All Super League Matches Live - Confirmed

[Chrispmartha]

7 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Have you not got the abillity to look at an extened picture, how do you think Ipsos Mori polls work?

Ipsos Mori polls don’t concentrate on one demographic and they include more than 3 people who know each other.

[Harry Stottle]

2 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Ipsos Mori tend to deliberately look at a broader demographic to extrapolate predicted outcomes, tbf Harry. From what you have suggested the people you describe are all, in the classification sense, 3 of the same type - its no wonder that they would act similarly?

Read the next one Tommy, not you too?

[Tommygilf]

Just now, Harry Stottle said:

Read the next one Tommy, not you too?

I don't see what difference what you have added makes to be honest mate. Its not a very broad sample in an sense.

Some people prefer to watch games live, some prefer to watch on TV at home or in the pub. That will always be the way. So long as they are watching, the sport will be fine.

[Harry Stottle]

1 hour ago, Chrispmartha said:

I know it seems odd but you do realise some people actually like leaving the house and attending live sport, thats why there are actual people in the stands even if a game is on tv.

If that is sent in my direction, you would be way way of the mark I would be very very wealthy, not just very wealthy if I had a penny for every game I have attended in various capacities at all levels of this game over the last 60+ years.

[Chrispmartha]

6 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

If that is sent in my direction, you would be way way of the mark I would be very very wealthy, not just very wealthy if I had a penny for every game I have attended in various capacities at all levels of this game over the last 60+ years.

It was sent in the direction of the person i replied to, which wasn’t you.

[whatmichaelsays]

1 hour ago, HawkMan said:

i feel that having all games available live on whatever platforms isn't a great idea, putting it bluntly,  if it was then football would have done it,  and they don't. All games available as a delayed transmission yes, but not live.

 

The Premier League would love nothing more than to scrap the 3pm Saturday blackout. 

[whatmichaelsays]

2 hours ago, Chrispmartha said:

Theres no real evidence that tv games reduce crowds in SL.

If every game is televised there will be more people watching those games than if they aren’t broadcast, this means more talking points more social media exposure with quality footage.

The current situation where half or more of the weekends games are filmed on one camera from a stand is utterly tinpot.

This. 

People talk as if RL's biggest sales commodity is tickets - and that everything has to be optimised to sell tickets. It's wrong. It's akin to newspaper editors fighting against the internet because it would mean they'd sell less papers in the newsagents. 

I'd argue that RL's biggest commodity isn't tickets but rather, content. Content is the stock in trade, and the approach should be optimised to produce as much, at the right quality, as we can. To that end, Super League needs to think much more like a media business and a media product - producing content that it can monetise across different platforms to as wide an audience as possible. 

That's what this agreement allows the sport to capitalise on. Instead of just having one third of our "content" produced to any commodifiable standard, we're now having all of it produced to a commodifiable standard. That makes it easier to build an audience, to sell to commercial partners who want to buy access to that audience, and to more consistently reach audiences that aren't within earshot of the M62. 

Even if this did knock some away fans off the gate (and I'd question whether it will, but lets accept the premise), the potential upside is far greater and far more important for the sport. 

[Harry Stottle]

13 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I don't see what difference what you have added makes to be honest mate. Its not a very broad sample in an sense.

Some people prefer to watch games live, some prefer to watch on TV at home or in the pub. That will always be the way. So long as they are watching, the sport will be fine.

No difference in that I randomly spoke to a couple of guys in a pub Tommy and not to everyone who attends matches and pointedly asked them "will every game screened home and away have an effect if you purchase a season ticket", I don't know the answer perhaps these guys are unique amongst all season ticket purchasers who would not, I just pointed out to your fellow Leeds fan that his statement it would not effect season ticket sales one bit, was wrong.

I agree with you with your last paragraph, but that is not the question is it? It is will screening all the games adversly affect attendances and also season ticket sales, I think it will and especially away support and non moreso than any cross Pennine games and particularly those Monday to Friday evening kick offs,  but away fans don't matter, do they? Unless I suppose if you ask the Owner or C. Exec.

