37 of 42 back IMG’s proposal

[Dave T]

3 hours ago, dkw said:

I expect the value of the Sky deal to drop fairly significantly unfortunately, but there will be more deals with other platforms for games that could see the entirity of the income drop only slightly. There's a lot of games to choose from each week that aren't televised, these could be shared out. The question then is how it impacts on attendances, and whether any drop is financially worse than the TV money.

I think that is a risk, absolutely. 

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. 

We have had two huge increases in the history of Sky deals.

The first was the huge one on the back of the creation of SL. When we didn't quite deliver on the promises, we saw a cut deal to give more realistic value. 

The second was based on the Super 8s. Once again, we didn't deliver the promised exciting changes, and in fact went one step worse by driving a horrendously negative narrative for the game. Everyone in the sport has talked RL down since that record deal was announced, and then we ended up with a huge cut. It should be little wonder that Sky saw they could retain us on the cheap. 

If we look at where we are now, we now have some professionals involved, we have hopefully sorted out some governance, we have hopefully whethered Covid in OK shape, we have a C4 deal, and we are now looking at a future which is all about driving up standards of clubs. Broadly the clubs appear to be on board and singing from the name hymn sheet.

I think the narrative is far more positive than in recent years, and hopefully that will be able to reflected in negotiations with Sky being prepared to support the game with a decent longer term deal. They have shown previously that they are prepared to do that. 

[GUBRATS]

21 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I think that is a risk, absolutely. 

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. 

We have had two huge increases in the history of Sky deals.

The first was the huge one on the back of the creation of SL. When we didn't quite deliver on the promises, we saw a cut deal to give more realistic value. 

The second was based on the Super 8s. Once again, we didn't deliver the promised exciting changes, and in fact went one step worse by driving a horrendously negative narrative for the game. Everyone in the sport has talked RL down since that record deal was announced, and then we ended up with a huge cut. It should be little wonder that Sky saw they could retain us on the cheap. 

If we look at where we are now, we now have some professionals involved, we have hopefully sorted out some governance, we have hopefully whethered Covid in OK shape, we have a C4 deal, and we are now looking at a future which is all about driving up standards of clubs. Broadly the clubs appear to be on board and singing from the name hymn sheet.

I think the narrative is far more positive than in recent years, and hopefully that will be able to reflected in negotiations with Sky being prepared to support the game with a decent longer term deal. They have shown previously that they are prepared to do that. 

Dave , you can add a few on here , and not the so called ' flat cap/earth ' ones but the so called super intelligent franchise/licencing lovers who talk down the game at almost every opportunity 

 

[Toby Chopra]

38 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I think that is a risk, absolutely. 

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. 

We have had two huge increases in the history of Sky deals.

The first was the huge one on the back of the creation of SL. When we didn't quite deliver on the promises, we saw a cut deal to give more realistic value. 

The second was based on the Super 8s. Once again, we didn't deliver the promised exciting changes, and in fact went one step worse by driving a horrendously negative narrative for the game. Everyone in the sport has talked RL down since that record deal was announced, and then we ended up with a huge cut. It should be little wonder that Sky saw they could retain us on the cheap. 

If we look at where we are now, we now have some professionals involved, we have hopefully sorted out some governance, we have hopefully whethered Covid in OK shape, we have a C4 deal, and we are now looking at a future which is all about driving up standards of clubs. Broadly the clubs appear to be on board and singing from the name hymn sheet.

I think the narrative is far more positive than in recent years, and hopefully that will be able to reflected in negotiations with Sky being prepared to support the game with a decent longer term deal. They have shown previously that they are prepared to do that. 

That's an overall optimistic take Dave, which I broadly agree with. I tend to think that Sky are unlikely to lift the deal just on the (reasonable) promise of good things to come, but my hope is the positive mood music will be enough for them not to cut it further. And when we can point to some actual tangible benefits next time round, then comes the opportunity to head upwards. 

