37 of 42 back IMG’s proposal

[sentoffagain2]

  SKY have been dumbing down a lot of programme content it is a shadow of content 10 years ago.Can't see them offering any more than at present and i think a lower offer is more likely.

[RigbyLuger]

Sky Sports Darts is only a rebrand of one of the channels while the World Championships are on.

[gingerjon]

3 minutes ago, RigbyLuger said:

Sky Sports Darts is only a rebrand of one of the channels while the World Championships are on.

Sky Sports NFL runs September to January.

The rebranding of the channels and the way Sky did it is one of their biggest missteps in recent years. You ended up, for example, with a dedicated cricket channel just at the time that Sky lost a significant number of global rights to BT and cut back on their domestic content. (They also call it Sky Sports Hundred when that competition is on - leading to situations where a Test match or ODI is on Sky Sports Hundred but a Hundred match playing at the same time is on Sky Sports Mix).

[Rugbyleaguesupporter]

@Harry Stottle when you factor in inflation- £40m to £25m is more like a 50% drop (from £50m to £25m in real terms) 

Real terms (for all readers who may not be aware) is adjusting prices in past years to current prices. 

E.g. if I bought a Mars bar for £1 last year, I'd expect it to be £1.10 now with 10% inflation 

@gingerjon I don't think it's a mistep by Sky at all. They have record viewing numbers for test cricket and F1. I don't think its a major issue either way. If sky lose EFL rights I could see 1,2,3 return and some dedicated channels, but I don't see them wanting to revert back to channels 1 to 5 with some content hidden on red buttons. 

There has only been one big Sky mistep in last 10 years and that was 16 to 19 premier league auction where Sky bid too low in first round and BT won the second best package of matches cheaply, which meant Sky had to bet very big in second round to secure the rest. That cost Sky £500 to £600 million- a massive hit. 

Arguably helped boost Premier League popularity though, so there was some benefit 

 

Edited January 3, 2023 by Rugbyleaguesupporter
Defining real terms

[whatmichaelsays]

44 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Sky Sports NFL runs September to January.

The rebranding of the channels and the way Sky did it is one of their biggest missteps in recent years. You ended up, for example, with a dedicated cricket channel just at the time that Sky lost a significant number of global rights to BT and cut back on their domestic content. (They also call it Sky Sports Hundred when that competition is on - leading to situations where a Test match or ODI is on Sky Sports Hundred but a Hundred match playing at the same time is on Sky Sports Mix).

I think the re-branding of the channels was in part a response to a consumer demand for a more "a-la-carte" form of subscribtion, catering to the "I only subscribe for [sport]" crowd. If I remember rightly, a big factor behind it was Sky winning the rights to Formula 1 - given that they have historically had very little motorsport content. Sky has also partly created this market themselves with NowTV. 

The proposition was somewhat diluted because it was comparatively expensive to only subscribe to one channel of the set, and sports like football, for example, were split across two channels (SS Premier League and SS Football). You also had no idea whether, for instance, RL would be in Action or Arena, so had to get both. 

In all honesty, the proposition probably only works if you were an F1, golf or cricket fan. 

[gingerjon]

Just now, whatmichaelsays said:

I think the re-branding of the channels was in part a response to a consumer demand for a more "a-la-carte" form of subscribtion, catering to the "I only subscribe for [sport]" crowd. If I remember rightly, a big factor behind it was Sky winning the rights to Formula 1 - given that they have historically had very little motorsport content. Sky has also partly created this market themselves with NowTV. 

The proposition was somewhat diluted because it was comparatively expensive to only subscribe to one channel of the set, and sports like football, for example, were split across two channels (SS Premier League and SS Football). You also had no idea whether, for instance, RL would be in Action or Arena, so had to get both. 

In all honesty, the proposition probably only works if you were an F1, golf or cricket fan. 

Yes - I could have gone into more detail about what they said they were going to do (more a-la-carte subscription packages) versus what they then did do (naff all really).

I think they had to have a dedicated F1 channel when winning those rights and so everything fell in behind that.

[Dave T]

2 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

Is everyone who is talking up the positivities of a Sky status quo or even a possible increase in the next deal taking into account that when the 5 year £40M per year was agreed upon for 2017 Rupert Murdoch's Fox were in control, then in 2018 the American Company Comcast acquired the Fox shares and it was then in 2021 that under this ownership a 2 year extension for 22/23 with the proviso improve or else was decreased by 37.5% to £25M per year.

