TV Deal to conclude end of June

[N2022]

3 hours ago, Chrispmartha said:

Personally a game now that's on TV feels like a much bigger event when you are actually in the ground - the big screen, replays, VR all add to the sense of the game being an event.

I much prefer going to televised games than non televised games.

I appreciate that might  get less and less when it's the norm.

Yes, I agree. When you see the pundits etc around, pitchside interviews, it adds to the occasion. Floodlights have a similar effect to my mind, so I am glad my kids can now cope with evening games.

[N2022]

2 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

Quite, none of those have seen crowds collapse because they've had more televised content.

You've missed my points. These sports aren't, for various reasons, similar to RL. They are generally more resilient to this possible negative effect for social, economic and practical reasons than RL. I also highlighted that the context is changing which is a further reason not to make overconfident assumptions based on what might have applied in the past. I am not saying RL crowds couldn't hold up, just that it's dangerous to assume crowds couldn't fall with too much live RL streaming or broadcast.

 

[Chrispmartha]

11 minutes ago, N2022 said:

You've missed my points. These sports aren't, for various reasons, similar to RL. They are generally more resilient to this possible negative effect for social, economic and practical reasons than RL. I also highlighted that the context is changing which is a further reason not to make overconfident assumptions based on what might have applied in the past. I am not saying RL crowds couldn't hold up, just that it's dangerous to assume crowds couldn't fall with too much live RL streaming or broadcast.

 

Even if it did slightly affect attendances Id say it’s still worth it for the benefits to the sport as a whole.

[N2022]

2 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Even if it did slightly affect attendances Id say it’s still worth it for the benefits to the sport as a whole.

That might well be true - visibility, sponsorship etc. Running a few more Internationals would help build on that sense of people, perhaps from outside heartlands and without a strong club affiliation, buying into the sport based on seeing it on TV

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

55 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Loop fixtures reported to stay for next year, with full reformatting of the League and Cup to take place together the following season

IMG discovering just how hard it is to herd cats

Clubs need to understand that simplifying the product combined with better marcomms will enable them to sell more tickets and corporate stuff across 11 more meaningful home games than they currently do across 13 matches.

But I'd guess what we're really seeing signposted here is that the intent is to switch to 14 teams within this 3 year cycle, so moving to simplified home/away set-up will coincide with that. Why upset the apple cart for one or two seasons in the meantime etc. etc.  

[gingerjon]

12 minutes ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

IMG discovering just how hard it is to herd cats

Clubs need to understand that simplifying the product combined with better marcomms will enable them to sell more tickets and corporate stuff across 11 more meaningful home games than they currently do across 13 matches.

But I'd guess what we're really seeing signposted here is that the intent is to switch to 14 teams within this 3 year cycle, so moving to simplified home/away set-up will coincide with that. Why upset the apple cart for one or two seasons in the meantime etc. etc.  

14 teams dilutes the gradings (more availability for the mass of mediocre B grades and no need to smarten up) so, yup, the clubs will love that too.

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

45 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

14 teams dilutes the gradings (more availability for the mass of mediocre B grades and no need to smarten up) so, yup, the clubs will love that too.

Maybe, but it also enables Toulouse to have a far better chance to come in and stay in, which is a trade-off I'm prepared to make

[gingerjon]

6 minutes ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

Maybe, but it also enables Toulouse to have a far better chance to come in and stay in, which is a trade-off I'm prepared to make

Why? Wouldn't you rather Toulouse et al actually improved?

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

1 hour ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

IMG discovering just how hard it is to herd cats

Clubs need to understand that simplifying the product combined with better marcomms will enable them to sell more tickets and corporate stuff across 11 more meaningful home games than they currently do across 13 matches.

But I'd guess what we're really seeing signposted here is that the intent is to switch to 14 teams within this 3 year cycle, so moving to simplified home/away set-up will coincide with that. Why upset the apple cart for one or two seasons in the meantime etc. etc.  

