DAZN or Not DAZN!

[David Shepherd]

3 hours ago, Chrispmartha said:

They do have a TV Channel on Sky, its not Just Streaming.

Anyway the Ideal for me would be 2 games on Sky, 3 on DAZN and 1 on Channel 4 every week

With DAZN given rights to all six for the rest of the world.

[Mathius Hellwege]

26 minutes ago, David Shepherd said:

With DAZN given rights to all six for the rest of the world.

exactly, perhaps besides Oceania

[Martyn Sadler]

1 hour ago, DI Keith Fowler said:

My understanding was that Sky upped their offer in response to BT interest but effectively said to the RFL, "you need to give us something" to which they back with the Super 8s/Middle 8s idea they'd been batting around. Sky then felt like they'd bought a bit more than they had previously to justify the increase internally. I doubt the decrease had anything at all to do with dropping the idea. 

When you sell the broadcasting rights to a broadcaster on the basis of a particular competition structure, but then change the structure in mid-contract without giving the broadcaster a say in the decision, then it would surprise me if doing that didn't have an impact on your relationship with the broadcaster going forward and in particular the amount they would be prepared to offer for any subsequent contract.

[Cheadle Leyther]

If a new deal comes and it includes showing all matches over Thursday,Friday, Saturday and Sunday, I’m all for it. I’m fed up of almost every week 4 games or sometimes even 5  on a Friday night with none on a Sunday.

As a Leigh fan, all but one home game has been on Thursday or Friday night, and I have noticed how small the away support has been from the Yorkshire clubs especially Leeds. Hopefully if they are spread over the weekend, all the Lancashire and Yorkshire derbies would be played on Thursday/Friday and the rest on Saturday/Sunday where possible.

[Toby Chopra]

2 hours ago, Martyn Sadler said:

The accounts, which haven't yet been published, are consolidated.

We haven't yet seen the detailed accounts for the World Cup.

But to lose almost £1 million in a World Cup year seems a remarkable achievement, given the confident predictions that were made of the World Cup delivering a financial dividend to the game.

It's laid out very clearly what the losses were caused by in the RFL's release (and your own publication's story): a massive unexpected increase in insurance premiums, a worse than expected crowd for the challenge cup final, a loss making mid season international, and redundancy costs from the setting up of RLC.

I'm sure we all wish the World Cup had done some things better, although I still expect it to record the highest ever ticket revenue due to the (too high) ticket prices. We also have to acknowledge the extraordinary and unprecedented circumstances around its staging which would have challenged anyone, including Nigel.

Ultimately, we have to stick to the facts when we're debating how to move the sport forward. The World Cup did not cause the RFL's losses, indeed as far as we can see so far the tournament didn't make a loss at all.

[Toby Chopra]

1 hour ago, Martyn Sadler said:

When you sell the broadcasting rights to a broadcaster on the basis of a particular competition structure, but then change the structure in mid-contract without giving the broadcaster a say in the decision, then it would surprise me if doing that didn't have an impact on your relationship with the broadcaster going forward and in particular the amount they would be prepared to offer for any subsequent contract.

Do you have evidence that no-one at the RFL or Superleague spoke to Sky about the change? Or that Sky wanted to keep the Eights but were overruled? Because it wasn't raised as an issue or reported as such at the time, and we all know that if Sky had serious reservations about the  decision - which wasn't made in secret - they would of course have a say.

The Eights had its pros and cons, but we know from the viewing figures and crowds it didn't move the dial in the way we all hoped. Ultimately the game has stagnated, whatever we've tried,  and that is the reason that Sky has cut back its payments.

The hope of the powers that be is that the IMG deal will reinvigorate the sport to make it more attractive and also provide the professional support needed to secure better commercial deals. Sounds like we'll find out on the TV front quite soon if they can.

[Damien]

10 hours ago, RP London said:

I'm the same... thats why I have a google chrome dongle thing which cost about £30 and I beam apps on to my none Smart TVs.. its watching on TV then.. sorted! Been doing it for years. 

Smart TV in the main room just download the app to it and away we go. We dont have Sky or Virgin or even an aerial into our TVs all TV is watched off the internet using Now TV, BBC Iplayer, ITV Hub etc saving me about £100 a month not having Virgin and doing everything direct. 

