TV Deal to conclude end of June

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

2 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

We have a few pro marketeers and a good number who seemingly know everything about it on these pages.

I am not one of those but I do know if you don't tell people about something that you want to sell it will not sell.

Sorry Tommy but I think you are cutting Sky to much slack with your interpretation here.

Where's @Hull Kingston Bronco when he is needed.

I'm in my Spanish holiday home recuperating after a very emotional weekend. I will return with my usual sage marketing advice built on 2 decades' blue-chip, C-level excellence in a few days, please do bear with me      

[Tommygilf]

3 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

I fully understand that Sky's audience for RL will be relatively small, but it will remain so as long as they wish to keep it a secret and choose not to market it properly.

Totally agree get Sky's exclusivity rescinded unless they want to pay for it, but will the RL/IMG have big enough dangly bits to excersize that option if maintaining exclusivity is the best deal on the table?

I definitely feel like the "partnership" from Sky isn't what it was. We're just another source of content now rather than Sky being invested in driving the sport forwards, imo. A lot of that is a result of not taking the opportunities presented when there was more of a partnership going on, we have fallen back and retreated; this is a logical consequence of that from Sky.

I think the exclusivity should be easier to discuss now we've had nearly 2 Seasons with Channel 4. In an ideal world we'd take the bulk of TV revenue from Sky for 2 to 3 top choice games a week, a decent FTA deal for at least 1 game a week, the cup on the BBC and then the rest could be up for whatever is on the table. The sport simply does not have the financial strength or interest to play too much hard ball with Sky however. I also doubt a FTA deal will be financially worth that much up front.

[Man of Kent]

This TV deal is taking its sweet time. Maybe the TNT story was genuine and thrown a spanner in the works (in a good way)?

[Man of Kent]

Rumours (via Forty-20) that the new deal will see every game of every round screened in some format and will likely see video refs for all.

[ATLANTISMAN]

1 hour ago, Man of Kent said:

Rumours (via Forty-20) that the new deal will see every game of every round screened in some format and will likely see video refs for all.

The streaming will be to try and  make up the lower SKY offer.

[JohnM]

Given what IMG has achieved with the Saudi Pro League rights,  it would be pleasing to see them achieve proportionately the same for our rights.

[doc]

Copying the other threads.

TV deal to conclude end of June. (But in 5 years time).

[RigbyLuger]

7 hours ago, Cheadle Leyther said:

Look at the way BT Sport has covered the rugby Union club game. Always included in the promotion of their sports content. Often advertised when other sports are being shown, and a dedicated weekly rugby club show.

Yet Sky audience figures for Superleague always trounces theirs.

BT/TNT have also got a lot less rights to things than Sky.

[Hello]

7 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

I fully understand that Sky's audience for RL will be relatively small, but it will remain so as long as they wish to keep it a secret and choose not to market it properly.

Totally agree get Sky's exclusivity rescinded unless they want to pay for it, but will the RL/IMG have big enough dangly bits to excersize that option if maintaining exclusivity is the best deal on the table?

It's not Sky who want to keep the sport a minority secret though, is it, they're all about making money obviously.  They would gladly rake in the cash if it was allowed to properly expand and not be held back by the resistance of a lot of the fans and clubs who just want to be a big fish in a small pond. TV deals declining all the time, you reap what you sow

 

[Harry Stottle]

46 minutes ago, Hello said:

It's not Sky who want to keep the sport a minority secret though, is it, they're all about making money obviously.  They would gladly rake in the cash if it was allowed to properly expand and not be held back by the resistance of a lot of the fans and clubs who just want to be a big fish in a small pond. TV deals declining all the time, you reap what you sow

 

Which clubs do you have in mind.

Perhaps a 6 team format playing each other 5 times a season would help.

Edited August 14, 2023 by Harry Stottle

[Hello]

12 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

Which clubs do you have in mind.

Perhaps a 6 team format playing each other 5 times a season would help.

Anyway, hope you enjoyed your day and congratulations 

[Damien]

13 hours ago, Hello said:

It's not Sky who want to keep the sport a minority secret though, is it, they're all about making money obviously.  They would gladly rake in the cash if it was allowed to properly expand and not be held back by the resistance of a lot of the fans and clubs who just want to be a big fish in a small pond. TV deals declining all the time, you reap what you sow

For Sky its also about value for money. At the moment they get a nice filler from Rugby League and as long as they keep the product at an acceptable level they will get the kind of ratings they get. They also have traditionally had zero competition when it comes to TV rights which means they can essentially offer what they please..

I think Sky are quite content with how things are and what it gets from RL. Yes RL could grow but would Sky really benefit from that? Would a tripling of investment and new clubs result in 3 times the revenue and 3 times the viewers? I very much doubt it. It may well though see them lose the rights to a competitor who may then become interested.

As long as the sport can't become more attractive to other broadcasters and sponsors we are always going to be stuck in this position.

[Big Picture]

2 hours ago, Damien said:

For Sky its also about value for money. At the moment they get a nice filler from Rugby League and as long as they keep the product at an acceptable level they will get the kind of ratings they get. They also have traditionally had zero competition when it comes to TV rights which means they can essentially offer what they please..