The other thing I'd add to the "11 match versus 13 matches" economics is season ticket yields. Most of our attendances are now annual memberships, the cost of which have barely moved in the last decade (so large real terms reductions in clubs' revenue). Personally I'd be arguing to sell season tickets at the same price, for 11 rather than 13, or at least at a slightly reduced price that builds some more margin per game back in. 

That could be a large part of the revenue bridge. Corporate sales & prices should be helped by scarcity, especially if clubs invested in capacity per game (which they should be doing anyway). There's no reason why you can't sell almost the same volume of corporate packages in a geographic market distributed across 11 games rather than 13, even without increasing the number of corporate clients. 

But my overall point is this is not an insurmountable business challenge, if you have the right mindset.  

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

Just now, gingerjon said:

Why? Wouldn't you rather Toulouse et al actually improved?

I think we have the player base for 14, and I think we likely have 14 clubs who can compete financially (or at least we have 2 extra clubs who can compete with the bottom 2 in Super League financially, so the current line is a bit of a false one in that sense... it should probably be either 10, or 14). The short-term issue is media rights value and so club grants when cut more thinly. 

[gingerjon]

Just now, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

I think we have the player base for 14, and I think we likely have 14 clubs who can compete financially (or at least we have 2 extra clubs who can compete with the bottom 2 in Super League financially, so the current line is a bit of a false one in that sense... it should probably be either 10, or 14). The short-term issue is media rights value and so club grants when cut more thinly. 

That really does read like an encouragement to staggering mediocrity.

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

9 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

That really does read like an encouragement to staggering mediocrity.

Not at all. If we have the global player base for 14, why would you not have 14 teams so a more diverse product with a simplified structure if you've confidence in your ability to get the game an upward revenue path? I think it shows ambition, not a step towards mediocrity. 

I'm in no rush to move to 14, I'd rather wait for the revenue base to build, but I certainly don't see a compelling case for "12 provides better quality". If that's your argument, then the best position is probably 10 clubs. I could make a better case for that cut-off and sell it. If it's 12, it might as well be 14. 

 

[Man of Kent]

17 free to air games next year

 https://www.totalrl.com/revealed-how-many-free-to-air-super-league-games-will-be-broadcast-in-2024/

[gingerjon]

1 minute ago, Man of Kent said:

17 free to air games next year

 https://www.totalrl.com/revealed-how-many-free-to-air-super-league-games-will-be-broadcast-in-2024/

What's the total for "Channel 4 + streaming" this year?

[Spidey]

2 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

What's the total for "Channel 4 + streaming" this year?

“Channel 4 will broadcast 10 Live matches in 2023 as Secondary Broadcaster.

8 Regular Season Matches (Second Choice Pick)

2 Super League Play Off Games (Sky have first choice).

Grand Final Highlights”
 

Not sure about streaming 

[gingerjon]

3 minutes ago, Spidey said:

“Channel 4 will broadcast 10 Live matches in 2023 as Secondary Broadcaster.

8 Regular Season Matches (Second Choice Pick)

2 Super League Play Off Games (Sky have first choice).

Grand Final Highlights”
 

Not sure about streaming 

There have been a handful of Our League offerings. I'm just wondering if this is an increase or not. No biggie but interested.

[HawkMan]

21.5 million not 23 is reported, so almost a 50% reduction from the heyday of 40m. There's other sports on Sky who don't get anything like 21.5 m , so we count our blessings there. But has any other sport had their sum reduced by so much as a percentage ? Genuine question, I've no idea.

https://www.totalrl.com/revealed-what-the-new-sky-sports-broadcasting-deal-is-worth-for-rugby-league-and-super-league/

Edited August 24, 2023 by HawkMan

[Barley Mow]

41 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

17 free to air games next year

 https://www.totalrl.com/revealed-how-many-free-to-air-super-league-games-will-be-broadcast-in-2024/

It's disappointing that it isn't a game in each round on a free to air channel.

As a side point - The article begins "As Super League 2023 winds down towards the play-offs", is that the typically pessimistic rugby league outlook on show? Surely we are building up to the play-offs?

Edited August 24, 2023 by Barley Mow

[Harry Stottle]

17 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

In which case they would be paying for it anyway?

