Sky coverage this week

[Dallas Mead]

14 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Who won ?

Queensland.

[GUBRATS]

1 minute ago, Dallas Mead said:

Queensland.

Who lost ? 

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

1 hour ago, Tommygilf said:

We keep sky because between football, F1 and of course RL it really is worth it for us to have all year. Realistically that is LUFC, F1 and Leeds Rhinos tbh though: we used to watch a lot more RL not involving our team but have just found our interest waining in recent years.

There's been more than 1 thursday night this year alone where both Leeds teams have been playing on Sky Sports at the same time too. 

I doubt we would keep Sky sports if it was just for RL or Leeds Rhinos though. Especially with live games, Now TV and the odd channel 4 game being available options too.

I love cricket but hardly get a chance to watch it. I really think the future is in buying individual sports not Sky or BT channels

[Cameron Highlander]

50 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Who won ?

If you really mean that question.....then Queensland.  If you don't, why'd you ask then?

[Cameron Highlander]

35 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Who lost ? 

Smarty-pants eh?

[Tommygilf]

6 hours ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

I love cricket but hardly get a chance to watch it. I really think the future is in buying individual sports not Sky or BT channels

I certainly think there will be an element of that, but multi sport channels will also still exist

[gingerjon]

18 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I certainly think there will be an element of that, but multi sport channels will also still exist

I'm still not sure how Sky botched it so badly but the move to Sky Sports Football, Golf, Cricket, F1 was obviously part of a move to be the leader in sport-specific packages ... and then they just allowed the rights for the filler for each of those channels to be sold and now there would be virtually no value in a sport specific package.

[Damien]

12 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I certainly think there will be an element of that, but multi sport channels will also still exist

Certainly.

People say they would pay £40-£50 a month for a SL subscription channel. That seems extraordinary bad value when that is about the same for Sky when I get a plethora of other sports content too, 3 SL games a week plus NRL. I can't even get watching all the content I record as is.

Time and again over the last decade and more people on here have been sounding the death knell for Sky and the like. I've never seen a decent argument to back that up and still don't.

[Tommygilf]

Just now, gingerjon said:

I'm still not sure how Sky botched it so badly but the move to Sky Sports Football, Golf, Cricket, F1 was obviously part of a move to be the leader in sport-specific packages ... and then they just allowed the rights for the filler for each of those channels to be sold and now there would be virtually no value in a sport specific package.

Yeah it was odd. Only F1 and football have come close. I suppose they might not have expected BT sport to go so much for Cricket etc maybe?

Notably Rugby Union basically doesn't exist on the channel any more (bar Australian and NZ domestic and Lions/NH summer tours), yet they still feature fairly prominently in Sky Sports' "summer of sport" adverts. More than RL anyway!

[gingerjon]

Just now, Damien said:

Certainly.

People say they would pay £40-£50 a month for a SL subscription channel. That seems extraordinary bad value when that is about the same for Sky when I get a plethora of other sports content too, 3 SL games a week plus NRL. I can't even get watching all the content I record as is.

Time and again over the last decade and more people on here have been sounding the death knell for Sky and the like. I've never seen a decent argument to back that up and still don't.

The price that people who buy subscription packages for specific content tend to be okay paying in the £7-£15 per month bracket. Once it moves outside that then you either need a wealthy clientele, a mixed offering or something highly niche.

GCN for cycling is £40 per year or £7 per month, for example.

Watch NRL is £130 per year, MLB Network more or less the same. ESPN Player is, from memory, £8 per month, AFL Player the same.

[Tommygilf]

4 minutes ago, Damien said:

Certainly.

People say they would pay £40-£50 a month for a SL subscription channel. That seems extraordinary bad value when that is about the same for Sky when I get a plethora of other sports content too, 3 SL games a week plus NRL. I can't even get watching all the content I record as is.

Time and again over the last decade and more people on here have been sounding the death knell for Sky and the like. I've never seen a decent argument to back that up and still don't.

I think if sky sports was a weaker player the doubters may have a point, but arguably for a sport like RL its package offering is even more crucial. 

Niche subscriptions only broadcast to niche audiences. The UK is such a broad sports market that it can support multisport broadcasters.

