TV Deal to conclude end of June

[Copa]

15 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

The Premier League would have every game broadcast if it could, they are actively working with the government to abolish the 3pm blackout of domestic broadcasts. 

The EFL are getting rid of iFollow in the Championship because essentially their new (and massively improved) deal with Sky replaces it.

Every premier league game (plus a number of other soccer leagues from around the world) is broadcast in Australia live and on-demand on Optus Sports for around £12 a month.

[gingerjon]

Just now, Copa said:

Every premier league game (plus a number of other soccer leagues from around the world) is broadcast in Australia live and on-demand on Optus Sports for around £12 a month.

Yup. My Arsenal-supporting son was livid last year when he went to Spain for a few days and noticed that it was a lot easier to watch every EPL match on TV there than here.

[Tommygilf]

Just now, Copa said:

Every premier league game (plus a number of other soccer leagues from around the world) is broadcast in Australia live and on-demand on Optus Sports for around £12 a month.

Yeah go in certain pubs and you'll even see optus over here for our 3pm kick offs

As you said in your earlier post, its about making every team accessible and easy to follow. Right now its very difficult for all but a few in Super League, and even then its not every game.

[HawkMan]

33 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

The Premier League would have every game broadcast if it could, they are actively working with the government to abolish the 3pm blackout of domestic broadcasts. 

The EFL are getting rid of iFollow in the Championship because essentially their new (and massively improved) deal with Sky replaces it.

WSL hoping to get in first,  on FTA BBC, could really expand audiences,  other sports need to get moving if it wants that Saturday afternoon slot.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66111300

 

Also article deals with cons of closed shop league.

Edited July 6, 2023 by HawkMan

[Derwent Parker]

54 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Does being on TV actually affect the attendance that much?

Even if it does affect it slightly the fact is if its on TV/Streaming there will be more people actually watch the game than if it wasn't available to watch out side of going to the game.

No

There are loads of reasons why you may miss a match or matches - Work, Holiday, Illness, other sports etc or even if the travelling to away match is bad. Cornwall to Cumbria is a bit of a trek.

But if all matches were shown even at weird times - All the people who missed their game for the reasons above would be grateful to record/watch what they missed. And its all income for the TV company.

[RP London]

52 minutes ago, Derwent Parker said:

No

There are loads of reasons why you may miss a match or matches - Work, Holiday, Illness, other sports etc or even if the travelling to away match is bad. Cornwall to Cumbria is a bit of a trek.

But if all matches were shown even at weird times - All the people who missed their game for the reasons above would be grateful to record/watch what they missed. And its all income for the TV company.

and exposure for the sponsors etc meaning you can arguably charge more. 

[Rugbyleaguesupporter]

The Premier League are against ending the blackout 

https://www.sportspromedia.com/news/premier-league-richard-masters-saturday-tv-blackout-ban-efl/

League 1 and league 2 clubs (who receive much smaller slices of EFL pie than championship) will also lose ability to stream. 

I'm OK with all games being shown, but: 

-acknowledgement that only a small percentage really want this and will pay to access all games 

-difficulty for fans and clubs of no regular timeslot for home games 

-importance of Friday corporate market 

-trade between all games live and people watching in pubs/ not attending/ losing interest 

-too many games on tv can dilute product

 

[Spidey]

Widnes went through 55 players and finished second bottom. Yeah great memories

It was the season where the ground was being re-developed so only either end was open, The development was so we were SL ready as there was criteria back then. How naive we were

[Dunbar]

Apologies that I haven't been following this thread closely.  But I have to say that Sky should see Rugby League/Super League as a valuable asset. 

Looking at the Sky Sports channels tonight, it is absolute dross.  The Main Event is Sky Sports News (news as the Main Event!), then there is Premier League and Football League repeats on the two Soccer channels, repeats of F1, Ryder Cup golf, Women's cricket, and the Rugby Championship and then a documentary on Kobe Bryant.

If they think that serving up not a single piece of live sporting action is quality then they are absolutely clueless.  They need more action, not less.

[Rugbyleaguesupporter]

My only question @Dunbaris that if you have Sky, will you unsubscribe? 

If not, harsh reality is that Sky primary purpose is to make money for shareholders, so why spend money on rights to fill up blank evenings if it won't affect subscriber numbers? 

[glossop saint]

6 minutes ago, Rugbyleaguesupporter said:

My only question @Dunbaris that if you have Sky, will you unsubscribe? 

If not, harsh reality is that Sky primary purpose is to make money for shareholders, so why spend money on rights to fill up blank evenings if it won't affect subscriber numbers? 

I don't have sky but do have nowTV. If sky lose RL I will not be paying for it (with the possible but unlikely exception of a cricket match). Though how typical I am I have no idea. 

[Cumbrian Fanatic]

2 minutes ago, glossop saint said:

I don't have sky but do have nowTV. If sky lose RL I will not be paying for it (with the possible but unlikely exception of a cricket match). Though how typical I am I have no idea. 

I am in the same position, I watch some other sports but only pay for Now TV because of the rugby. I'd cancel it the day they stopped showing games

[Dunbar]

13 minutes ago, Rugbyleaguesupporter said:

My only question @Dunbaris that if you have Sky, will you unsubscribe? 

