TV Deal to conclude end of June

[Wakefield Ram]

What's happened to IMG generating additional income from "re-inventing" RL? Clearly been unable to negotiate a good TV deal.

[ATLANTISMAN]

32 minutes ago, Wakefield Ram said:

What's happened to IMG generating additional income from "re-inventing" RL? Clearly been unable to negotiate a good TV deal.

IMG are there to take the flack so that everyone can point the finger at them and say it wasn't us.

For God's sake havant you worked that out yet:)

[Whippet13]

6 hours ago, Toby Chopra said:

Viaplay are in huge trouble, they sacked their CEO and their shares fell 60% last week after the announced they'd missed all their revenue targets. Perhaps they've decided to to save the broadcast costs. Were they actually paying a rights fee?  

They are currently offering 12 months for £60, so looks like they are in desperate need of some quick cash.

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

2 hours ago, ATLANTISMAN said:

BAF has really gone down the swanie since its heyday my business partner who sadly passed away this year ran it once over 300 clubs in the heyday.

I think from memory eurosport covered a few games i remember the final drawing over 15000 at Aston Villa.

Games in its backside .... probably lack of international basketball matches is the cause

[Whippet13]

3 hours ago, Wakefield Ram said:

What's happened to IMG generating additional income from "re-inventing" RL? Clearly been unable to negotiate a good TV deal.

IMG werent involved when the last TV deal was signed, and I believe that activity is now the role of RL Commercial.

[sentoffagain2]

1 hour ago, Whippet13 said:

They are currently offering 12 months for £60, so looks like they are in desperate need of some quick cash.

My renewal on the screen at 14.99 a month they can whistle for that.I don't think Rugby League is high on their agenda as they cover loads of European Rugby Union games.

[RigbyLuger]

1 hour ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

Games in its backside .... probably lack of international basketball matches is the cause

Is Sir Rodney still invovled?

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

13 hours ago, Wakefield Ram said:

What's happened to IMG generating additional income from "re-inventing" RL? Clearly been unable to negotiate a good TV deal.

We might not have even had a TV deal big enough to sustain a pro game without making this change. This is ground zero, the fault of a failure of leadership over a decade. 

It’s what IMG do from here that counts. 

[The storm]

3 hours ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

We might not have even had a TV deal big enough to sustain a pro game without making this change. This is ground zero, the fault of a failure of leadership over a decade. 

It’s what IMG do from here that counts. 

We should walk away rather than under sell outselves

Increased attendances would happen immediately

[Big Picture]

4 minutes ago, The storm said:

We should walk away rather than under sell outselves

Increased attendances would happen immediately

What a naive view.  FYI there's no such thing as big time major pro sport without big money from TV rights.

Edited June 14, 2023 by Big Picture

[RP London]

10 minutes ago, The storm said:

We should walk away rather than under sell outselves

Increased attendances would happen immediately

I believe French RL was under that false impression in the 1960s... didnt work for them,  wouldnt work now.

Even if we saw attendances rise it would be no where near the amount to replace lost TV revenue (and the knock on in sponsorship etc)

Edited June 14, 2023 by RP London

[Rugbyleaguesupporter]

Let's say attendances increased 3k at matches that are televised. 

Approx 75 live matches times 3,000 multiplied by £20 (after vat) for price of ticket 

=

£4.5million 

 

The above is generous. You'd lose £20m plus to game, interest would likely wane with no matches on tv and less sponsorship.

Edited June 14, 2023 by Rugbyleaguesupporter
Clarify

[Veridical]

7 hours ago, The storm said:

We should walk away rather than under sell outselves

Increased attendances would happen immediately

If we’re getting a lower value contract than we should be able to then we only have ourselves to blame. A low value is not the same as undervalued — by and large, what we can get is what we’re worth.

[DimmestStar]

SKY are the only multi million pound show in town and that's obvious and let's be fair they have been a good partner to our sport for a long time. C4 piggy back but pay little to nothing.

SKY will pay no more than they think they need to and why would they? The idea that they will pay extra simply because IMG are on board is laughable.

But it isn't just about there being no one else to out bid them. Clearly there isn't. But there are (I imagine) a 6 figure audience of subscribers paying high dollar who would quit if there was no Super League. I know I would Impossible to know how many exactly.

Just how much SKY would lose if the entire rugby league audience deserted them is unclear. But it's a gamble for SKY just as it is for Rugby League.

[HawkMan]

14 minutes ago, DimmestStar said:

SKY are the only multi million pound show in town and that's obvious and let's be fair they have been a good partner to our sport for a long time. C4 piggy back but pay little to nothing.

SKY will pay no more than they think they need to and why would they? The idea that they will pay extra simply because IMG are on board is laughable.

But it isn't just about there being no one else to out bid them. Clearly there isn't. But there are (I imagine) a 6 figure audience of subscribers paying high dollar who would quit if there was no Super League. I know I would Impossible to know how many exactly.

Just how much SKY would lose if the entire rugby league audience deserted them is unclear. But it's a gamble for SKY just as it is for Rugby League.

Sky would lose revenue if RL only subscribers left certainly, but then again they wouldn't be shelling out for RL coverage,  including salaries of Baz ,Tel, et al,  they're paid top dollar aren't they ?! Er...okay maybe not.

Edited June 14, 2023 by HawkMan

[ATLANTISMAN]

55 minutes ago, DimmestStar said:

SKY are the only multi million pound show in town and that's obvious and let's be fair they have been a good partner to our sport for a long time. C4 piggy back but pay little to nothing.

SKY will pay no more than they think they need to and why would they? The idea that they will pay extra simply because IMG are on board is laughable.