If the only way to follow a team is to be in attendance at every game, you're going to have a very limited audience. 

Do you think the BBC local radio coverage similarly impacts attendances?

Sorry for the late reply, firstly on away attendees, yes I most definitely think that televised games impacts directly on the numbers who go, and on a selfish note especially for trans pennine kick offs at 20.00hrs that is purely on what I believe is an inconvenient time for getting back home, now if my missus was interested and or others I would have to finance like a couple of kids then that is also a big consideration on entrance fees alone never mind transport costs (car or coach) and perhaps some food and refreshment, yes watching on TV as you say costs anyway but by how much in comparison for say 4 people sat in front of the box? And how much directly out of the clubs coffers, they will still recieve whatever the agreed funding is regardless.

Do your next two questions carry a lot of relevance, without saying if there was not alternative viewing methods other than attending it would impact the monies coming into the sport, and as for the radio I will let you tell me on your own experiences, if the availability to listen to the game stopped you attending when you could so easily have done.

[Harry Stottle]

17 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

Quite, none of those have seen crowds collapse because they've had more televised content.

But the point is we are going to have saturation coverage for every SL fan, every home and away game becomes available, as our friend @Hopiesays above, one TV subscription can satisfy numerous people (for sake of argument lets say 4) at an average of say £25 a month that is roughly the price for one going into the ground, substitute a couple of £5 pints for 4 cans I will let you do the maths, as much as those with spare income are in denial austerity still impacts a lot of people. Either of us will be proved correct on our assumptions when we see the figures over the next 3 years bit I predict that live attendances will be affected especially by away fans, and membership/season ticket sales will drop off, by the way nothing what I have said will affect me in a financial sense, but I choose to look at the bigger picture with considerations for others.

[Harry Stottle]

14 hours ago, Chrispmartha said:

Even if it did slightly affect attendances Id say it’s still worth it for the benefits to the sport as a whole.

I thought all the benefits are of the upping of money coming into the sport?

Your argument Chris is all supposition that more coverage MIGHT get added revenue streams, be it more subscriptions (but we have a set figure for the next 3 years), bigger sponsorship streams, increased attendances, as I said to Tommy only time will tell.

[Gomersall]

10 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

But the point is we are going to have saturation coverage for every SL fan, every home and away game becomes available, as our friend @Hopiesays above, one TV subscription can satisfy numerous people (for sake of argument lets say 4) at an average of say £25 a month that is roughly the price for one going into the ground, substitute a couple of £5 pints for 4 cans I will let you do the maths, as much as those with spare income are in denial austerity still impacts a lot of people. Either of us will be proved correct on our assumptions when we see the figures over the next 3 years bit I predict that live attendances will be affected especially by away fans, and membership/season ticket sales will drop off, by the way nothing what I have said will affect me in a financial sense, but I choose to look at the bigger picture with considerations for others.

I’ve asked the question elsewhere but is it confirmed that Sky are going to broadcast every SL game in every round? I don’t believe that’s the case so if someone wants to watch every match they will have to pay over and above their Sky subscription.

[Harry Stottle]

13 hours ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

Maybe, but it also enables Toulouse to have a far better chance to come in and stay in, which is a trade-off I'm prepared to make

I wondered when favouritism would come into the discussion, sorry but I do not see Toulouse to be any more worthy than a number of other Championship clubs - put names in as you please, but quite obviously that is not nessacary you have already stated your intention.

[Harry Stottle]

9 minutes ago, Gomersall said:

I’ve asked the question elsewhere but is it confirmed that Sky are going to broadcast every SL game in every round? I don’t believe that’s the case so if someone wants to watch every match they will have to pay over and above their Sky subscription.

Yes fair point, but using my analogy of 4 people sharing the viewing for the subscription prices I should think they would still be in pocket, and watch their favourites in each and every league fixture.

[Gomersall]

7 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Yes fair point, but using my analogy of 4 people sharing the viewing for the subscription prices I should think they would still be in pocket, and watch their favourites in each and every league fixture.

True.