Comcast has somewhat changed the presentation of Sky Sports in that time with it's dedicated Channels Sky Premier League, Sky Football, Sky F1, Sky Cricket, Sky Golf, Sky NFL, Sky Darts, Sky Racing and Sky Darts with all the peripheral Britsh Market Sports moved to the non dedicated Channels Sky Arena/Action/Mix so the question is Have we improved enough to warrent any increase or even stay at the same level of £25M a year.

@Dave Tsuggests that IMG's involvement may improve negotiating matters he says "But I think the short term win here is to get Sky to believe that positive times are coming, even if that isn't this year or even next year" , in my opinion an ultimatum was given "Improve or else" and I don't think that we have improved to any degree for Sky to improve their offer, I also think that the Sky negotiators are to long in the tooth to be willing to increase the contract value based purely on speculation they will want to see that improvements have been made not promises that they will be.

 

On the improve or else point (and we are using that point to fit a negative narrative, but let's run with it), there is a clear sign of improvement. People are not stupid, they don't expect you to revolutionise a sport in 24m, but they expect to see signs of what you are going to do and offer in future. 

What partners will be impressed with us the governance restructures, the presence of a clear (ish) strategy, and the positive mood in the sport. Let's be honest, the only negativity I've seen is from Keighley of I remember correctly, and that is pretty rare in RL. Almost as if that's been a conscious decision! 

So, of course, we haven't changed much, but the restructuring and planning is a key part of moving this sport forward. 

Whether the partnership with IMG is the right thing we'll see, but I dont see how anyone could think it would be worse than Rimmer, Moran, Mcguire, Lenegan and Hetherington doing it on the fly. 

If there was an ultimatum. I think there is plenty to show we have sorted our s*** out. 

[Rugbyleaguesupporter]

So apart from F1 (when it started Sky offered this for £10 in order to get sign ups to their broadband/ entertainment and in recognition they only had half the races) I think 90% plus, could even be 95%, opted for whole package. 

Slight difficulty for us is that we are probably Sky 5th biggest contract, so that will get attention. 

(Sky PL at £1,100m a year, cricket at £220m ish  F1 at £180m ish  EFL at £120m) being bigger 

Apologies if I've missed one 

Edit: https://media.sportbusiness.com/2019/03/skys-reunion-with-us-pga-championship-to-stretch-to-2023/

Above shows IMG not a silver bullet, and Sky reducing spend from 2014-15 peak 

Edited January 3, 2023 by Rugbyleaguesupporter

[Liverpool Rover]

3 hours ago, Dave T said:

Well of course, there is no evidence of any of this as it is all ideas on a forum, but I'm pretty confident in saying that we won't play 22 games over 27 rounds, with 5 bye rounds. Broadcasters like having the top teams playing the big games regularly. We see this, we have plenty of evidence of it. 

My worry around the talk of 22 games is that we risk losing relevance. 11 guaranteed home games a year is pretty paltry. Take Magic out and one event is gone. RU only have that number because they have a handful of European Cup games, plus domestic Cup, plus internationals and tours. We could easily be talking around 6 to 10 weeks of Rugby less than our most comparable sport, and I don't think we can afford to remove ourselves from the schedules for weeks and weeks. 

A 22 week league season with SL teams entering at the last 16 of the Cup and whatever playoff format is used will mean a 29/30 week season which for me is long enough. IMO giving the players a longer off season to recover is something that is needed.

[Big Picture]

3 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

Is everyone who is talking up the positivities of a Sky status quo or even a possible increase in the next deal taking into account that when the 5 year £40M per year was agreed upon for 2017 Rupert Murdoch's Fox were in control, then in 2018 the American Company Comcast acquired the Fox shares and it was then in 2021 that under this ownership a 2 year extension for 22/23 with the proviso improve or else was decreased by 37.5% to £25M per year.

Comcast has somewhat changed the presentation of Sky Sports in that time with it's dedicated Channels Sky Premier League, Sky Football, Sky F1, Sky Cricket, Sky Golf, Sky NFL, Sky Darts, Sky Racing and Sky Darts with all the peripheral Britsh Market Sports moved to the non dedicated Channels Sky Arena/Action/Mix so the question is Have we improved enough to warrent any increase or even stay at the same level of £25M a year.

@Dave Tsuggests that IMG's involvement may improve negotiating matters he says "But I think the short term win here is to get Sky to believe that positive times are coming, even if that isn't this year or even next year" , in my opinion an ultimatum was given "Improve or else" and I don't think that we have improved to any degree for Sky to improve their offer, I also think that the Sky negotiators are to long in the tooth to be willing to increase the contract value based purely on speculation they will want to see that improvements have been made not promises that they will be.