I'm 45

How's the difference in picture quality though? For me there is a huge difference watching sport via a Sky HD channel and any streaming app I've used. Maybe it is something you get used to but for me the difference is stark and its hard to enjoy at times.

Funnily enough I'm 3 weeks into my Sky cancellation and have about 10 days left before its permanent. Sky have already offered £35 less than it was going up to so I'd be paying about the same again. I am still thinking though of just taking the plunge and going down your sort of route to save monety. The Sky setup though is good though imo and even things like the recording aspect is handy. It's a pity I'm not going to know the outcome of this TV deal in time because that would be the clincher (if RL was lost).

[RP London]

1 hour ago, Damien said:

How's the difference in picture quality though? For me there is a huge difference watching sport via a Sky HD channel and any streaming app I've used. Maybe it is something you get used to but for me the difference is stark and its hard to enjoy at times.

Funnily enough I'm 3 weeks into my Sky cancellation and have about 10 days left before its permanent. Sky have already offered £35 less than it was going up to so I'd be paying about the same again. I am still thinking though of just taking the plunge and going down your sort of route to save monety. The Sky setup though is good though imo and even things like the recording aspect is handy. It's a pity I'm not going to know the outcome of this TV deal in time because that would be the clincher (if RL was lost).

To be honest i haven't found much of a difference myself..

Edit: just to add, through the app on the TV we still get HD or UHD so down to the quality of the TV really.. beaming is a little less. 

Edited July 6, 2023 by RP London

[The Masked Poster]

Happy to admit that pretty much all this conversation has gone right over my head. I'm unsure what the hell is going on in the world, think I'll just go back to my cave. 

[Gerrumonside ref]

One of the big hits for Sky was NFL Redzone which is essentially live highlights from the NFL on a Sunday as it happens with no commercial breaks from all matches.

Not sure we fit exactly into the same mould, but I would like Super League to experiment and tinker with the idea if we get to the stage of all games being televised.

BT tried the same concept with the Champions League goals show which was often better than watching a single group stage match in its entirety.

 

[Martyn Sadler]

16 hours ago, Toby Chopra said:

It's laid out very clearly what the losses were caused by in the RFL's release (and your own publication's story): a massive unexpected increase in insurance premiums, a worse than expected crowd for the challenge cup final, a loss making mid season international, and redundancy costs from the setting up of RLC.

I'm sure we all wish the World Cup had done some things better, although I still expect it to record the highest ever ticket revenue due to the (too high) ticket prices. We also have to acknowledge the extraordinary and unprecedented circumstances around its staging which would have challenged anyone, including Nigel.

Ultimately, we have to stick to the facts when we're debating how to move the sport forward. The World Cup did not cause the RFL's losses, indeed as far as we can see so far the tournament didn't make a loss at all.

We have yet to see the detailed World Cup accounts, but the worrying thing about the RFL's reporting of the figures so far is the reduction of more than £3 million to clubs from 2021 to 2022.

If the payments had been held at the level they were at in 2021, the consolidated losses would have been around £4 million.

The increase in insurance premiums was inevitable and hardly unexpected, although they of course are difficult to absorb.

The two important things for an organisation that makes losses of this sort are to isolate those elements that are one-off factors, which may indeed include the costs of restructuring, as you point out, which are unlikely to recur, and to have a plan to return to generating a surplus in the short to medium term.

As for the World Cup, we will have to wait to see the figures, but it looks very clear to me that it struggled financially and, without government support, it would have suffered major losses.

[Martyn Sadler]

16 hours ago, Toby Chopra said:

Do you have evidence that no-one at the RFL or Superleague spoke to Sky about the change? Or that Sky wanted to keep the Eights but were overruled? Because it wasn't raised as an issue or reported as such at the time, and we all know that if Sky had serious reservations about the  decision - which wasn't made in secret - they would of course have a say.

The Eights had its pros and cons, but we know from the viewing figures and crowds it didn't move the dial in the way we all hoped. Ultimately the game has stagnated, whatever we've tried,  and that is the reason that Sky has cut back its payments.

The hope of the powers that be is that the IMG deal will reinvigorate the sport to make it more attractive and also provide the professional support needed to secure better commercial deals. Sounds like we'll find out on the TV front quite soon if they can.

