Central funding.

[Ovenden Grunt]

This may well have been discussed on here before but can anyone confirm once and for all whether next seasons central funding depends on where a club actually finishes in the league table or play offs?

[bobbruce]

3 minutes ago, Ovenden Grunt said:

This may well have been discussed on here before but can anyone confirm once and for all whether next seasons central funding depends on where a club actually finishes in the league table or play offs?

Play offs usually decide teams final placing. 

[Harry Stottle]

2 hours ago, Ovenden Grunt said:

This may well have been discussed on here before but can anyone confirm once and for all whether next seasons central funding depends on where a club actually finishes in the league table or play offs?

As Bob says the final placings are sorted by the play offs as far as funding goes - I think - so as it stands Fax and Barrow are joint 3rd, the losing semi's will be joint second and losing finalist in 1st with the winner going into the SL pot, Toulouse will receive a parachute payment.

But it is next year the fun will start, the Sky contract finishes at the end of next season, another reduction by Sky and the game will change forever.

[Griff]

24 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

As Bob says the final placings are sorted by the play offs as far as funding goes - I think - so as it stands Fax and Barrow are joint 3rd, the losing semi's will be joint second and losing finalist in 1st with the winner going into the SL pot, Toulouse will receive a parachute payment.

But it is next year the fun will start, the Sky contract finishes at the end of next season, another reduction by Sky and the game will change forever.

Fax 5th, Barrow 6th. The league position is a tie breaker. How they could be joint third with four teams above them is a baffler.

But as far as I know, it's not confirmed yet.

[Dave W]

52 minutes ago, Griff said:

Fax 5th, Barrow 6th. The league position is a tie breaker. How they could be joint third with four teams above them is a baffler.

Not baffling at all.

The losing finalist would be the best funded (1st)

The two losing semi finalists would be joint second

The two teams who got knocked out in the first playoff (Barrow and Halifax) would therefore be joint third (should that be the basis of funding, of course)

[Big Picture]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

As Bob says the final placings are sorted by the play offs as far as funding goes - I think - so as it stands Fax and Barrow are joint 3rd, the losing semi's will be joint second and losing finalist in 1st with the winner going into the SL pot, Toulouse will receive a parachute payment.

But it is next year the fun will start, the Sky contract finishes at the end of next season, another reduction by Sky and the game will change forever.

Though I might be mistaken, I think Sky is more likely to drop the game altogether than continue at a further reduced rate.

Comcast paid millions for their majority ownership stake in Sky, so they need Sky's content to make them a good return on that investment.  They don't have the luxury of showing content which doesn't deliver that return for them, a better business decision for them would be to replace such poorly performing content with other content which can do better for them.

[Harry Stottle]

27 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

Though I might be mistaken, I think Sky is more likely to drop the game altogether than continue at a further reduced rate.

Comcast paid millions for their majority ownership stake in Sky, so they need Sky's content to make them a good return on that investment.  They don't have the luxury of showing content which doesn't deliver that return for them, a better business decision for them would be to replace such poorly performing content with other content which can do better for them.

Reluctantly I have to agree with you BP, I think the sport is in for a massive rude awakening next year in the UK.

[Kayakman]

18 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Reluctantly I have to agree with you BP, I think the sport is in for a massive rude awakening next year in the UK.

The chickens are coming home to roost Harry...this is where the Toronto angle (and Ottawa too) would have come in...the growth of new markets and telecasting rights, new income sources, etc.   Short term thinking and taking the money right away was poorly done...and the game suffers in the long term...slowly, ever so slowly it comes.

[DimmestStar]

There is no such thing as central funding there is only TV money.

[Just Browny]

1 hour ago, Big Picture said:

Though I might be mistaken, I think Sky is more likely to drop the game altogether than continue at a further reduced rate.

Comcast paid millions for their majority ownership stake in Sky, so they need Sky's content to make them a good return on that investment.  They don't have the luxury of showing content which doesn't deliver that return for them, a better business decision for them would be to replace such poorly performing content with other content which can do better for them.

We are incredibly good value for Sky. These days they struggle to fill some of their evening schedules with even one live sports event, especially outside of the cricket season, with Champions League and union both on BT.

We should be a lot more upbeat about our value.

[gingerjon]

17 minutes ago, Just Browny said:

We are incredibly good value for Sky. These days they struggle to fill some of their evening schedules with even one live sports event, especially outside of the cricket season, with Champions League and union both on BT.

We should be a lot more upbeat about our value.

I think that it's Super League and the Premier League that have been ever presents on Sky since their launch.

Cricket has been on and off, they have no RU at all now (I think), and others drift around.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

2 hours ago, Dave W said:

Not baffling at all.

The losing finalist would be the best funded (1st)

The two losing semi finalists would be joint second

The two teams who got knocked out in the first playoff (Barrow and Halifax) would therefore be joint third (should that be the basis of funding, of course)

Surely they'd be joint 4th in that case. You can't be joint 3rd if there are 3 others ahead of you.

[The storm]

2 hours ago, Big Picture said:

Though I might be mistaken, I think Sky is more likely to drop the game altogether than continue at a further reduced rate.