I also think that whenever we've kicked the numbers around on here we've deduced that the bare minimum value of superleague based on the viewership is about what we're getting now, so there's a risk for Sky we could walk to a rival if they tried to low ball us even more. 

British rugby league is a stable, if limited, sports property, unlike some others we could mention, so I don't think they will. 

[dkw]

46 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I think that is a risk, absolutely. 

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. 

We have had two huge increases in the history of Sky deals.

The first was the huge one on the back of the creation of SL. When we didn't quite deliver on the promises, we saw a cut deal to give more realistic value. 

The second was based on the Super 8s. Once again, we didn't deliver the promised exciting changes, and in fact went one step worse by driving a horrendously negative narrative for the game. Everyone in the sport has talked RL down since that record deal was announced, and then we ended up with a huge cut. It should be little wonder that Sky saw they could retain us on the cheap. 

If we look at where we are now, we now have some professionals involved, we have hopefully sorted out some governance, we have hopefully whethered Covid in OK shape, we have a C4 deal, and we are now looking at a future which is all about driving up standards of clubs. Broadly the clubs appear to be on board and singing from the name hymn sheet.

 

So getting IMG involved is partially about building corporate confidence in partners like Sky, and hopefully major Sponsors?  Fully agree with that, also agree we're not in as bad a state as some are desperate to make out.

[Toby Chopra]

2 hours ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

The purpose is pretty clear: We’re moving to a closed league, with a transitional period. When in place, clubs will only enter the league by invitation in order to add the the number of clubs, as and when they can add value to the comp (measured in a slightly more sophisticated way than “has the local car dealer in some random northern town bought victory in the 2nd tier by outspending the other clubs for one season?”)

You might not like that, but let’s not pretend it isn’t the strategy, or that there isn’t a case to be made for it. It works for the NRL, the NFL, the NHL, the MLS, etc. etc. etc. 

What you write is correct only if we agree the "transitional period" could be a decade or more, because that's how long it will take for us to reach 12+ clubs with the strengths of our current elite. And even then, I have my doubts if we'll get there by then, or even at all. For the foreseeable future the gangway will remain open, according to the proposals, and I think that's a good compromise to have reached. 

[DimmestStar]

IMG want to reduce the number of Super League rounds to 22 from (currently) 27.

They also want to increase TV income but with almost a 20% reduction in content I'm struggling to see why SKY or anyone else would not be demanding the opposite. Can anyone explain?

[Tommygilf]

11 minutes ago, DimmestStar said:

IMG want to reduce the number of Super League rounds to 22 from (currently) 27.

They also want to increase TV income but with almost a 20% reduction in content I'm struggling to see why SKY or anyone else would not be demanding the opposite. Can anyone explain?

Sky pay for X number of games a year, the number of rounds they come in doesn't necessarily make a difference, within reason.

[Dave T]

37 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

That's an overall optimistic take Dave, which I broadly agree with. I tend to think that Sky are unlikely to lift the deal just on the (reasonable) promise of good things to come, but my hope is the positive mood music will be enough for them not to cut it further. And when we can point to some actual tangible benefits next time round, then comes the opportunity to head upwards. 

I also think that whenever we've kicked the numbers around on here we've deduced that the bare minimum value of superleague based on the viewership is about what we're getting now, so there's a risk for Sky we could walk to a rival if they tried to low ball us even more. 

British rugby league is a stable, if limited, sports property, unlike some others we could mention, so I don't think they will. 

I don't think Sky will just be suckered in based on some positive noises, but as we saw with the S8's deal, they are prepared to invest in something if they feel they can help move things on. They paid a hell of a premium for that deal, and I know it was part of a wider package of sports rights they were snapping up at the time and with BT etc hanging around, but I dont think they ever really needed to go with the level of deal that they did. 

They have paid £40m per year before, and now pay £25m, moving back towards that £40m isn't too outlandish imo, hence the optimism. Especially if we present ourselves as an aspirational sport going places. 