But it isn't just about there being no one else to out bid them. Clearly there isn't. But there are (I imagine) a 6 figure audience of subscribers paying high dollar who would quit if there was no Super League. I know I would Impossible to know how many exactly.

Just how much SKY would lose if the entire rugby league audience deserted them is unclear. But it's a gamble for SKY just as it is for Rugby League.

The way to go is a SL steaming service 5 games a week on subscription and 1 free to air on the BBC to help drive sales.

Very attractive proposition long term for an investor.

Q is have the clubs the balls to go this route?

p 

[DI Keith Fowler]

As happened last time round, if they're lowering their offer we ought to push for a lowering of their exclusivity. The last reduced deal allowed the C4 games (and the fabled recording of every game to broadcast standard). I'd hope we can push further with this to get more games on C4, bigger games (grand final?) and then an offering through an improved OurLeague app. 

[Rugbyleaguesupporter]

11 minutes ago, ATLANTISMAN said:

The way to go is a SL steaming service 5 games a week on subscription and 1 free to air on the BBC to help drive sales.

Very attractive proposition long term for an investor.

Q is have the clubs the balls to go this route?

p 

This is financial suicide. 

We know from I follow in efl that around 30k would subscribe. 

30k times £150 is £4.5m 

Once VAT and costs included you are sub £3m 

Even with £4m attendance boost in gates and £5m from BBC its tiny. 

The only way sky adds up is that they make lots on broadband, entertainment and mobile

A better option is take Sky money and consider our league as bonus money- in low millions. 

Edited June 14, 2023 by Rugbyleaguesupporter
More text

[ATLANTISMAN]

28 minutes ago, Rugbyleaguesupporter said:

This is financial suicide. 

We know from I follow in efl that around 30k would subscribe. 

30k times £150 is £4.5m 

Once VAT and costs included you are sub £3m 

Even with £4m attendance boost in gates and £5m from BBC its tiny. 

The only way sky adds up is that they make lots on broadband, entertainment and mobile

A better option is take Sky money and consider our league as bonus money- in low millions. 

It is when you set the bar 1 inch above the floor.

We better start looking at going down this route PDQ as the SKY money will be sub 10 million after the next deal.

P

 

 

[Wakefield Ram]

13 hours ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

We might not have even had a TV deal big enough to sustain a pro game without making this change. This is ground zero, the fault of a failure of leadership over a decade. 

It’s what IMG do from here that counts. 

Alternatively IMG have made absolutely no difference in what should be their field of expertise. 

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

9 minutes ago, Wakefield Ram said:

Alternatively IMG have made absolutely no difference in what should be their field of expertise. 

Sky told us 2 years ago what would happen unless we made a strategic change. The consequences of no action would have been devastating, given the media market at present doesn’t offer many other options.

We have since appointed a new partner, and shown Sky the new direction of travel they wanted. Albeit with the usual level of reluctance from the old hold-outs, limiting the power of our change message.

So rather than dropping us in the mire Sky will now extend our current level of deal at best, or at least at a level still strong enough to enable a full time pro sport, but no free-market media business is going to increase their payment for a promise of the future. We now need to deliver it.

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

1 hour ago, ATLANTISMAN said:

The way to go is a SL steaming service 5 games a week on subscription and 1 free to air on the BBC to help drive sales.

Very attractive proposition long term for an investor.

Q is have the clubs the balls to go this route?

p 

Streaming is part of the solution, alongside Sky. I’m sure IMG have that in the strategic plan.

The sport doesn’t have the balance sheet or access to interim finance to be able to afford to bridge the revenue gap between 3rd party media rights payments and direct subscriber payments. The latter would take years to build. It needs a transitional phase at best, or more likely a long-term blended strategy.

 

[Rugbyleaguesupporter]

55 minutes ago, ATLANTISMAN said:

It is when you set the bar 1 inch above the floor.

We better start looking at going down this route PDQ as the SKY money will be sub 10 million after the next deal.

P

 

 

If that's correct then we are done for regardless  

Sky charge most people £600 ish a year for Sport, entertainment and broadband 

Of the above, apart from some  broadband costs to open reach there are no direct costs  

Let's say £600- vat- direct costs is £300 

So if Sky offer £10m that implies circa 33k customers. So if more than that cancel, Sky lose. 

(Of course production costs on top) 

So if Sky offer £10m they think 50k cancellations at risk. 

Fortunately I think there is more than that (which is why sky offer more) 

 

[Rugbyleaguesupporter]

10 minutes ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

Streaming is part of the solution, alongside Sky. I’m sure IMG have that in the strategic plan.

The sport doesn’t have the balance sheet or access to interim finance to be able to afford to bridge the revenue gap between 3rd party media rights payments and direct subscriber payments. The latter would take years to build. It needs a transitional phase at best, or more likely a long-term blended strategy.

 

Spot on. EFL clubs with 5k attendances sell circa 500 streaming passes a match for £10. 

5k a match- 20 matches gets you £100k (with gate money at risk) 

It's a relative pittance. If sold properly I could see streaming bring in low millions but that's optomistic 

[Whippet13]

6 minutes ago, Rugbyleaguesupporter said:

If that's correct then we are done for regardless  

Sky charge most people £600 ish a year for Sport, entertainment and broadband 

Of the above, apart from some  broadband costs to open reach there are no direct costs  

Let's say £600- vat- direct costs is £300 

So if Sky offer £10m that implies circa 33k customers. So if more than that cancel, Sky lose. 

(Of course production costs on top) 

So if Sky offer £10m they think 50k cancellations at risk. 

Fortunately I think there is more than that (which is why sky offer more) 

 

It's a lot more than £600pa, you can't get a full deal with Sky for £50pm.

Most customers will be paying £75pm or more, so £900pa.