SKY Sports to end broadcast partnership with

[Roughyed Rats]

11 hours ago, DI Keith Fowler said:

Exactly. Ratings are solid and always have been for minimal outlay or effort from Sky.

We got a lower deal last time because in the previous round we promised more, got more but delivered the same. It wasn't a cut to say "we're thinking of dropping you" it was a "we don't really see the point in giving you more money".

The whole 2 year prove yourself thing was Sky effectively saying there's money there but you need to bring *something*.

If ratings are solid, why would Sky put the RFL on notice and told they 'need to bring something'? Unless of course what they are bringing is not considered enough for Sky to sustain its funding at the same levels?

The reality is that sky sports subscriber numbers are plummeting; despite having the Premier League. Whilst that may not be RL's fault, it is representative of the fact that the Sky broadcasting model has run it's course and RL can't simply sit back and wait for the funding to dry up. The RFL are acutely aware that most of the 'big' clubs do not run an operational profit (even with the Sky money) and clearly IMG have been brought in because the RFL know what's coming. When does the current reduced deal finish? At the end of next season?

[Londonbornirishbred]

The deal ends at the end of 2023. 

SL is faced with either a further reduction or no deal at all and if it were me, I'd take a reduced deal over 5 years as the last SKY deal, giving IMG a chance to find or develop a new stream.

The alternative would be IMG having fewer than 14 months to find us £18,000,000 a year. 

They're good, but are they that good? 

[Roughyed Rats]

6 minutes ago, Londonbornirishbred said:

The deal ends at the end of 2023. 

SL is faced with either a further reduction or no deal at all and if it were me, I'd take a reduced deal over 5 years as the last SKY deal, giving IMG a chance to find or develop a new stream.

The alternative would be IMG having fewer than 14 months to find us £18,000,000 a year. 

They're good, but are they that good? 

Makes perfect sense - the consequences of no deal would be catastrophic.

[hunsletgreenandgold]

38 minutes ago, Londonbornirishbred said:

The deal ends at the end of 2023. 

SL is faced with either a further reduction or no deal at all and if it were me, I'd take a reduced deal over 5 years as the last SKY deal, giving IMG a chance to find or develop a new stream.

The alternative would be IMG having fewer than 14 months to find us £18,000,000 a year. 

They're good, but are they that good? 

They should be 'that good'! If they can't help negotiate SL having better deals moving forward from next year they're not fit for purpose. They don't have to have everything in place but a vision needs to be sold that can be bought into, quite literally. 

[Dave T]

I believe IMG have negotiated for RL before, at SL and international level. 

There is no silver bullet. 

[RP London]

One of the big things IMG bring to the table, from what I can see, is experience in this exact market. 

They have already spoken about streaming using one of their companies (Endeavour streaming) and they also have an arm that does the Premier League content IIRC and they negotiate on behalf of the NFL, NHL etc for their TV Rights http://www.img.com/expertise/media/ according to this.. so they do know what they are doing. 

In terms of the sky deal. Sky are losing subscribers in general due to the way TV is consumed now. you dont need a dish and receiver, you dont need one company providing all your channels (and taking a margin on each "extra" you do). We watch all our TV over the internet now and subscribe directly to each bit. We have Now TV but i wouldnt if RL goes, I only keep it on in the off season for the NFL. But I am surprised how little actual SKY content we watch as a family its BBC Iplayer, All 4, a bit of ITV Hub, Apple TV and Netflix mostly and the kids are constantly watching YouTube..

This isnt going away and Sky need to jump on board, and they know it. They also need to understand where they fit, for me its the fact you get lots of stuff in one place. For example: I could buy the NFL game pass if I wanted to for about £35.. thats 1 months Now TV.. so if all I want to watch is NFL then that, surely, is how I do it.. If RL gets its act together then they could do similar (of course not at £35 for a season but the season is much longer). BUT if Sky have 2-3-4 of the sports I want to watch then that becomes the cheaper option than loads of these "Game pass" options.. OR they buy the dedicated rights and take the "game pass" option off the table. 

Due to the above (which is me guessing a fair bit to be fair) the key, as always is going to be competition. Sky on their own can just say "i'll give you this" and we have to take it.. BUT if we have all these options, IMG who can sell rights, IMG who can create content and have a streaming platform etc then we have 2 things, another viable option and a bargaining chip to sky (or whoever else). They can bid to be exclusive for more, they can take parts and let us build the "game pass" style option too, they could let the BBC/ Channel 4 take some games (they seem to be starting to understand this is good for them as to encourage people to watch on SKY, seeing it on FTA is a good advert etc).

IMHO the "bring us more" in the last one was content.. All games televised to a good standard, highlights packages etc, basically plug and play content. If we can bring them that then there is money on the table, whether it is enough is a different matter, but the more "plug and play" content we can have on the table the more chance there will be other buyers to bid against SKY (or with Sky in a partnership) therefore pushing the price up. 

