All Super League Matches Live - Confirmed

[Gomersall]

14 hours ago, gingerjon said:

I look forward to an unnamed rugby league editor steadfastly using a badly worded and actually inaccurate article in an unnamed rugby league publication to explain the TV rights for seasons to come.

I’m taking any article with a pinch of salt unless it’s tweeted (Xd) by The Game Caller.

[Toby Chopra]

59 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Obviously depends how it's done, but either of us. And I mean primary financial benefits rather than some of the secondary ebenfits which I do think are sound. 

Ultimately if this was the way of getting broadcast quality coverage to facilitate better highlights and video refs, fine, but that isn't bringing us money or increased visibility which are crucial for us. 

It is also pittance in the scheme of things for Sky. 

I'd say better quality game footage might help visibility by improving our online offering, which is awful currently, but agree with all the rest.

I suppose the idea is that with all this extra content IMG can drive interest in the game through its various media and marketing companies, resulting in better broadcasting and commercial deals in three years time.

We live in hope!

[gingerjon]

11 minutes ago, Gomersall said:

I’m taking any article with a pinch of salt unless it’s tweeted (Xd) by The Game Caller.

Sources tell me that Sky Sports Bulls will be the name of the dedicated RL channel and Sky have insisted it be based at Odsal. Just waiting on RFL to confirm.

[dkw]

I wonder if this could be sky using league as a guinea pig for club channels, as its how football is expected to go within the next few years.

[Harry Stottle]

Considering the amount of time it took for this "new" TV contract to be finalised  and announced to the public, then surely all the nitty gritty of what, when and how the broadcasts and the formats that they are going to be delivered by would have been known.

Why then did RL Commercial (if it is they who informed that a new contract had been agreed) instead of just giving a value - still vague - and stating all SL games are going to be screened let us believe that they would all be on Sky Sports TV, were they afraid to tell the public especially Sky Sports subscribers BUT if you want to watch all the games there will be additional costs through some PPV to pay.

Actually, the agreed TV deal is now not looking as good as some people thought it would by benefiting the game by peripheral gains through advertising etc with its wall to wall coverage of all games, and even those Sky Customers who are not RL fans would chance across the broadcasts or see them in the schedules and so the sport would gain new fans.

So why leave this to speculation, why not inform everyone what is happening I am sure the clubs need to know re ST passes, and individuals would like to know, but this is Rugby League why should anyone be surprised with how they work, what betting that the fixtures come out before the broadcast formats are disclosed?

[THE RED ROOSTER]

Havig not rtead through the thread, I wonder if this question has been posed.

If all Super League games not televised by SKY were to be sold on a PPV basis for say £ 10. What exactl;y is the incentive to turn up at the Ground ?

For sure, lots of you live round the proverbial corner from your club. But I do not, so I would save myself money and time by watching on PPV rather than going.

In fact, lets say you were a St Helens or Hull KR fan playing each other, what's more attractive getting from one end of the M62 to the other in a cost of living crisis, or staying at home watching the game on PPV.

Live sport needs a live audience and if the scenario I outline in my preceding paragraphs is true then this has not been thought through properly by the clubs.

[Rovers13]

Just now, THE RED ROOSTER said:

Havig not rtead through the thread, I wonder if this question has been posed.

If all Super League games not televised by SKY were to be sold on a PPV basis for say £ 10. What exactl;y is the incentive to turn up at the Ground ?

For sure, lots of you live round the proverbial corner from your club. But I do not, so I would save myself money and time by watching on PPV rather than going.

In fact, lets say you were a St Helens or Hull KR fan playing each other, what's more attractive getting from one end of the M62 to the other in a cost of living crisis, or staying at home watching the game on PPV.

Live sport needs a live audience and if the scenario I outline in my preceding paragraphs is true then this has not been thought through properly by the clubs.

I thought that too about going to the ground, esp if it’s an horrible day etc, but my feeling and obviously it’s a guess IMG are going for viewers on SKY to get a better tv deal in 3 years time. 

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, THE RED ROOSTER said:

Havig not rtead through the thread, I wonder if this question has been posed.

If all Super League games not televised by SKY were to be sold on a PPV basis for say £ 10. What exactl;y is the incentive to turn up at the Ground ?

For sure, lots of you live round the proverbial corner from your club. But I do not, so I would save myself money and time by watching on PPV rather than going.

In fact, lets say you were a St Helens or Hull KR fan playing each other, what's more attractive getting from one end of the M62 to the other in a cost of living crisis, or staying at home watching the game on PPV.

Live sport needs a live audience and if the scenario I outline in my preceding paragraphs is true then this has not been thought through properly by the clubs.

We do get healthy crowds when games are televised at the moment, and so do many other sports. 

But we do need to be careful, the events need to be of a decent quality to make it worth people getting off their backside. 

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

On 22/10/2023 at 11:55, Harry Stottle said:

Considering the amount of time it took for this "new" TV contract to be finalised  and announced to the public, then surely all the nitty gritty of what, when and how the broadcasts and the formats that they are going to be delivered by would have been known.

Why then did RL Commercial (if it is they who informed that a new contract had been agreed) instead of just giving a value - still vague - and stating all SL games are going to be screened let us believe that they would all be on Sky Sports TV, were they afraid to tell the public especially Sky Sports subscribers BUT if you want to watch all the games there will be additional costs through some PPV to pay.

Actually, the agreed TV deal is now not looking as good as some people thought it would by benefiting the game by peripheral gains through advertising etc with its wall to wall coverage of all games, and even those Sky Customers who are not RL fans would chance across the broadcasts or see them in the schedules and so the sport would gain new fans.

