TV Deal to conclude end of June

[Rugbyleaguesupporter]

@HawkManAll EFL clubs lose right to I follow revenue from UK. 

I've not got detail to hand but my gut is that it's an improvement but not much for non championship clubs after you factor in I follow loses and gate losses for many clubs that might result (debatable) 

[The 4 of Us]

2 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

Yes, the Challenge Cup is another avenue for growth.

I'd be happy to buy a 'Super League Digital Season Ticket' for £100 or so although I would prefer it if it's available as an app on streaming devices (Apple TV etc) like Watch NRL.

As they are paying for the enhanced filming production (or so we are told), maybe Sky will offer this in partnership with Super League/RFL?

Touché. Although I’m clearly more of a skinflint than you.

 

[Man of Kent]

2 minutes ago, The 4 of Us said:

Touché. Although I’m clearly more of a skinflint than you.

Well, I think £10 represents fair value for a broadcast quality, multi-camera Super League stream with TV ref etc, so £100 would be a mere ten streams. 

[DI Keith Fowler]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

The devil will be in the detail. We were lied to about what the last deal included, let's see if there is more to this one this time. 

If we have additional coverage and ability to sell secondary rights etc then there may be some positives to this. If its two games on Sky, plus full broadcast coverage of other games and VR's as it was meant to be last time, plus games on C4, then it could be decent. 

The real changes to the game, rebrand, grading etc. start soon, this three year deal covers some of that period. 

 

Yep, as you say devils in the detail. We knew this was going to be a reduction from the noises made, and that it's a minor-ish reduction is somewhat of a relief, but the true picture will be in what it looks like from the secondary C4 games and streaming offering. See what gets announced this afternoon after the clubs get briefed. 

[Dave T]

21 minutes ago, Mark S said:

The sport should not be relying on TV money to be the only source of income. 

They don't.

TV money is a modest % of Sl club income.

[HawkMan]

13 minutes ago, Rugbyleaguesupporter said:

@HawkManAll EFL clubs lose right to I follow revenue from UK. 

I've not got detail to hand but my gut is that it's an improvement but not much for non championship clubs after you factor in I follow loses and gate losses for many clubs that might result (debatable) 

EFL no longer burdened by streaming costs as Sky take over, so my gut feeling is the clubs revenue will increase.

On topic - Sky presumably are clued in with IMG planned changes and have offered a slight decrease,  why?

Either, 1) They think the changes could lead to a bright future,  so play safe and keep status quo.

2) They're not impressed or don't care either way,  and wanted to hold off interest from TNT that was a definite possibility.  Presumably TNT offered less. The championship clubs I feel sorry for, with Viaplay ending UK operations,  finding a new broadcaster will be tough. Its a shame, some great games in the championship,  last night was brilliantly entertaining.

Edited August 22, 2023 by HawkMan

[newbe]

Excuse me for this question, but my age I get confused. WHEN is the decision being made public about the structure, teams need I should imagine 12 months to restructure themselves. 

[Dave T]

Whilst there may be some people who will portray this as a disaster - a disaster would have been Sky walking away from the sport after 28 years, which was set to happen if you believed some. Or that they would offer peanuts.

IN reality, as a starter for 10, it looks like we have just signed a new deal worth £70m.

[gingerjon]

I do hope they at least change some of the words from the cut and paste from last time’s spiel about all games being covered to broadcast quality.

[The Blues Ox]

1 hour ago, Rugbyleaguesupporter said:

If Sky pay £1m less, that shortfall could be made up from terrestrial broadcaster and Our League.

One idea if that is the case is to just take the 1m from the promoted Championship team.

[M j M]

2 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

One idea if that is the case is to just take the 1m from the promoted Championship team.

You just know that's what some of those club owners are plotting!

Edited August 22, 2023 by M j M

[Tommygilf]

Devil in the detail as ever.

I think Sky exclusivity must be completely out of the window now surely? 

[The 4 of Us]

44 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

Well, I think £10 represents fair value for a broadcast quality, multi-camera Super League stream with TV ref etc, so £100 would be a mere ten streams. 

Agreed, although for marketing purposes I’d reckon a £79 or £89 would be the annual cost. Aussies charge 229 dollars £115 but clearly a lot more content.

[gingerjon]

The UK sports streaming market is not (yet?) one where significant numbers of people will pay significant amounts. That is the worry.

How many people are crying out for more than two to three games a week when they also have dozens of soccer and other sports alternatives already paid for?

[OriginalMrC]

5 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

The UK sports streaming market is not (yet?) one where significant numbers of people will pay significant amounts. That is the worry.

How many people are crying out for more than two to three games a week when they also have dozens of soccer and other sports alternatives already paid for?

Absolutely correct. People just won't pay in significant numbers to make it work. Something everyone is missing is that streaming has already been tried on OurLeague. For most matches clubs are lucky to break even. It's just not a viable option at present. 

[lanzer98]

56 minutes ago, The 4 of Us said:

If they follow the NRL model regarding streaming, they could make a fair chunk of additional revenue.