I'm sure that someone at the RFL spoke to Sky, but the decision was in the hands of the clubs, not Sky.

Of course Sky will not say publicly why they reduced the size of the contract, but sources have told me that they were not happy with the change in the RFL's side of the deal mid-contract.

The RFL is placing a lot of faith in IMG, not least in negotiating its TV deals, and I sincerely hope their faith is justified.

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

21 hours ago, Toby Chopra said:

Do you have evidence that no-one at the RFL or Superleague spoke to Sky about the change? Or that Sky wanted to keep the Eights but were overruled? Because it wasn't raised as an issue or reported as such at the time, and we all know that if Sky had serious reservations about the  decision - which wasn't made in secret - they would of course have a say.

The Eights had its pros and cons, but we know from the viewing figures and crowds it didn't move the dial in the way we all hoped. Ultimately the game has stagnated, whatever we've tried,  and that is the reason that Sky has cut back its payments.

The hope of the powers that be is that the IMG deal will reinvigorate the sport to make it more attractive and also provide the professional support needed to secure better commercial deals. Sounds like we'll find out on the TV front quite soon if they can.

This is the key point. The Eights was sold to Sky as something that would move the dial on engagement and quality. It wasn't the removal of the ridiculous Eights concept that led to Sky reducing their fees, it was because (as predicted by many of us) they didn't deliver their objectives and so the sought improvements didn't happen.

To analyse events and say "Sky cut rights fees because we no longer had the Eights" is so backwards it beggars belief. 

What is given as a reason for Big Nige's unappreciated strategic genius ("if only he had better communication skills, we'd all have lived in a land of milk and honey" as Martyn would have it), is instead yet another example of his lack of commercial and strategic insight.

Whatever you do, don't let the CFO anywhere near Product Development and Growth Strategy. It's not their area of competence. It's their area of weakness... that's why they pursued the career they did!

 

 

[RugoBy]

On 05/07/2023 at 17:50, ATLANTISMAN said:

100% NOT

Why not? Explain yourself.

[Rugbyleaguesupporter]

I wonder if we will follow DAZN NFL model? 

From this year, DAZN will show all matches (except two matches on Sky which will be on 24 hour delay) 

Costs £150

In UK I'd guess DAZN would show 4 matches, with maybe 1 simulcast on C4 and two best games exclusive to Sky, if rumours are correct. 

DAZN then sell this worldwide (maybe excluding Australia) for all matches 

[Martyn Sadler]

1 hour ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

This is the key point. The Eights was sold to Sky as something that would move the dial on engagement and quality. It wasn't the removal of the ridiculous Eights concept that led to Sky reducing their fees, it was because (as predicted by many of us) they didn't deliver their objectives and so the sought improvements didn't happen.

Can I offer my apologies to you for suggesting something that was clearly foolish.

Judging from your comment above, which is made with impressive conviction, you must know what you are talking about. I have only spoken to people who were on the fringes of the deal, while clearly you are part of the Sky team that reduced the size of the Super League contract. How else could you speak with such certainty about why they reduced the size of the deal?

1 hour ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

To analyse events and say "Sky cut rights fees because we no longer had the Eights" is so backwards it beggars belief. 

I'm not sure what you mean when you say that my comment was "so backwards", but I'm sure you are being profound and, rather than talking nonsense, which was my initial reaction, you're going way beyond my understanding.

1 hour ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

What is given as a reason for Big Nige's unappreciated strategic genius ("if only he had better communication skills, we'd all have lived in a land of milk and honey" as Martyn would have it), is instead yet another example of his lack of commercial and strategic insight.

His commercial and strategic insight was so lacking that it got Rugby League £200 million over five years.

I would like to think that the people currently running the show had a similar lack of commercial and strategic insight.

1 hour ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

Whatever you do, don't let the CFO anywhere near Product Development and Growth Strategy. It's not their area of competence. It's their area of weakness... that's why they pursued the career they did!

Funnily enough, I completely agree with you on this point, although I would add that negotiation skills are a special category of skills that are vital in successful businesses.

[AB90]

8 minutes ago, Rugbyleaguesupporter said:

I wonder if we will follow DAZN NFL model? 

