Jump to content

Central funding.


Recommended Posts

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


23 minutes ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

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?

I'd say it was around a third of that, given most people do watch another sport or sports too. 

So dropping Superleague could lead to 50,000 cancellations at £500 per year ARPU (Average Revenue Per User - Sky's key metric which was always in their results) = £25m a year in lost revenue. 

Which, uncoincidentally, almost exactly equals the value of the Sky contract plus production costs. 

We've kicked these figures around before and came to the same conclusion - that what Sky are paying us now is about what we're worth to them. 

The challenge is to build the profile and presence of the sport so that Sky or someone else will pay a bit more - that's where IMG come in. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours 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.

Those North American sports (which I agree will be of interest to people) will be mostly televised in the middle of the night. So the die hards will stay up to watch and then you pick up the rest in dribs and drabs the next day when people know the results. If that is the model Sky are most interested in they are really downgrading their ambitions.

There are are still 100k - 200k people who watch live RL on TV regularly in this country, and 3/4x that who will watch a big game. That is a market worth having for Sky, and if not I do believe someone else will take it instead. 

Edited by Just Browny
  • Like 1

I can confirm 30+ less sales for Scotland vs Italy at Workington, after this afternoons test purchase for the Tonga match, £7.50 is extremely reasonable, however a £2.50 'delivery' fee for a walk in purchase is beyond taking the mickey, good luck with that, it's cheaper on the telly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

I'd say it was around a third of that, given most people do watch another sport or sports too. 

So dropping Superleague could lead to 50,000 cancellations at £500 per year ARPU (Average Revenue Per User - Sky's key metric which was always in their results) = £25m a year in lost revenue. 

Which, uncoincidentally, almost exactly equals the value of the Sky contract plus production costs. 

We've kicked these figures around before and came to the same conclusion - that what Sky are paying us now is about what we're worth to them. 

The challenge is to build the profile and presence of the sport so that Sky or someone else will pay a bit more - that's where IMG come in. 

I wish my Sky bill was £500 a year. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

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?

Meetoo !

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 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.

Like ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

Other content they already have rights to, discussed above.  Or other new content they could get the rights to.

Do you have the viewing figures for the ones they have ? 

Which other ones ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

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?

so, who would you think is likely to put in an offer to match what sky have been paying

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Toby Chopra said:

I'd say it was around a third of that, given most people do watch another sport or sports too. 

So dropping Superleague could lead to 50,000 cancellations at £500 per year ARPU (Average Revenue Per User - Sky's key metric which was always in their results) = £25m a year in lost revenue. 

Which, uncoincidentally, almost exactly equals the value of the Sky contract plus production costs. 

We've kicked these figures around before and came to the same conclusion - that what Sky are paying us now is about what we're worth to them. 

The challenge is to build the profile and presence of the sport so that Sky or someone else will pay a bit more - that's where IMG come in. 

The £500 per year is not so relevant here as RL subscribers, by definition, are sky sports subscribers, which puts them above average.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Just Browny said:

Those North American sports (which I agree will be of interest to people) will be mostly televised in the middle of the night. So the die hards will stay up to watch and then you pick up the rest in dribs and drabs the next day when people know the results. If that is the model Sky are most interested in they are really downgrading their ambitions.

There are are still 100k - 200k people who watch live RL on TV regularly in this country, and 3/4x that who will watch a big game. That is a market worth having for Sky, and if not I do believe someone else will take it instead. 

Wrong post.

Edited by Harry Stottle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 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?

Going back to the OP...

The only places I have seen a reference about how the money will be distributed is on the Halifax website. Here.

Halifax Panthers commercial director Steve Lambert commented: “This is a massive game for the club as it will determine our finishing position in the Championship table and therefore how much central funding we receive in 2023. People probably don’t realise that if we lose to York, they then take on the 3rd place position in the league that we have worked so hard all year to secure.

However, he is incorrect with York's position, so whether there is any validity in the rest of the statement, is open for debate

I have also read there are other factors that influence the distribution, like social media presence and attendances amongst others. 

However, the publication of the actual amounts are very conspicuous by there absence. In typical RFL style, if they can muddy the water and ensure there is no transparency to proceedings, they will do. 

I had heard rumours that the vast majority of the distribution goes to the 2 championship finalists, and then there is a huge drop to the 3rd placed team, with very little difference between the rest. However, all they are, are rumours, nothing official.

Mr Sadler, if you are reading this, do you have any information about the actual amounts? If so, please can you publish them?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Halifax have dropped to 5th, Barrow to 6th with Batley rising to 3rd and York 4th in the league position pillar.

There are many factors to next year's distribution with league position being one of them.

The other pillars are broadcast in relation to how many times you have been chosen for TV, crowds, media presence, finance and governance.

 

Any of the Championship and League One clubs can top any of the other pillars with the distribution lowering for every position except finance and governance which is a more binary distribution

 

 

Edited by the man
BarrowRaiders-TheMan-1.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, DOGFATHER said:

Going back to the OP...

The only places I have seen a reference about how the money will be distributed is on the Halifax website. Here.

Halifax Panthers commercial director Steve Lambert commented: “This is a massive game for the club as it will determine our finishing position in the Championship table and therefore how much central funding we receive in 2023. People probably don’t realise that if we lose to York, they then take on the 3rd place position in the league that we have worked so hard all year to secure.

However, he is incorrect with York's position, so whether there is any validity in the rest of the statement, is open for debate....

 

You're right.  As Batley finished above York, York would be fourth should they lose on Sunday.

If they win, they will be, at worst, second.

"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

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...