[Damien]

3 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I think if sky sports was a weaker player the doubters may have a point, but arguably for a sport like RL its package offering is even more crucial. 

Niche subscriptions only broadcast to niche audiences. The UK is such a broad sports market that it can support multisport broadcasters.

Sky change and evolve, they always have. They are that big, and as importantly have the technology and knowhow, that they will be part of any revolution, not cast aside.

Even now I can get Disney+, Netflix through my Sky, it's just another add on to the core Sky offering. Any individual streaming would go the same way and sports would work with Sky to do so, not do their own thing.

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, Damien said:

Sky change and evolve, they always have. They are that big, and as importantly have the technology and knowhow, that they will be part of any revolution, not cast aside.

Even now I can get Disney+, Netflix through my Sky, it's just another add on to the core Sky offering. Any individual streaming would go the same way and sports would work with Sky to do so, not do their own thing.

Exactly. Take F1; it has a global subscription service and produces a small amount of its own coverage/media etc, but it also uses Sky Sports commentary for that international broadcast of World Championship events. So in the UK we have the F1 subscriber package (all the other media is free) but on a platform that is well supported and works with F1s aims.

A big thing that I am disappointed about is that we seem to be one of the last top flight sports leagues to embrace broadcasting every match or at least recording them to broadcast quality. Taking that production in house brings in a wealth of intelligence and knowledge that is a base for a media team to build from. It means we don't rely on sky for Video referees and big screens at games. It also means we can sell the broadcast feeds independently. Could be per week 4 to Sky, 1 to Channel 4 and 1 to OurLeague, and it would give us greater ability to sell overseas.

[gingerjon]

Just now, Tommygilf said:

A big thing that I am disappointed about is that we seem to be one of the last top flight sports leagues to embrace broadcasting every match or at least recording them to broadcast quality.

And what was one of the supposed benefits of the deal with Sky this time that has very obviously not been delivered and now neither party seems to care?

Budget sport.

[Damien]

4 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Exactly. Take F1; it has a global subscription service and produces a small amount of its own coverage/media etc, but it also uses Sky Sports commentary for that international broadcast of World Championship events. So in the UK we have the F1 subscriber package (all the other media is free) but on a platform that is well supported and works with F1s aims.

A big thing that I am disappointed about is that we seem to be one of the last top flight sports leagues to embrace broadcasting every match or at least recording them to broadcast quality. Taking that production in house brings in a wealth of intelligence and knowledge that is a base for a media team to build from. It means we don't rely on sky for Video referees and big screens at games. It also means we can sell the broadcast feeds independently. Could be per week 4 to Sky, 1 to Channel 4 and 1 to OurLeague, and it would give us greater ability to sell overseas.

Ah if only something like that could be done. You could even justify a drop in the TV deal if something like that happened.........

Edited June 9, 2022 by Damien

[Tommygilf]

Just now, gingerjon said:

And what was one of the supposed benefits of the deal with Sky this time that has very obviously not been delivered and now neither party seems to care?

Budget sport.

Absolutely, and it appears that we have gone from one of the most radical TV embracing sport to one of the least.

As you suggest, Village Sport gets village crowds village sponsors etc...

[Tommygilf]

Just now, Damien said:

Ah if only something like that could be done. You could even justify a drop I'm the TV deal if something like that happened.........

If you don't laugh you'll cry

[Damien]

Just now, Tommygilf said:

If you don't laugh you'll cry

You've just nailed the new RL slogan. An IMG bonus to you!

[Oxford]

In the past I used to delve into other sports mostly out of curiosity and even followed whole seasons for some then I realised most were as empty as my pocket for what I was looking for and American sports were so dominated by punditry and periphery stuff they were often worthless as a spectacle that held my attention.

I have the full Sky set up for Sports because they offered it to me at the same price for the smaller package I had but I never bother with anything that isn't RL as I find I'm bored after a few minutes. That only used to be Synchronised thingy and kick and clap and I don't know if it's my attention span but I suspect it's their attention grabbing capabilities.

 

 

[Tommygilf]

19 minutes ago, Oxford said:

In the past I used to delve into other sports mostly out of curiosity and even followed whole seasons for some then I realised most were as empty as my pocket for what I was looking for and American sports were so dominated by punditry and periphery stuff they were often worthless as a spectacle that held my attention.