I think Sky are quite content with how things are and what it gets from RL. Yes RL could grow but would Sky really benefit from that? Would a tripling of investment and new clubs result in 3 times the revenue and 3 times the viewers? I very much doubt it. It may well though see them lose the rights to a competitor who may then become interested.

As long as the sport can't become more attractive to other broadcasters and sponsors we are always going to be stuck in this position.

Apparently you've forgotten that when the last renewal was announced it was reported that Sky had given the game two years to prove its value.

The silence about this combined with the leaked information that administrators aren't happy with Sky's offer suggests that theu tailed to do that.

[Damien]

10 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

Apparently you've forgotten that when the last renewal was announced it was reported that Sky had given the game two years to prove its value.

The silence about this combined with the leaked information that administrators aren't happy with Sky's offer suggests that theu tailed to do that.

I have not forgotten that, you miss the point of my post and the posts I replied to.

[Dave T]

On 15/08/2023 at 11:44, Damien said:

For Sky its also about value for money. At the moment they get a nice filler from Rugby League and as long as they keep the product at an acceptable level they will get the kind of ratings they get. They also have traditionally had zero competition when it comes to TV rights which means they can essentially offer what they please..

I think Sky are quite content with how things are and what it gets from RL. Yes RL could grow but would Sky really benefit from that? Would a tripling of investment and new clubs result in 3 times the revenue and 3 times the viewers? I very much doubt it. It may well though see them lose the rights to a competitor who may then become interested.

As long as the sport can't become more attractive to other broadcasters and sponsors we are always going to be stuck in this position.

I think in reality, there is limited growth. We may get a few extra thousand here and there, but I just don't see these numbers trebling or quadrupling which is what we talk about for the big events in the other sports that get the higher profile on Sky. 

And I don't think it's necessarily what we are doing, Union's club game has been similar. Sports recognise that they need to push new events/comps and play to the international crowd. 

We maybe have an opportunity in offering more content, but then when we see Magic covered it doesn't return amazing viewing figs, people just tend to pick the games they want, which Sky know will happen if they show all 6 games. The audience will just disperse, broadly speaking. 

[Man of Kent]

The latest issue of Forty-20 has some interesting insight into the imminent new TV deal. Worth a read.

[Agbrigg]

Heard from a contact who is usually very reliable that Sky have driven a very hard bargain. Our side are holding back on the bad news , approx 20 % funding reduction

[Man of Kent]

10 minutes ago, Agbrigg said:

Heard from a contact who is usually very reliable that Sky have driven a very hard bargain. Our side are holding back on the bad news , approx 20 % funding reduction

That’s not the full story. It seems a case of taking a step back to take two forward.

[ATLANTISMAN]

36 minutes ago, Agbrigg said:

Heard from a contact who is usually very reliable that Sky have driven a very hard bargain. Our side are holding back on the bad news , approx 20 % funding reduction

20 max looking at 18

Take away what the RFL want = around 1.1 per club 

[Henson Park Old Firm]

When do we find out the deal?

[Agbrigg]

45 minutes ago, ATLANTISMAN said:

20 max looking at 18

Take away what the RFL want = around 1.1 per club 

Is that 1.1 % per SL club or £1.1M per SLclub

[DI Keith Fowler]

15 hours ago, Man of Kent said:

The latest issue of Forty-20 has some interesting insight into the imminent new TV deal. Worth a read.

On or around the current deal with all matches filmed by Sky, video refs at every game, more C4 matches and the ability to sell games through an improved 7League produced OurLeague app would be a positive outcome. 

However, frustratingly, this is more or less what we were supposed to have in the last deal and only the C4 element actually came to pass. I'd like to see us drive it further and get the GF on C4, turn that into a yearly big event on terrestrial TV. 

As an aside, thank god the deal with IMG is contingent on increased commercial performance and not just a CVC style we'll have 20% of whatever you get even if it's less. 

Edited August 17, 2023 by DI Keith Fowler

[Man of Kent]

33 minutes ago, DI Keith Fowler said:

On or around the current deal with all matches filmed by Sky, video refs at every game, more C4 matches and the ability to sell games through an improved 7League produced OurLeague app would be a positive outcome. 

However, frustratingly, this is more or less what we were supposed to have in the last deal and only the C4 element actually came to pass. I'd like to see us drive it further and get the GF on C4, turn that into a yearly big event on terrestrial TV. 

As an aside, thank god the deal with IMG is contingent on increased commercial performance and not just a CVC style we'll have 20% of whatever you get even if it's less. 

The key bit is Sky paying for all games to be filmed to broadcast standard (even if Sky do not broadcast all the games). That opens up more games on Channel 4 and/or a different broadcaster, more and better streaming, more content on social media etc. 

[DI Keith Fowler]

9 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

The key bit is Sky paying for all games to be filmed to broadcast standard (even if Sky do not broadcast all the games). That opens up more games on Channel 4 and/or a different broadcaster, more and better streaming, more content on social media etc. 

Oh absolutely. It's just we did have this in the last deal. It just never happened, I assumed Sky gave us some money back for it and we didn't push it. 

[Man of Kent]

7 minutes ago, DI Keith Fowler said:

Oh absolutely. It's just we did have this in the last deal. It just never happened, I assumed Sky gave us some money back for it and we didn't push it. 

Not sure the current deal includes Sky covering production costs.