I am by no means saying this WILL work and Sky or someone else will throw money at us, but its one of the things that I HOPE may well work and HOPE the IMG deal will bring to the table. I dont think they can harm us in this for sure. But the huge key is that whether we keep Sky or move somewhere else, or lose it all together, we have to do a lot of the same things so that we have a fall back option of some form of streaming platform as its something we should be working towards anyway.

Edited October 27, 2022 by RP London

[hunsletgreenandgold]

9 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I believe IMG have negotiated for RL before, at SL and international level. 

There is no silver bullet. 

Agreed - but the idea we settle for less but longer as some kind of strategy to give IMG more time seems crazy. 

[Dave T]

5 minutes ago, hunsletgreenandgold said:

Agreed - but the idea we settle for less but longer as some kind of strategy to give IMG more time seems crazy. 

Yes. I suppose the difference here is that as a partner, IMG has more clout at the negotiating table as they can offer more than just somebody else's rights. 

[Harry Stottle]

1 hour ago, Roughyed Rats said:

If ratings are solid, why would Sky put the RFL on notice and told they 'need to bring something'? Unless of course what they are bringing is not considered enough for Sky to sustain its funding at the same levels?

Next season is going to be a transitional one I believe still with P&R to nest in with the gradings for '24 if I have that right, being so what possibly as far as Sky are concerned could it be that "SL are bringing" that will make it more attractive for Sky to increase or at least not reduce the contract value even further. Grading clubs is a behind the scenes function it will do nothing for the front of house offer in the short term and no guarantee it will improve it in the future, will Sky take a gamble and put their money where IMG's mouth is in the hope that the product will improve to their expectations in the future?

[Blind side johnny]

18 minutes ago, RP London said:

One of the big things IMG bring to the table, from what I can see, is experience in this exact market. 

They have already spoken about streaming using one of their companies (Endeavour streaming) and they also have an arm that does the Premier League content IIRC and they negotiate on behalf of the NFL, NHL etc for their TV Rights http://www.img.com/expertise/media/ according to this.. so they do know what they are doing. 

In terms of the sky deal. Sky are losing subscribers in general due to the way TV is consumed now. you dont need a dish and receiver, you dont need one company providing all your channels (and taking a margin on each "extra" you do). We watch all our TV over the internet now and subscribe directly to each bit. We have Now TV but i wouldnt if RL goes, I only keep it on in the off season for the NFL. But I am surprised how little actual SKY content we watch as a family its BBC Iplayer, All 4, a bit of ITV Hub, Apple TV and Netflix mostly and the kids are constantly watching YouTube..

This isnt going away and Sky need to jump on board, and they know it. They also need to understand where they fit, for me its the fact you get lots of stuff in one place. For example: I could buy the NFL game pass if I wanted to for about £35.. thats 1 months Now TV.. so if all I want to watch is NFL then that, surely, is how I do it.. If RL gets its act together then they could do similar (of course not at £35 for a season but the season is much longer). BUT if Sky have 2-3-4 of the sports I want to watch then that becomes the cheaper option than loads of these "Game pass" options.. OR they buy the dedicated rights and take the "game pass" option off the table. 

Due to the above (which is me guessing a fair bit to be fair) the key, as always is going to be competition. Sky on their own can just say "i'll give you this" and we have to take it.. BUT if we have all these options, IMG who can sell rights, IMG who can create content and have a streaming platform etc then we have 2 things, another viable option and a bargaining chip to sky (or whoever else). They can bid to be exclusive for more, they can take parts and let us build the "game pass" style option too, they could let the BBC/ Channel 4 take some games (they seem to be starting to understand this is good for them as to encourage people to watch on SKY, seeing it on FTA is a good advert etc).

IMHO the "bring us more" in the last one was content.. All games televised to a good standard, highlights packages etc, basically plug and play content. If we can bring them that then there is money on the table, whether it is enough is a different matter, but the more "plug and play" content we can have on the table the more chance there will be other buyers to bid against SKY (or with Sky in a partnership) therefore pushing the price up. 

I am by no means saying this WILL work and Sky or someone else will throw money at us, but its one of the things that I HOPE may well work and HOPE the IMG deal will bring to the table. I dont think they can harm us in this for sure. But the huge key is that whether we keep Sky or move somewhere else, or lose it all together, we have to do a lot of the same things so that we have a fall back option of some form of streaming platform as its something we should be working towards anyway.

Indeed, and the concept of a five-year deal is a nonsense given the rate of change in modes of consumption.

[RP London]

7 minutes ago, Blind side johnny said:

Indeed, and the concept of a five-year deal is a nonsense given the rate of change in modes of consumption.

yes, long term deals at the moment would be madness for both parties.. If RL can get its act together then it wont want to be tied into not having its own things within that 5 years, so what is in the deal will be huge too.. if Sky want to pay for everything so that we cannot show our own games (that they arent showing that weekend) on You Tube or our own App then it would need to be a very good deal monetarily IMHO as we will be tied into whether they can be bothered developing that and how important they see it. I hope IMG bring their experience to the table so contracts are good and work in our favour ie if they want to have the online stuff then there are clauses in the contract to make sure they develop within xyz time frame.. 