I have the full Sky set up for Sports because they offered it to me at the same price for the smaller package I had but I never bother with anything that isn't RL as I find I'm bored after a few minutes. That only used to be Synchronised thingy and kick and clap and I don't know if it's my attention span but I suspect it's their attention grabbing capabilities.

How many people do you think have the same feelings you do Oxford? As that would be the basis of an RL only channel/subscription service.

Full disclosure. If RL went to a £40 a month subscription on its own, we'd probably stick with Sky Sports and just watch Rhinos games live.

[Oxford]

14 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Full disclosure. If RL went to a £40 a month subscription on its own, we'd probably stick with Sky Sports and just watch Rhinos games live.

I would pay more just to watch RL but they might have to rename it RED DEVILTV and I think that's already taken!

[Toby Chopra]

26 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

How many people do you think have the same feelings you do Oxford? As that would be the basis of an RL only channel/subscription service.

Full disclosure. If RL went to a £40 a month subscription on its own, we'd probably stick with Sky Sports and just watch Rhinos games live.

The only sport that could even dare put all its content on its own service is football- and even they balk at it.  A couple of years ago there were strong rumours that the NFL was going to drop Sky and put everything into GamePass, which is a brilliant platform but basically preaching to the converted. In the end they renewed with Sky, reportedly for less than they pay us. But what a brilliant slot they have, 7+ hours every Sunday night right through the winter, keeping them in people's minds.

So we have to keep some sort of broadcast option or else that's it for trying to broaden the game's audience, especially away form the M62 corridor. Think of us poor southerners!

I suppose we could try a weekly game on terrestrial and then everything else on a RFL owned subscription platform, but a b.o.f.p calculation suggests that you'd need at least 150k people paying £20 a month to break even. Not impossible, but not quite where we are yet, I think.

My hope over the next 5 years is that we do what we said we would, and find a way for people who want to be able to pay to watch the other 3-4 SL games each week that aren't being shown on Sky. You could make it quite pricey - £14.99 or some such -  but you'd get a few thousand for each and it would add up, without affecting Sky or the gates IMO. Then a few years down the line we could think about rolling that up into a service if that's the way the sector is going.   

[glossop saint]

1 hour ago, gingerjon said:

The price that people who buy subscription packages for specific content tend to be okay paying in the £7-£15 per month bracket. Once it moves outside that then you either need a wealthy clientele, a mixed offering or something highly niche.

GCN for cycling is £40 per year or £7 per month, for example.

Watch NRL is £130 per year, MLB Network more or less the same. ESPN Player is, from memory, £8 per month, AFL Player the same.

I'm not sure if you follow cycling/subscribe to GCN but that deal is fantastic. Virtually wall to wall cycling, on demand of full races and highlights of most. Countless documentaries included as well. And weekly roundup shows. And for the same cost for the year as sky sports is for 1 month.

Now I am sure that many people will ridicule cycling as small time niche sport but there are hundreds of professional cyclists and I would guess that the average wage of the world tour cyclist would be similar at least to super league/NRL player. Obviously with a bigger market (mainly mainland Europe) there is an advantage but it does astound me the difference in price.

[hunsletgreenandgold]

Great conversation @Damien / @Tommygilf - nothing really to add, as between you, you echo my thoughts on this entirely! 

[gingerjon]

4 minutes ago, glossop saint said:

I'm not sure if you follow cycling/subscribe to GCN but that deal is fantastic. Virtually wall to wall cycling, on demand of full races and highlights of most. Countless documentaries included as well. And weekly roundup shows. And for the same cost for the year as sky sports is for 1 month.

Now I am sure that many people will ridicule cycling as small time niche sport but there are hundreds of professional cyclists and I would guess that the average wage of the world tour cyclist would be similar at least to super league/NRL player. Obviously with a bigger market (mainly mainland Europe) there is an advantage but it does astound me the difference in price.

It's not for me (the Eurosport coverage is way above my level of interest) but I've a friend who signed up last year and he absolutely loves it. I don't think he can quite believe how much content you get for your money.