 

Valid points there indeed.  According to this account Sky's value dropped after Comcast took over which only increases their need for Sky to be profitable.  In short they paid billions to take Sky over and they have a strong need for Sky to pay them a return on that investment and keep their shareholders in the US happy.

I really don't see just what improvement @Dave Twas talking about, perhaps he can elaborate for us.

[Toby Chopra]

34 minutes ago, Liverpool Rover said:

A 22 week league season with SL teams entering at the last 16 of the Cup and whatever playoff format is used will mean a 29/30 week season which for me is long enough. IMO giving the players a longer off season to recover is something that is needed.

Add in three good internationals at the end of the year and I'd be happy with that for my year's rugby, and I wouldnt change my Sky subscription because of it. So perhaps Sky would be ok too. But then I mostly watch on TV, would season ticket holders be happy or would they be looking for a cost reduction? Then you stray into the area of a challenge cup group stage to make up for it and it all gets a bit murky. In principle, good idea, but how to get from A to B is the difficult bit. 

[Dave T]

2 hours ago, Liverpool Rover said:

A 22 week league season with SL teams entering at the last 16 of the Cup and whatever playoff format is used will mean a 29/30 week season which for me is long enough. IMO giving the players a longer off season to recover is something that is needed.

Yes, but we currently have around 35 or similar, we are still shortening our season, when other sports are doing the opposite and providing more and more quality content.  We must stay relevant. 

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Big Picture said:

Valid points there indeed.  According to this account Sky's value dropped after Comcast took over which only increases their need for Sky to be profitable.  In short they paid billions to take Sky over and they have a strong need for Sky to pay them a return on that investment and keep their shareholders in the US happy.

I really don't see just what improvement @Dave Twas talking about, perhaps he can elaborate for us.

I did elaborate, if you can't read, or understand, I can't help you. 

Do you think our governance structure is not improved since IMG are in place? Do you not think a strategy which is focused on driving up club standards is an improvement on an approach with zero minimum standards? Do you not see partnering with 7League etc as a positive? 

[GUBRATS]

2 hours ago, Liverpool Rover said:

A 22 week league season with SL teams entering at the last 16 of the Cup and whatever playoff format is used will mean a 29/30 week season which for me is long enough. IMO giving the players a longer off season to recover is something that is needed.

So a team not making the play offs and going out in the last 16 of the cup gets 23 games in total , potentially 11 at home , is that enough to still charge a ST at current prices ? , Realistically is it worth opening the doors 11 times a year to pay the bills and wages for 12 months ? 

[GUBRATS]

1 hour ago, Toby Chopra said:

Add in three good internationals at the end of the year and I'd be happy with that for my year's rugby, and I wouldnt change my Sky subscription because of it. So perhaps Sky would be ok too. But then I mostly watch on TV, would season ticket holders be happy or would they be looking for a cost reduction? Then you stray into the area of a challenge cup group stage to make up for it and it all gets a bit murky. In principle, good idea, but how to get from A to B is the difficult bit. 

So you want our Internationals ( against who , by the way ? ) To also be behind a paywall ?

[Dave T]

2 hours ago, Rugbyleaguesupporter said:

 

Above shows IMG not a silver bullet, and Sky reducing spend from 2014-15 peak 

People need to stop thinking there is a silver bullet. There isn't, and never has been. 

We need a clear strategy that we constantly review and ensure is fit for purpose and deliver against it to a high standard. Our big issue for years now is that we do things on the cheap (because we are broadly skint), and we end up on a downward spiral. In reality, it is probably going to be doing a number of things far better than we do now, many of them quite boring things. And then we do them even better next year. And then again. And so on. 

 

[Toby Chopra]

8 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

So you want our Internationals ( against who , by the way ? ) To also be behind a paywall ?

No, I just meant that 22+playoffs +cup+internationals feels like a nice amount of rugby per year for me to watch, mostly on TV. And even if the bit on Sky (SL) was a month shorter, it wouldn't affect my subscription. 

But for season ticket holders it's a different question. 

[Tommygilf]

34 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

So a team not making the play offs and going out in the last 16 of the cup gets 23 games in total , potentially 11 at home , is that enough to still charge a ST at current prices ? , Realistically is it worth opening the doors 11 times a year to pay the bills and wages for 12 months ? 

Its more than what they are asking League 1 teams to play with next season...

[Tommygilf]

3 hours ago, Rugbyleaguesupporter said:

So apart from F1 (when it started Sky offered this for £10 in order to get sign ups to their broadband/ entertainment and in recognition they only had half the races) I think 90% plus, could even be 95%, opted for whole package. 