Comcast paid millions for their majority ownership stake in Sky, so they need Sky's content to make them a good return on that investment.  They don't have the luxury of showing content which doesn't deliver that return for them, a better business decision for them would be to replace such poorly performing content with other content which can do better for them.

I think the sky contract has positives and negatives

 

I would argue that clubs like leeds, wigan, saints and hull lose 4000 per game in actual attendance figures due to sky

You coould be looking at a lost revenue of £80,000 to £100,000 due to people not physically attending 

That is per game

[bobbruce]

12 minutes ago, The storm said:

I think the sky contract has positives and negatives

 

I would argue that clubs like leeds, wigan, saints and hull lose 4000 per game in actual attendance figures due to sky

You coould be looking at a lost revenue of £80,000 to £100,000 due to people not physically attending 

That is per game

If this was the case wouldn’t clubs attendances go up by 4000 when they weren’t on Sky. 

Edited September 20, 2022 by bobbruce

[DI Keith Fowler]

Quite a lot of speculation in this thread based on the mistaken idea that Sky only give us a deal because they're feeling charitable.

As was noted above, we are great value for Sky and we deliver solid viewing figures and a fair few subscriptions for an investment that for Sky equates to pocket money. Not every sport on Sky needs to be pulling in Premier League football levels of viewers and interest, they need content and we give them that at minimal cost. 

The last TV deal was a reduction because Sky, off the back of a big investment in the previous deal, didn't notice any material change in the product they received. They're not going to keep paying that amount when it doesn't give them a better product.

We've now had two years to come up with an idea to get back to a higher level of funding, we'll see how that goes. But the notion that Sky are about to pull the plug is just pessimism. 

[The storm]

6 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

If this was the case wouldn’t clubs attendances go up by 4000 when the weren’t on Sky. 

No

[Big Picture]

1 hour ago, Just Browny said:

We are incredibly good value for Sky. These days they struggle to fill some of their evening schedules with even one live sports event, especially outside of the cricket season, with Champions League and union both on BT.

We should be a lot more upbeat about our value.

How do you know that?  Has someone slipped you information about what size audience Comcast's accountants have told them Sky needs in order to generate the y million £ needed to make Comcast's investment in Sky profitable enough to justify that level of investment, or what demographic that required audience needs to be in order to generate that level of return?

If you don't have that information, you don't know how much value the game is for Sky.  The fact that they gave the game two years to prove its value and at less money shows that they didn't think they were getting good value before.

Cricket, soccer and RU are hardly their only other options, Comcast-owned NBC has TV rights for plenty of North American sports which they could put on instead and those would cost them nothing considering that NBC already has those rights.

[gingerjon]

25 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

Comcast-owned NBC has TV rights for plenty of North American sports which they could put on instead and those would cost them nothing considering that NBC already has those rights.

Which sports does Comcast own the UK broadcast rights for that aren't currently shown by Sky?

[David Shepherd]

46 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

How do you know that?  Has someone slipped you information about what size audience Comcast's accountants have told them Sky needs in order to generate the y million £ needed to make Comcast's investment in Sky profitable enough to justify that level of investment, or what demographic that required audience needs to be in order to generate that level of return?

If you don't have that information, you don't know how much value the game is for Sky.  The fact that they gave the game two years to prove its value and at less money shows that they didn't think they were getting good value before.

Cricket, soccer and RU are hardly their only other options, Comcast-owned NBC has TV rights for plenty of North American sports which they could put on instead and those would cost them nothing considering that NBC already has those rights.

NBC might have those rights, but that doesn't mean they can screen them in The UK.  

[Big Picture]

24 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Which sports does Comcast own the UK broadcast rights for that aren't currently shown by Sky?

Apparently Sky has UK rights for both the NFL and NBA, there's plenty of content for them right there.

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

3 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

Reluctantly I have to agree with you BP, I think the sport is in for a massive rude awakening next year in the UK.

I would drop SKY 100% if they lose SL and would instantly buy any new provider 

I wonder how many others would follow? 

150,000 too big a guess?

[gingerjon]

8 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

Apparently Sky has UK rights for both the NFL and NBA, there's plenty of content for them right there.

Which they already show.

[Big Picture]

9 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Which they already show.

And they could show more of that content too.

[gingerjon]

Just now, Big Picture said:

And they could show more of that content too.

Sky Sports dedicates an entire channel to NFL for six months of the year. Magazine shows, talking heads, classic games, the works ... as well as (I think) 6-7 live games every wekk.

They show - I've just checked - over 170 NBA matches live each season. They also show WNBA and British Basketball League.

They do all this already.

[Toby Chopra]

1 hour ago, Big Picture said:

How do you know that?  Has someone slipped you information about what size audience Comcast's accountants have told them Sky needs in order to generate the y million £ needed to make Comcast's investment in Sky profitable enough to justify that level of investment, or what demographic that required audience needs to be in order to generate that level of return?

If you don't have that information, you don't know how much value the game is for Sky.  The fact that they gave the game two years to prove its value and at less money shows that they didn't think they were getting good value before.

Cricket, soccer and RU are hardly their only other options, Comcast-owned NBC has TV rights for plenty of North American sports which they could put on instead and those would cost them nothing considering that NBC already has those rights.

NBC doesn't own the global rights to these sports.