 

2022 - £50m for 2 years (£25m pa) 

 

It does look like a normalisation really. 

Edited by Dave T
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Dave T said:

An article in the I states

2004 - £63m for 5 years (£12.5m pa) 

2009 - £50m for 3 years (£16.5m pa) 

2012 - £90m for 5 years (£18m pa) 

2017 - £200m for 5 years (£40m pa - although length is always ambiguous as it was an extension). 

2022 - £100m for 2 years (£25m pa) 

 

It does look like a normalisation really. 

I wish 2022 was correct!

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Woops. 🤣

Sorry I couldn't resist.

There are a lot of weird things about some of those deals and what is included and not. I do think there are a lot of question marks around the last TV deal and the £200m over 5 years figure and I think we've discussed that before. If accurate the game should have been swimming in money. Yes I know clubs were better off but I really can't see how they were £22 million a year better off compared to the deal before. We know for example that SL teams only got £500k a year more.

As you say strip that and the current deal compares very favourably, especially with FTA coverage too which we have never had before. It certainly didn't justify the end of the world opinions that some had.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Damien said:

Sorry I couldn't resist.

There are a lot of weird things about some of those deals and what is included and not. I do think there are a lot of question marks around the last TV deal and the £200m over 5 years figure and I think we've discussed that before. If accurate the game should have been swimming in money. Yes I know clubs were better off but I really can't see how they were £22 million a year better off compared to the deal before. We know for example that SL teams only got £500k a year more.

As you say strip that and the current deal compares very favourably, especially with FTA coverage too which we have never had before. It certainly didn't justify the end of the world opinions that some had.

I think there was a hefty premium around signing an extension with Sky quickly as part of a package of sports rights Sky were signing up, partly due to a challenge from BT. 

I do also think there was an element of our previous rights being cheap, Sky could easily justify a premium, and they could just as easily reduce it again as there is just no competition. 

Whilst it is clearly not a great position to be in, I still maintain that this under-performance in commercial and media income surely means there is huge potential for growth - hopefully IMG are up to the challenge. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I think there was a hefty premium around signing an extension with Sky quickly as part of a package of sports rights Sky were signing up, partly due to a challenge from BT. 

I do also think there was an element of our previous rights being cheap, Sky could easily justify a premium, and they could just as easily reduce it again as there is just no competition. 

Whilst it is clearly not a great position to be in, I still maintain that this under-performance in commercial and media income surely means there is huge potential for growth - hopefully IMG are up to the challenge. 

Yes you are quite correct. I do suspect there was some element of parts of that deal spreading over 7 years and we know clubs got a one off payment for signing it. I just can't see how it was £40m a year.

I would just like the game to be in control of its own destiny regarding these things. Being stronger commercially with more revenue streams would certainly do that and would also make us more attractive to other broadcasters. The whole digital side and marketing needs a complete overhaul too. That is really what IMG need to bring to the table.

Unfortunately I have always really been of the opinion that there has always been a large element of us getting whatever Sky are prepared to pay us and we have to accept it because there has been no alternative. When we have tried to play hardball it has backfired and we have had to go back to Sky with our tails between our legs because there was no other interest. I do think it's in Sky's interest for SL to be of a minimum standard so they'll never go to low but without competition and/or the game getting much stronger they'll never go too high either.

  • Like 1
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.