So why leave this to speculation, why not inform everyone what is happening I am sure the clubs need to know re ST passes, and individuals would like to know, but this is Rugby League why should anyone be surprised with how they work, what betting that the fixtures come out before the broadcast formats are disclosed?

We wanted all games to be filmed by Sky, not necessarily broadcast by Sky. That means Sky are investing their overhead in creating assets that the RFL can use, whether it chooses to monetise them (either independently, or jointly with Sky), whether it chooses to allow the clubs to monetise them individually through their own platforms, or whether we choose to give them away for free (or close to free) as the NRL does with their WatchNRL service. 

In the modern online landscape it's all about sports organisations owning content, which they can use to disintermediate publications and channels in order to reach their current and prospective new audiences directly. 

[UTK]

Selfishly hoping that this will mean we have access to every game in Australia now, would make SL much easier to follow.

Fox/Kayo generally seems to pick up every piece of RL content generated in the UK outside the OurLeague stuff, they got onto the Championship coverage as soon as it begun so I don't see why they wouldn't pick up more SL content if it's available. 

 

[Rugbyleaguesupporter]

@Hull Kingston Broncois it? 

Premier league don't promote their own clips- sky pay a small sum for them. 

It's hard to monetarise clips 

 

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

36 minutes ago, Rugbyleaguesupporter said:

@Hull Kingston Broncois it? 

Premier league don't promote their own clips- sky pay a small sum for them. 

It's hard to monetarise clips 

 

We’re not the Premier League, we’re a challenger sport. We now have an additional 3 matches filmed per week that we can charge web subscriptions for, or give away to build audience. We also as a result have better quality short-form material across *all* games that we can use as clips across socials etc. 

Content creates awareness and demand, but content costs money to make… in this deal Sky produce extra material for us. 
 

[Hopie]

51 minutes ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

We’re not the Premier League, we’re a challenger sport. We now have an additional 3 matches filmed per week that we can charge web subscriptions for, or give away to build audience. We also as a result have better quality short-form material across *all* games that we can use as clips across socials etc. 

Content creates awareness and demand, but content costs money to make… in this deal Sky produce extra material for us. 
 

This might be the case, it might not, we don't know yet. "All games televised by Sky" is still open to interpretation.

[Rugbyleaguesupporter]

7 hours ago, Hopie said:

This might be the case, it might not, we don't know yet. "All games televised by Sky" is still open to interpretation.

No he's right- 3 extra games will be filmed and shown on Sky/ PPV 

While content is important- to monetarise it you ultimately need people to then: 

-watch clips with adverts 

-watch more live matches on TV 

-go to matches as a result 

-buy merchandise 

 

While content is important, I'm not sure a clip of RL on its own will generate much of the above. 

Watch more on tv is probably where most £ can be made- but I think getting alot of cross promotion across BBC/ Sky is still more important 

 

[Harry Stottle]

11 hours ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

We wanted all games to be filmed by Sky, not necessarily broadcast by Sky. That means Sky are investing their overhead in creating assets that the RFL can use, whether it chooses to monetise them (either independently, or jointly with Sky), whether it chooses to allow the clubs to monetise them individually through their own platforms, or whether we choose to give them away for free (or close to free) as the NRL does with their WatchNRL service. 

In the modern online landscape it's all about sports organisations owning content, which they can use to disintermediate publications and channels in order to reach their current and prospective new audiences directly. 

OK, but the gist of my post was what is all the secrecy about, surley the RFL/SL have exited the final meeting with Sky well aware of what they are going to recieve monetary wise and what it is broadcast wise they have actually agreed upon!

Why can the RFL/SL not share that information with their patrons, is it better to have people such as the small fraction of fans who populate this site with 15 pages of speculation or could it be the RFL/SL don't actually know what the broadcast details are?

 

[Harry Stottle]

9 hours ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

We also as a result have better quality short-form material across *all* games that we can use as clips across socials etc. 

You know that do you? 

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

1 hour ago, Rugbyleaguesupporter said:

No he's right- 3 extra games will be filmed and shown on Sky/ PPV 

While content is important- to monetarise it you ultimately need people to then: 

-watch clips with adverts 

-watch more live matches on TV 

-go to matches as a result 

-buy merchandise 

 

While content is important, I'm not sure a clip of RL on its own will generate much of the above. 

Watch more on tv is probably where most £ can be made- but I think getting alot of cross promotion across BBC/ Sky is still more important 

 

The objective us to grow the audience

- Match attendance

- Linear TV broadcast viewers

- Online viewers

- Social media engagement

Some have greater short-mid term monetary value than others, but all are valuable to the sport and to commercial partners. Having more content helps us against all of those elements. 

 

[Harry Stottle]

9 hours ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

The objective us to grow the audience

- Match attendance

- Linear TV broadcast viewers

- Online viewers

- Social media engagement

Some have greater short-mid term monetary value than others, but all are valuable to the sport and to commercial partners. Having more content helps us against all of those elements. 

 

Again you know that do you?

Seems you have lots of speculation without any substance.

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

5 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Again you know that do you?

Seems you have lots of speculation without any substance.

What, you think our sport should have a different objective?

 

[Hopie]

4 hours ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

What, you think our sport should have a different objective?

 

The sport can have that objective, or a different one. But that won't change the details of the current deal we have signed with Sky. If the deal says they own the rights to televise all the matches as they announced, then that leaves some potential for simulcasting games on FTA channels that aren't sky (as has been announced) but it might not happen.

The other uses of the footage Sky produces you suggest also cannot be assumed to be available, and if any additional income is generated it cannot be assumed how much of the income generated will come to the game, and how much will go elsewhere e.g being taken/shared with sky.