TV Deal to conclude end of June

[Toby Chopra]

2 hours ago, Dave T said:

Delays like this aren't usually a good sign. 

Hopefully it is a sign that the new deal is more complex and maybe involves more partners. 

It'll be pretty disappointing if we get a standard 2 games per week Sky deal for £20m per year. 

Disappointing, but perhaps to be expected?

What's really changed since the last deal was done, only two years ago?

Externally, there's no demand from rival broadcasters for loss-leading content to drive new platforms etc as there was a decade or so ago. Viaplay is gone, TNT is a rebranding exercise alone. People like ESPN are making millions in cuts. So Sky can continue to press downwards knowing we haven't got a better offer. Streaming ourselves is not a viable alternative.

Internally, the public perception of UK rugby league doesn't seemed to me to have changed much in the last 2 years to suggest we're becoming organically more popular and recognised. At best we're back to where we were before COVID hit.

Many of us hope the IMG partnership will change this, but they've barely got started on the branding, marketing and digital bit, so it'll take time.

I'd hoped the World Cup would have had a halo effect, but it seems not to have cut through to a wider audience. It did however seem to energize the existing fan base, perhaps accounting for our relatively successful post-COVID bounce-back.

But none of that adds up - yet - to a bigger TV deal.  A similar deal, plus some streaming add-ons for extra games and the Grand Final on terrestrial is probably the best we can hope for.           

[Eddie]

50 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

Every top professional sport relies on TV money.

It does, but if they money reduces they’ll have to be cleverer about raising other sources of income if they want to thrive, rather than sitting back feeling sorry for themselves. I know it’s much easier said than done but that’s the reality. 

[Eddie]

38 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

No, the solution is not for clubs to work harder individually, because it doesn't address the core problem, which is that the perception and recognition of rugby league as a whole is dwindling - or least stuck.

Instead, the sport collectively has to make itself more popular and relevant to wider audiences. Clubs of course have a part to play in that, but it's as part of a collective strategy.  

Clubs have the biggest part to play in that, who else is there who could wield more influence than them? 

[Gerrumonside ref]

2 minutes ago, Eddie said:

Clubs have the biggest part to play in that, who else is there who could wield more influence than them? 

They need to work as a collective though.

[Eddie]

2 minutes ago, Gerrumonside ref said:

They need to work as a collective though.

Yes that would be brilliant. Whether they do or not remains to be seen though, I expect there will be a lot of navel gazing from some clubs while others get on with it. 

[Rugbyleaguesupporter]

2 hours ago, idrewthehaggis said:

Sadly as it stands now, such a deal seems optimistic.

It pretty leaves nothing outside SL-thus furthering relegation as a club killer.

Therefore how much could the alternatives raise?

 

 

Championship- £200k to £300k tops a year, so about £20k to 30k a club at a guess 

Edited August 2, 2023 by Rugbyleaguesupporter
Clarity

[Toby Chopra]

14 minutes ago, Eddie said:

Clubs have the biggest part to play in that, who else is there who could wield more influence than them? 

A centralised promotional and communications function to that is tasked with transforming the perception of rugby league more widely.  ie the sort of work that IMG are supposed to be doing.

An individual club doing things to promote itself only has a limited effect when it's done against a backdrop of a wider indifference or negative public perception of rugby league, which has very limited appeal beyond its existing and lapsed fanbase. It just can't cut thorough by keeping doing what it does now, just a bit harder, or a bit smarter. 

A millionaire pumping loads into a single club will only go so far - a millionaire pumping money into things that will transform the perception of the sport more widely will give bigger longer-term benefits. 

Because 30-odd pro clubs have been the centre-piece of the game for  so long, we tend to think of everything through that prism. But there are limits to a club-centric approach when you're trying to expand the reach of the the game more widely.

 

 

[redjonn]

13 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

A centralised promotional and communications function to that is tasked with transforming the perception of rugby league more widely.  ie the sort of work that IMG are supposed to be doing.

An individual club doing things to promote itself only has a limited effect when it's done against a backdrop of a wider indifference or negative public perception of rugby league, which has very limited appeal beyond its existing and lapsed fanbase. It just can't cut thorough by keeping doing what it does now, just a bit harder, or a bit smarter. 