I think I saw that OurLeague had over 200,000 subscribers? 
 

Let’s say a quarter of them were pursuaded to shell out just £50 for a season pass, that would mean an extra £2.5 M per year.

The solution is in the game’s hand.

First and foremost, getting right what happens on the field is going to be most important in growing profile and then income.

I suspect that Sky will have said, “you promised us this last time around..” and their payment represents this.

This time the sport really has to deliver. 

The commercial success of streaming depends on (i) content (no. of games streamed live and on demand, shows, highlights of each games, etc), (ii) in which countries it can be streamed (UK, EU, US, AUS, NZ, SA, etc), (iii) pricing, and (iv) App quality/availability on devices (Apple TV, Amazon TV,  Android TV, WebOS). 

Comparing our league app to watchNRL or other apps it is fair to say that our league app is not up to standard and in need of an update.

[The 4 of Us]

4 minutes ago, lanzer98 said:

The commercial success of streaming depends on (i) content (no. of games streamed live and on demand, shows, highlights of each games, etc), (ii) in which countries it can be streamed (UK, EU, US, AUS, NZ, SA, etc), (iii) pricing, and (iv) App quality/availability on devices (Apple TV, Amazon TV,  Android TV, WebOS). 

Comparing our league app to watchNRL or other apps it is fair to say that our league app is not up to standard and in need of an update.

Agreed. Which is effectively what I said above in comparing price point of any streaming. We have a long way to go. 

[DI Keith Fowler]

8 minutes ago, lanzer98 said:

The commercial success of streaming depends on (i) content (no. of games streamed live and on demand, shows, highlights of each games, etc), (ii) in which countries it can be streamed (UK, EU, US, AUS, NZ, SA, etc), (iii) pricing, and (iv) App quality/availability on devices (Apple TV, Amazon TV,  Android TV, WebOS). 

Comparing our league app to watchNRL or other apps it is fair to say that our league app is not up to standard and in need of an update.

There's a number of people, myself included, who would purchase a full OurLeague season pass just to watch the odd game. I don't think you need to have everyone tuning into every game to make it work. However, as you say the app (or lack thereof) needs a complete overhaul which is something I hope IMG are working up in the background currently.

I subscribe to Viaplay through Amazon but to be honest only really watch the Widnes matches on it, but it's easy and convenient and works slickly on my TV so I just keep it rolling. A lot of people are the same. 

[Just Browny]

Sorry, we've had annual inflation running at close to 10% in the period since the last deal. A cash cut since the past deal means some serious damage to club and player incomes; there is no positive here whatsoever.

Edited August 22, 2023 by Just Browny

[Dave T]

18 minutes ago, OriginalMrC said:

Absolutely correct. People just won't pay in significant numbers to make it work. Something everyone is missing is that streaming has already been tried on OurLeague. For most matches clubs are lucky to break even. It's just not a viable option at present. 

 

24 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

The UK sports streaming market is not (yet?) one where significant numbers of people will pay significant amounts. That is the worry.

How many people are crying out for more than two to three games a week when they also have dozens of soccer and other sports alternatives already paid for?

I think though, this is where if you can get a deal where costs are covered it is a different proposition. 100% agree about the market though - the way people quote large numbers and multiply them by hundreds of quid is a nonsense. It's a very niche market.

[RigbyLuger]

Wonder who leaked the story and why, when it's coming out this afternoon, seemingly.

[Toby Chopra]

23 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

The UK sports streaming market is not (yet?) one where significant numbers of people will pay significant amounts. That is the worry.

How many people are crying out for more than two to three games a week when they also have dozens of soccer and other sports alternatives already paid for?

Agree. When you have football-sized fan bases with fans locked out or desperate to watch every away game then the economics of streaming starts to make sense. But for every other sport, including ours, 6 hours a week of live games plus attending a game is enough for almost everyone.

The only thing potentially missing is a live game on Sundays as for some that might suit better than, say, Friday night or Saturday day. But Sky don't need it as they are stacked on Sundays all year round.

[gingerjon]

10 minutes ago, Dave T said:

 

I think though, this is where if you can get a deal where costs are covered it is a different proposition. 100% agree about the market though - the way people quote large numbers and multiply them by hundreds of quid is a nonsense. It's a very niche market.

If costs are covered then it’s a no-brainer to do it but … there are no riches there in the UK yet. 

[Mark S]

Maybe Sky offered £25m and the RFL agreed that if they removed ‘Baz n’ Tez’ they could have it for £24m.

[Dave T]

4 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

If costs are covered then it’s a no-brainer to do it but … there are no riches there in the UK yet. 

agreed. 

My view on having a great streaming app is that it is more of a fan engagement tool that can bring some modest value if costs are covered. It aint gonna drive millions of quid, but I think it helps to engage with fans and present us as a modern sport. 

I think the better outcome is that Sky fund decent quality coverage and it can maybe be used to produce high quality content on YouTube and our internal channels. Hiding it away for a few grand income is probably a waste.