I think your point about reaching such a low value that we could talk to a rival is very relevant. I'm not sure we should accept another deal as low from Sky (apart from maybe a 12m interim deal), and if we could get alternative deals that maybe don't pay as much cash on channels that could elevate us more then it should be considered. 

But none of that should be anywhere near our aim, we should be looking how we achieve record revenues from every stream and leaving no stone unturned to achieve that. 

[Dave T]

8 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Sky pay for X number of games a year, the number of rounds they come in doesn't necessarily make a difference, within reason.

I'm not sure that's a fair read. 

Sky having a month less RL per year could absolutely have an effect. 

5 fewer games would see huge reductions in crowds. 

It would see lower sponsorship value. 

It would see lower corporate income. 

Scarcity as a benefit is overstated - there is a reason we see more Fifa World Cup games, more F1 Races etc. 

But I don't believe IMG do want 22 rounds, they have stated they want to expand past 12 teams. 

But if we do cull 5 rounds, we will have to make up millions and millions of quid with whatever is to replace that. 

 

[DimmestStar]

8 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Sky pay for X number of games a year, the number of rounds they come in doesn't necessarily make a difference, within reason.

That would require SKY to screen more than the usual 2 games per round to make up for the difference AND pay more for the privilege.

If IMG can pull that one off they really are worth whatever they would be paid.

 

[Tommygilf]

37 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I'm not sure that's a fair read. 

Sky having a month less RL per year could absolutely have an effect. 

5 fewer games would see huge reductions in crowds. 

It would see lower sponsorship value. 

It would see lower corporate income. 

Scarcity as a benefit is overstated - there is a reason we see more Fifa World Cup games, more F1 Races etc. 

But I don't believe IMG do want 22 rounds, they have stated they want to expand past 12 teams. 

But if we do cull 5 rounds, we will have to make up millions and millions of quid with whatever is to replace that. 

 

There's no evidence that 22 rounds need not include bye rounds, an increased number of cup games or another property such that Sky actually don't lose time.

[Tommygilf]

38 minutes ago, DimmestStar said:

That would require SKY to screen more than the usual 2 games per round to make up for the difference AND pay more for the privilege.

If IMG can pull that one off they really are worth whatever they would be paid.

 

See above. I suspect Super League reducing the number of rounds won't be rhe single thing they do in that aspect.

[GUBRATS]

You never know , IMG might convince a broadcaster to pay for lower tier coverage 

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

1 hour ago, Toby Chopra said:

What you write is correct only if we agree the "transitional period" could be a decade or more, because that's how long it will take for us to reach 12+ clubs with the strengths of our current elite. And even then, I have my doubts if we'll get there by then, or even at all. For the foreseeable future the gangway will remain open, according to the proposals, and I think that's a good compromise to have reached. 

Yes, the gangway will remain open, but with tightening criteria for clubs moving up, and less clubs over time in flux as many are permanent members. So even before the end of any transition, that’s a very different competition.

But the really key thing is that instead of focusing on structure, once A/B/C is implemented we can instead focus on improving the actual product, and selling it better. Thats far more important. 

[Rugbyleaguesupporter]

With hindsight, we'd be laughing if RFL kept £10m a year of the last tv deal in bank every year. 

Perfect storm of people throughout the sport running down game and claiming sky deal was rubbish. 

However, we are where we are. 

Tough call I suspect- renew for additional year at £25m or new five year at £30-32m a year I think might be on table. 

Latter roughly coincides with spfl, cricket and f1 rights. 

*no insider knowledge 

[Dave T]

13 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

There's no evidence that 22 rounds need not include bye rounds, an increased number of cup games or another property such that Sky actually don't lose time.

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. 

[GUBRATS]

12 minutes 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. 

Yes Dave , but the NFL do it , so it must be right

[Harry Stottle]

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.

 

Edited January 3 by Harry Stottle

[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 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.