A millionaire pumping loads into a single club will only go so far - a millionaire pumping money into things that will transform the perception of the sport more widely will give bigger longer-term benefits. 

Because 30-odd pro clubs have been the centre-piece of the game for  so long, we tend to think of everything through that prism. But there are limits to a club-centric approach when you're trying to expand the reach of the the game more widely.

 

 

well yes, sort of.

The strategic marketing is centralised for sure, RFL with IMG... with of course clubs contribution and being on message.

The tactical is the clubs, that is attracting engaging with exiting fans and promotional work to attract new, selling the and engaging with the local commercial opportunities, advertising the individual games, etc etc....

[Toby Chopra]

1 minute ago, redjonn said:

well yes, sort of.

The strategic marketing is centralised for sure, RFL with IMG... with of course clubs contribution and being on message.

The tactical is the clubs, that is attracting engaging with exiting fans and promotional work to attract new, selling the and engaging with the local commercial opportunities, advertising the individual games, etc etc....

A well run club - and many are - would be doing all those things to the best of their ability and resources already.

I believe it would be wrong to think that there's lots of local revenues sitting there untapped for clubs to enjoy just by working a bit harder, and that they aren't doing this because they're just lazily relying on TV revenues.     

[HawkMan]

Deleted, Question I asked answered on another thread.

Edited August 2, 2023 by HawkMan

[redjonn]

1 minute ago, Toby Chopra said:

A well run club - and many are - would be doing all those things to the best of their ability and resources already.

I believe it would be wrong to think that there's lots of local revenues sitting there untapped for clubs to enjoy just by working a bit harder, and that they aren't doing this because they're just lazily relying on TV revenues.     

not saying they don't, just responding to differentiate between the strategic marketing aspects and what the clubs should be focused on...

RFL/IMG could of course be helping clubs whom may not have the expertise that other clubs may have... never-the-less their priority should be the strategic.

[ATLANTISMAN]

My prediction is SKY will do a reduced deal with less matches 56 max (Currently i think its 66) and Channel 4 maybe to double their output.

And all non TV matches to be streamed with staggered kickoff times over the 4 days (Maybe even 5 with Monday)

 

P 

[Eddie]

32 minutes ago, ATLANTISMAN said:

My prediction is SKY will do a reduced deal with less matches 56 max (Currently i think its 66) and Channel 4 maybe to double their output.

And all non TV matches to be streamed with staggered kickoff times over the 4 days (Maybe even 5 with Monday)

 

P 

You may be right but how many people would watch matches streamed by some obscure service? Certainly not enough to make the changes in kick off time worthwhile. Not all games need to be screened, two or three a week is fine, in fact two on Sky and one on C4 would be perfect, with the rest kicking off at whatever time helps their club generate the most revenue (ie Sunday afternoon for many, Friday evening for Leeds). 

[DI Keith Fowler]

6 hours ago, ATLANTISMAN said:

My prediction is SKY will do a reduced deal with less matches 56 max (Currently i think its 66) and Channel 4 maybe to double their output.

And all non TV matches to be streamed with staggered kickoff times over the 4 days (Maybe even 5 with Monday)

 

P 

Hmm, that has got me thinking. It might not be that a bad an outcome depending on how much the Sky reduction is.

*Caveat* specifically in this scenario, I have no idea whether this delay is due to us begging Sky for more and planting stories of other bidders or genuine negotiations.

Edited August 2, 2023 by DI Keith Fowler

[The 4 of Us]

Maybe, just maybe, the new RFL/SL/RL Commercial/IMG arrangement are doing some proper negotiation with more than one party to maximise value for the sport, rather than worrying to satisfy the timescales on this board. 

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

On 02/08/2023 at 15:09, ATLANTISMAN said:

My prediction is SKY will do a reduced deal with less matches 56 max (Currently i think its 66) and Channel 4 maybe to double their output.

And all non TV matches to be streamed with staggered kickoff times over the 4 days (Maybe even 5 with Monday)

 

P 

Streamed by Our League app I assume 

Hope so....I'd pay monthly for that 

[dealwithit]

On 03/08/2023 at 00:43, Eddie said:

You may be right but how many people would watch matches streamed by some obscure service? Certainly not enough to make the changes in kick off time worthwhile. Not all games need to be screened, two or three a week is fine, in fact two on Sky and one on C4 would be perfect, with the rest kicking off at whatever time helps their club generate the most revenue (ie Sunday afternoon for many, Friday evening for Leeds). 