If not, harsh reality is that Sky primary purpose is to make money for shareholders, so why spend money on rights to fill up blank evenings if it won't affect subscriber numbers? 

The honest answer is no.  I subscribe to most of the pay tv channels in order to pick and choose what I want to watch.  And I would keep Sky Sports even if it lost Rugby League as it has content that I like to watch (although not as religiously as RL).

But I may be in a minority position on this.

[RP London]

7 minutes ago, glossop saint said:

I don't have sky but do have nowTV. If sky lose RL I will not be paying for it (with the possible but unlikely exception of a cricket match). Though how typical I am I have no idea. 

 

2 minutes ago, Cumbrian Fanatic said:

I am in the same position, I watch some other sports but only pay for Now TV because of the rugby. I'd cancel it the day they stopped showing games

i'm the same. I may turn it back on at certain times of the year (good thing with now tv) but at the moment its all year round due to RL, and the odd other sport i enjoy.

[Toby Chopra]

1 hour ago, RP London said:

 

i'm the same. I may turn it back on at certain times of the year (good thing with now tv) but at the moment its all year round due to RL, and the odd other sport i enjoy.

Turning NowTV on and off makes all the difference. If Sky dropped RL I'd drop it from the end of the NFL season to the start of the Cricket one, so they'd lose about a third of my money but not all of it. 

I think Sky have a pretty good idea of what the cancellation calculation is, and what they pay us now basically reflects that.

[Josef K]

If Sky didn’t bother with RL then i wouldn’t bother with Sky.
Id miss the EFL games on Sky but id just have to watch the highlights on itv4. As for the PL i don’t really watch that and I’m not that arsed about the cricket. 

[Lowdesert]

Not sure if this has been mentioned but TNT sport are also interested https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyleague/article-12294661/TNT-Sport-make-shock-bid-rugby-Super-League-TV-rights.html

[Tommygilf]

3 minutes ago, Lowdesert said:

Not sure if this has been mentioned but TNT sport are also interested https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyleague/article-12294661/TNT-Sport-make-shock-bid-rugby-Super-League-TV-rights.html

Certainly good to have any competition for Sky.

[David Shepherd]

6 minutes ago, Lowdesert said:

Not sure if this has been mentioned but TNT sport are also interested https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyleague/article-12294661/TNT-Sport-make-shock-bid-rugby-Super-League-TV-rights.html

Interesting

[DI Keith Fowler]

9 minutes ago, Lowdesert said:

Not sure if this has been mentioned but TNT sport are also interested https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyleague/article-12294661/TNT-Sport-make-shock-bid-rugby-Super-League-TV-rights.html

Well, well, well. Very interesting since the £40 million deal came off the back of BT interest at the time (or alternatively because of the revolutionary league structure).

[Tommygilf]

It is interesting to look at Sky's "rugby" coverage.

From being the home of Super League and international RL matches, then pretty much all domestic RU in the Home Nations and France, the 2 European Cups, Domestic RU in the big 3 southern hemisphere nations and Super Rugby, Summer tours, Autumn internationals, Lions tours, indeed the only RU they didn't have was the Six Nations.

Now they have Super League, the occasional RL mid season international, and for RU its just South African Domestic Rugby, Super Rugby Pacific, and Lions Tours, I assume they still have the NZ Domestic comp but I could be wrong.

Its a really dramatic shift in content.

[Man of Kent]

Very interesting development albeit no indication of what TNT Sports has bid vs Sky.

I’m increasingly of the view that - as long as British rugby league is not worse off - a break from Sky in the IMG era would be beneficial.

Leaving aside that the Sky coverage is awfully stale and in certain ways stuck in the 90s, a rebranded Super League on a rebranded channel might just be what the doctor ordered.

Edited July 13, 2023 by Man of Kent

[Man of Kent]

I don’t have BT/TNT Sport myself but I notice they are showing stuff like last year’s Table Hockey Championship. Whatever the hell that is.

They do need quality live content.  

[DoubleD]

34 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

It is interesting to look at Sky's "rugby" coverage.

From being the home of Super League and international RL matches, then pretty much all domestic RU in the Home Nations and France, the 2 European Cups, Domestic RU in the big 3 southern hemisphere nations and Super Rugby, Summer tours, Autumn internationals, Lions tours, indeed the only RU they didn't have was the Six Nations.

Now they have Super League, the occasional RL mid season international, and for RU its just South African Domestic Rugby, Super Rugby Pacific, and Lions Tours, I assume they still have the NZ Domestic comp but I could be wrong.

Its a really dramatic shift in content.

No idea what yawnion they have but they have NRL, State of Origin and will also be showing all the NRLW matches as well 

[Lowdesert]

6 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

Very interesting development albeit no indication of what TNT Sports has bid vs Sky.

I’m increasingly of the view that - as long as British rugby league is not worse off - a break from Sky in the IMG era would be beneficial.

Leaving aside that the Sky coverage is awfully stale and in certain ways stuck in the 90s, a rebranded Super League on a rebranded channel might just be what the doctor ordered.

Plus the diversity of being in partnership with an explosive company….or have I read that wrong?