From this year, DAZN will show all matches (except two matches on Sky which will be on 24 hour delay) 

Costs £150

In UK I'd guess DAZN would show 4 matches, with maybe 1 simulcast on C4 and two best games exclusive to Sky, if rumours are correct. 

DAZN then sell this worldwide (maybe excluding Australia) for all matches 

 

Regarding the last point - DAZN is not just a UK based app as it’s in a lot of the major territories worldwide meaning they don’t sell the rights to anyone (I.e if they buy the rights they would be available worldwide via DAZN). 

[Toby Chopra]

7 hours ago, Martyn Sadler said:

We have yet to see the detailed World Cup accounts, but the worrying thing about the RFL's reporting of the figures so far is the reduction of more than £3 million to clubs from 2021 to 2022.

If the payments had been held at the level they were at in 2021, the consolidated losses would have been around £4 million.

The increase in insurance premiums was inevitable and hardly unexpected, although they of course are difficult to absorb.

The two important things for an organisation that makes losses of this sort are to isolate those elements that are one-off factors, which may indeed include the costs of restructuring, as you point out, which are unlikely to recur, and to have a plan to return to generating a surplus in the short to medium term.

As for the World Cup, we will have to wait to see the figures, but it looks very clear to me that it struggled financially and, without government support, it would have suffered major losses.

Thanks for your reply Martyn. I agree that not budgeting for the insurance jump is disturbing, as it indicates that someone wasn't maintaining a good dialogue with their vendors. The rise may have been unavoidable, but it should have been more accurately budgeted for.

As should have the underperformance of the challenge cup final and the mid season international. The RFL clearly have a problem with their major events, where they underperform even modest forecasts. This would be top of my "to do" list.

But as worrying as these points are, they do account for the RFL's loss in 2022. 

I'm not sure of what you mean by the cut in distribution - we know why this happened, it's because the Sky revenues were cut. As disappointing as that is, it was accurately budgeted for.

Re your world cup point, as others have pointed out before on here, you can't discount the government support like it was some nice-to-have extra, it was integral for the budget for the tournament. If it wasn't there, there probably wouldn't have been a tournament, or if there was there would have been a very different venue strategy for instance.

Based on the preliminary release, we can reasonably presume that the tournament broke even in terms of the RFL's exposure to it. But that doesn't mean it was an unalloyed success - we know sadly it wasn't, even if we cut them some slack to due the COVID/cancellation/Ukraine backdrop, which I tend to do.

What will be interesting to see is what, if anything, they managed to pass on to the IRL.

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

2 hours ago, Martyn Sadler said:

Can I offer my apologies to you for suggesting something that was clearly foolish.

Judging from your comment above, which is made with impressive conviction, you must know what you are talking about. I have only spoken to people who were on the fringes of the deal, while clearly you are part of the Sky team that reduced the size of the Super League contract. How else could you speak with such certainty about why they reduced the size of the deal?

I'm not sure what you mean when you say that my comment was "so backwards", but I'm sure you are being profound and, rather than talking nonsense, which was my initial reaction, you're going way beyond my understanding.

His commercial and strategic insight was so lacking that it got Rugby League £200 million over five years.

I would like to think that the people currently running the show had a similar lack of commercial and strategic insight.

Funnily enough, I completely agree with you on this point, although I would add that negotiation skills are a special category of skills that are vital in successful businesses.

I do love it when Martyn gets offended by people with differing opinions from him 

Spending your entire existence in close proximity to rugby league decision-makers doesn't always mean you get greater analysis and quality of insight. If anything you get over-exposed to their own limited ideas and conclusions. I'm one of those weird people that reckons wider commercial experience, as well as some past work and connections in League, can be a better mix at times. I've certainly got enough runs under my belt and wins on the board to at least merit an opinion I reckon.

 

[Martyn Sadler]

9 minutes ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

I do love it when Martyn gets offended by people with differing opinions from him 

Spending your entire existence in close proximity to rugby league decision-makers doesn't always mean you get greater analysis and quality of insight. If anything you get over-exposed to their own limited ideas and conclusions. I'm one of those weird people that reckons wider commercial experience, as well as some past work and connections in League, can be a better mix at times. I've certainly got enough runs under my belt and wins on the board to at least merit an opinion I reckon.