A Pro sports league doesn’t broadcast all matches? Sounds amateur. 
Obviously only existing fans will watch on OurLeague — hence the need to simultaneously attract new fans through C4, Sky, physical attendances, community engagement etc

[bobbruce]

5 minutes ago, dealwithit said:

A Pro sports league doesn’t broadcast all matches? Sounds amateur. 
Obviously only existing fans will watch on OurLeague — hence the need to simultaneously attract new fans through C4, Sky, physical attendances, community engagement etc

I can’t think of an English pro sport that televises all matches in England. 

[Damien]

49 minutes ago, dealwithit said:

A Pro sports league doesn’t broadcast all matches? Sounds amateur. 

It really doesn't and is not the norm.

 

Edited August 3, 2023 by Damien

[Tommygilf]

Just now, bobbruce said:

I can’t think of an English pro sport that televises all matches in England. 

RU did, to be fair. And they still have a premiership pass streaming service in place for non-BT sport games.

The Premier League only don't do it because of the 3pm blackout. Unofficially, you can watch any game live of course and many pubs will show matches. In their expansion markets abroad, every match is available of course. I doubt they see too much new reach domestically, only maintainaning their strong position.

All of the Hundred is televised (I think cricket has always wanted this for domestic t20 but the system needed to be broken to fewer teams to get it done).

So of 3 largest team sports in England, all 3 have all games broadcast to TV standard somewhere. RL is arguably the 4th sport in England in many regards, but hasn't got this, nor has it ever had it.

The benefits are clear, as are the lessons from Union.

[Tommygilf]

2 minutes ago, Damien said:

It really doesn't and is the norm.

 

I don't think that is true. Firstly most new comps in RU, Cricket or Football we have seen since basically the 2000s seems to have had all TV broadcasted games as part of their strategy.

Secondly, I think we're clouded in this country by the 3pm blackout, and the fact that we get Premier League, Scottish Premiership, and Championship football all broadcast each weekend. I couldn't say precisely but on any given weekend just those 3 leagues could see 8 to 12 live matches broadcast. And that is before we get to the midweek Championship and European matches, all of which are now available for live TV viewing too. If we didn't have that variety and availability, I think there would be even more clamour than there already is to get every premier league game broadcast in the UK.

[Damien]

Just now, Tommygilf said:

I don't think that is true. Firstly most new comps in RU, Cricket or Football we have seen since basically the 2000s seems to have had all TV broadcasted games as part of their strategy.

Secondly, I think we're clouded in this country by the 3pm blackout, and the fact that we get Premier League, Scottish Premiership, and Championship football all broadcast each weekend. I couldn't say precisely but on any given weekend just those 3 leagues could see 8 to 12 live matches broadcast. And that is before we get to the midweek Championship and European matches, all of which are now available for live TV viewing too. If we didn't have that variety and availability, I think there would be even more clamour than there already is to get every premier league game broadcast in the UK.

Simulcast since the 2000s, I don't think so.

[Tommygilf]

Just now, Damien said:

Simulcast since the 2000s, I don't think so.

New comps

[Damien]

23 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

New comps

PRTV live only started last year. Football, which is easily the biggest sport, doesn't. This is not the norm.

[Tommygilf]

5 hours ago, Damien said:

PRTV live only started last year. Football, which is easily the biggest sport, doesn't. This is not the norm.

And? Since 2018 every URC game was broadcast live too, as was all the European Cup games. 

I explained why football is skewwed, essentially legally. And even then, there are 3 leagues regularly broadcasting more live content than any other sport not one, plus every midweek game is televised. Plus the occasional League 1, 2 and National League game. That is a lot more live football than any other sport in this country.

The Hundred, also new, has every game broadcast on TV.

If you have a competition that you want to be visible, and have matches and clubs as your primary marketing tool, you want every game to be televised to make it as easy as possible to access it. Right now, following and building up an attachment with all but a few clubs is difficult unless you can physically attend because not every game is televised. Shockingly, those televised most regularly have the most name recognition, and the most success.