Slight difficulty for us is that we are probably Sky 5th biggest contract, so that will get attention. 

(Sky PL at £1,100m a year, cricket at £220m ish  F1 at £180m ish  EFL at £120m) being bigger 

Apologies if I've missed one 

Edit: https://media.sportbusiness.com/2019/03/skys-reunion-with-us-pga-championship-to-stretch-to-2023/

Above shows IMG not a silver bullet, and Sky reducing spend from 2014-15 peak 

That period of Sky spending a lot also coincided with BT Sport's peak investment period. I think there was a genuine fear at Sky that BT would take all their premium offerings (Champions League, Top Premier League matches, Cricket, Rugby Union) and their precious premium subscribers. RL benefitted from that to an extent too.

As it happens, most of those premium subscribers have just ended up with both Sky Sports and BT. Sky have held their nerve and are calming down a bit. BT seem to have lost their momentum entirely.

We're in line with Scottish football. We provide a regular, steady, if limited audience and content for a regional competition in the UK. RL has the advantage that it can grow much more beyond its borders than the SPL.

[Man of Kent]

6 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

Is everyone who is talking up the positivities of a Sky status quo or even a possible increase in the next deal taking into account that when the 5 year £40M per year was agreed upon for 2017 Rupert Murdoch's Fox were in control, then in 2018 the American Company Comcast acquired the Fox shares and it was then in 2021 that under this ownership a 2 year extension for 22/23 with the proviso improve or else was decreased by 37.5% to £25M per year.

Comcast has somewhat changed the presentation of Sky Sports in that time with it's dedicated Channels Sky Premier League, Sky Football, Sky F1, Sky Cricket, Sky Golf, Sky NFL, Sky Darts, Sky Racing and Sky Darts with all the peripheral Britsh Market Sports moved to the non dedicated Channels Sky Arena/Action/Mix so the question is Have we improved enough to warrent any increase or even stay at the same level of £25M a year.

 

That's my worry too.

Comcast is widely seen as paying over the odds for Sky, which has since lost subscribers and is under pressure to cut costs. RL, which is not a core Sky sport and is generally treated by them like an embarrassing relative left out of family photos, could be for the chop.

[Big Picture]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

I did elaborate, if you can't read, or understand, I can't help you. 

Do you think our governance structure is not improved since IMG are in place? Do you not think a strategy which is focused on driving up club standards is an improvement on an approach with zero minimum standards? Do you not see partnering with 7League etc as a positive? 

Those are certainly improvements in the League's operation, but they're not necessarily (or even likely) specifically what Sky is looking for.

Sky almost certainly wants to see a bigger audience for their SL telecasts to justify the rights fee being paid for them.  We know that the audience wasn't big enough to warrant the 40 million £ per year they were paying before, but we don't know with certainty whether it's big enough to warrant the 25 million £ per year they're paying now.  They might (for example) have concluded that a 15 million £ per year was all the game could absorb at one time and cut back less then they might have on that account.

We do know that their management is accountable for delivering profits sufficient to pay Comcast a good return on their multi-billion dollar investment in Sky though, and for that they the maximum bang for the buck from all their sports properties.  Whether the C4 coverage and the World Cup will expand the audience for SL on Sky sufficiently remains very much to be seen.

As @Man of Kentsays above, RL could be for the chop.

[GUBRATS]

51 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Its more than what they are asking League 1 teams to play with next season...

Yes it is isn't it 

Ridiculous , isn't it ? 

[Man of Kent]

With the IMG deal, their setting up a unit in Leeds and producing the C4 coverage, couldn’t Super League effectively bring production in-house? That would make it a more attractive proposition to broadcasters - not just Sky.

And if it meant losing the Baz ‘n’ Tez ‘n’ Phil’s 1990s ex-Wigan fest, even better.

Edited January 3, 2023 by Man of Kent

[Liverpool Rover]

2 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

So a team not making the play offs and going out in the last 16 of the cup gets 23 games in total , potentially 11 at home , is that enough to still charge a ST at current prices ? , Realistically is it worth opening the doors 11 times a year to pay the bills and wages for 12 months ? 

A reduced number of home games could push clubs into making a big deal of them being must attend, also club grounds now are becoming more than just somewhere to play their home games.

[GUBRATS]

6 minutes ago, Liverpool Rover said:

A reduced number of home games could push clubs into making a big deal of them being must attend, also club grounds now are becoming more than just somewhere to play their home games.

By doing what exactly?