But I would like to see us have more in our own hands for a bit, again, as long as we do develop them but it is something IMG have already said they will do. 

 

[RP London]

The other thing to think of is we look at the TV contract and wonder where that money will come from.. that is something else to look at. 

for example: If by being on Sky it means that the naming rights of the league and other sponsorships for the game are at (lets for the sake of argument say) £10m and the TV contract is £18m but taking less money, lets say, £10m for TV by going to Channel 4 with more FTA exposure and being able to do our own streaming of non televised games, and a highlights show etc could mean those sponsorships etc are worth £25m then that is worth doing.. 

Its not all a zero sum game.. 

[Dave T]

Does anyone have a credible source of Sky effectively putting SL 'on notice'? 

And I don't mean from a fan or 'journo'. 

Because we shouldn't forget that the C4 deal is also 2 years, and I don't think they are putting us on notice. 

I don't think it's a coincidence that we were going through a restructure and governance change which was due to be completed within this time frame. 

Sky could easily have offered a longer deal at the lower value, but we refused to go long term at that price. 

The outcome is still the same - we need to sell our game better. 

[gingerjon]

53 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Does anyone have a credible source of Sky effectively putting SL 'on notice'? 

And I don't mean from a fan or 'journo'. 

Because we shouldn't forget that the C4 deal is also 2 years, and I don't think they are putting us on notice. 

I don't think it's a coincidence that we were going through a restructure and governance change which was due to be completed within this time frame. 

Sky could easily have offered a longer deal at the lower value, but we refused to go long term at that price. 

The outcome is still the same - we need to sell our game better. 

The 'on notice' is entirely a journalist comment - and I'm fairly certain it wasn't even an indirect quote or supposed comment, genuinely put forward as their own assessment and nothing else.

Also worth saying, and I hadn't quite twigged this from the initial links, that the GAA (the prompt for this after all) appear to have massively overestimated their value to Sky and then stormed off in a sulk.

[corkonian77]

2 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

The 'on notice' is entirely a journalist comment - and I'm fairly certain it wasn't even an indirect quote or supposed comment, genuinely put forward as their own assessment and nothing else.

Also worth saying, and I hadn't quite twigged this from the initial links, that the GAA (the prompt for this after all) appear to have massively overestimated their value to Sky and then stormed off in a sulk.

The Ratings  were probably  horrific. 

Pay Tv reduce  viewing  numbers  by a factor of 10. 

For sure less than  50,000. 

 

 

[idrewthehaggis]

17 hours ago, Wiltshire Warrior Dragon said:

Is there any way it is possible to watch RTE TV, legally, in GB?

Legally get a vpn and then the RTÉ (note the fada kids) and TG4 apps and you can watch as much Faircity, Ryan Tubridy and GAA as you want.

Quite a few games are on BBC NI, which of course found on BBC iplayer by changing the location to northern Ireland.

16 hours ago, DI Keith Fowler said:

I have a real soft spot for RTE. A few years ago I was on a trip to Dublin but came down with a heavy cold the day before and had a slightly miserable few days.

However, by the end of the weekend I was feeling improved enough to have a few/8 pints of Guinness, then retired to my room and what did RTE have on? Naked Gun.

RTE knew I needed that and I am forever thankful.

Cool. 

By the way The GAA appears to be enabling its own streaming service. No doubt IMG/RFL will be taking note.

https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/gaelic-games/2022/10/25/gaa-to-stream-exclusive-live-championship-games-on-gaago-platform-from-next-summer/

 

 

 

[Damien]

57 minutes ago, idrewthehaggis said:

Legally get a vpn and then the RTÉ (note the fada kids) and TG4 apps and you can watch as much Faircity, Ryan Tubridy and GAA as you want.

Quite a few games are on BBC NI, which of course found on BBC iplayer by changing the location to northern Ireland.

Cool. 

By the way The GAA appears to be enabling its own streaming service. No doubt IMG/RFL will be taking note.

https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/gaelic-games/2022/10/25/gaa-to-stream-exclusive-live-championship-games-on-gaago-platform-from-next-summer/

GAAGO has been available for quite some time and receives as much criticism as OurLeague. Up to now games that have been broadcast on Irish TV have not been shown on the app within Ireland. I presume that will continue.

This move isn't out of choice, it is because GAA has been dropped by Sky, and the GAA are bemoaning the lack of competition for the GAA rights.

Edited October 27, 2022 by Damien

[Eddie]

On 27/10/2022 at 11:46, gingerjon said:

The 'on notice' is entirely a journalist comment - and I'm fairly certain it wasn't even an indirect quote or supposed comment, genuinely put forward as their own assessment and nothing else.

Also worth saying, and I hadn't quite twigged this from the initial links, that the GAA (the prompt for this after all) appear to have massively overestimated their value to Sky and then stormed off in a sulk.

I’d be fairly amazed if GAA has much value to Sky in the UK at all, I appreciate there are exPats who’ll watch but I’ve never heard anyone mention it, other than one mate from work who’s Irish. 

[THE RED ROOSTER]

The opening title is quality click bait..