 

You're not very perceptive.

I don't get offended by differing opinions, but I am amused when someone comes on here and claims knowledge that they don't have.

To say, as you did, that the reduced contract in 2022 and 2023 had nothing to do with the Super League clubs unilaterally changing the terms of the previous contract is knowledge you don't have. None of us know the facts for sure and it's foolish to claim that you do. As it is, it's hearsay.

I have no problem at all with you expressing opinions that contradict mine.

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

26 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

You're not very perceptive.

I don't get offended by differing opinions, but I am amused when someone comes on here and claims knowledge that they don't have.

To say, as you did, that the reduced contract in 2022 and 2023 had nothing to do with the Super League clubs unilaterally changing the terms of the previous contract is knowledge you don't have. None of us know the facts for sure and it's foolish to claim that you do. As it is, it's hearsay.

I have no problem at all with you expressing opinions that contradict mine.

I don't recall stating facts. I gave my assessment, which is that it is far, far more likely that the failure of the Eights to deliver improved attendances, TV audiences and overall quality of product (which is the promise Sky bought) was the reason for the rights values going back down, than the idea that not continuing with them did. I think the suggestion that it was the removal of the Eights that was to blame is ridiculous. They weren't working, and our media partner knew that as well as we all did. That's my analysis, and I think it's pretty rational. 

Of course, I'm not personally invested in the Eights concept or have relationships with their other proponents, so don't have an emotional need to advance your self-serving hypothesis eh. I accept my view may be a little triggering for somebody who is, but c'est la vie.

PS you can take your patronising "amused" condescension and place it somewhere dark and hairy. With all due respect of course

 

[Rugbyleaguesupporter]

4 hours ago, AB90 said:

 

Regarding the last point - DAZN is not just a UK based app as it’s in a lot of the major territories worldwide meaning they don’t sell the rights to anyone (I.e if they buy the rights they would be available worldwide via DAZN). 

Yes- although they might sublicense to Fox League or RFL might not give them rights to Australia  

But in essence I agree- I'd expect dazn to get worldwide rights and show Sky plus C4 games worldwide (but not in UK) 

[Martyn Sadler]

14 hours ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

I don't recall stating facts.

You said: "It wasn't the removal of the ridiculous Eights concept that led to Sky reducing their fees, it was because (as predicted by many of us) they didn't deliver their objectives and so the sought improvements didn't happen."

That is stating something as a fact that is actually pure speculation, regardless of whether that opinion is right or wrong.

14 hours ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

I gave my assessment, which is that it is far, far more likely that the failure of the Eights to deliver improved attendances, TV audiences and overall quality of product (which is the promise Sky bought) was the reason for the rights values going back down, than the idea that not continuing with them did.

If you had stated it like that in your original post, I wouldn't have objected. Your opinion, as an opinion, is perfectly reasonable, and may or may not be correct, but your earlier statement of fact is tendentious, unless you have actual knowledge that would prove it to be correct.

Like you, I didn't like the Super 8s concept and was glad that it was abandoned, but I still don't think it's wise to enter into a contract and then abandon one side of it before the period of the contract expires.

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

46 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

You said: "It wasn't the removal of the ridiculous Eights concept that led to Sky reducing their fees, it was because (as predicted by many of us) they didn't deliver their objectives and so the sought improvements didn't happen."

That is stating something as a fact that is actually pure speculation, regardless of whether that opinion is right or wrong.

No, Martyn, get a grip man: That is me, stating *my* opinion. On an internet forum, you know, where people share their opinions?

If your position is that everybody should precede their thoughts with "In my opinion..." on here then people's posts will all look a little repetitive. Shall we start maybe adding footnotes with references too? 

You, sir, are an oversensitive man with the limited perspective of a time-served insider, and the inevitable defensive mindset that brings. That's your burden to carry, I'm not here to cure you. Crack on. But the rest of us have a wider insight and sometimes I'll choose to share it. 

[Rugbyleaguesupporter]

It's all getting a little fiesty!! 

Usually it's a mix of things. Personally I think Sky simply overpaid (like they did for many rights) so recent deals have been a correction. 

Super 8s might have been a factor, bit of strategic malaise, change in sky personnel and ownership are all factors too