[Chrispmartha]

3 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

No difference in that I randomly spoke to a couple of guys in a pub Tommy and not to everyone who attends matches and pointedly asked them "will every game screened home and away have an effect if you purchase a season ticket", I don't know the answer perhaps these guys are unique amongst all season ticket purchasers who would not, I just pointed out to your fellow Leeds fan that his statement it would not effect season ticket sales one bit, was wrong.

I agree with you with your last paragraph, but that is not the question is it? It is will screening all the games adversly affect attendances and also season ticket sales, I think it will and especially away support and non moreso than any cross Pennine games and particularly those Monday to Friday evening kick offs,  but away fans don't matter, do they? Unless I suppose if you ask the Owner or C. Exec.

I will say that i think it will affect away support but the upside is more people will actually watch the game if it is broadcast. So the upside outweighs the downside 

[Damien]

21 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

This. 

People talk as if RL's biggest sales commodity is tickets - and that everything has to be optimised to sell tickets. It's wrong. It's akin to newspaper editors fighting against the internet because it would mean they'd sell less papers in the newsagents. 

I'd argue that RL's biggest commodity isn't tickets but rather, content. Content is the stock in trade, and the approach should be optimised to produce as much, at the right quality, as we can. To that end, Super League needs to think much more like a media business and a media product - producing content that it can monetise across differ Previewent platforms to as wide an audience as possible. 

That's what this agreement allows the sport to capitalise on. Instead of just having one third of our "content" produced to any commodifiable standard, we're now having all of it produced to a commodifiable standard. That makes it easier to build an audience, to sell to commercial partners who want to buy access to that audience, and to more consistently reach audiences that aren't within earshot of the M62. 

Even if this did knock some away fans off the gate (and I'd question whether it will, but lets accept the premise), the potential upside is far greater and far more important for the sport. 

This agreement also sees at least a halving of the TV deal from the one that finished in 2021 and each club now getting around 700k less than they did 2 years ago. In real terms taking into account inflation clubs are easily seeing a £1m plus reduction from much of the 2016-2021 period.

The sport is literally giving away content for considerably less. The monetary loss to the sport is far in excess of the cost of filming 4 more games to a higher standard. If this deal sees more mid week games with more games of a Thursday, or even earlier in the week, it will undoubtedly affect clubs income at the gate. Thursday games already show that. The Friday, Saturday and Sunday games should be fine I'd imagine.

Do you really think the upside is anywhere near close to making up the loss the sport is facing with this deal? 

Edited October 15, 2023 by Damien

[Harry Stottle]

3 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

I will say that i think it will affect away support but the upside is more people will actually watch the game if it is broadcast. So the upside outweighs the downside 

Are those more peope and in that they are new subscribers to Sky which we may or may not see a better value contract in 3 years time? Or like Michael above says it will be good for those not from the M62 to watch RL, of those I would say 99% would be existing Sky subscribers and they would not be putting anything - monetary wise - in the game.

[Chrispmartha]

Just now, Harry Stottle said:

Are those more peope and in that they are new subscribers to Sky which we may or may not see a better value contract in 3 years time? Or like Michael above says it will be good for those not from the M62 to watch RL, of those I would say 99% would be existing Sky subscribers and they would not be putting anything - monetary wise - in the game.

Either way there will be more people watching the games

[Rugbyleaguesupporter]

@whatmichaelsaysisn't wrong- it's 100% right- but our chief way of monetarising content is ticket sales (after tv deal) 

It's very hard to monetarise content via other means to the extent that makes a big difference

Also maybe it's time we stop comparing to halcyon £40m a year deal. It's gone, not coming back and we need to adjust and move on? 

Personally I think new deal a bit meh- but we have to appreciate that it could have been worse and likely opportunities balance the threats (some awful management speak for you there!) 

Edited October 15, 2023 by Rugbyleaguesupporter

[Harry Stottle]

2 minutes ago, Damien said:

This agreement also sees at least a halving of the TV deal from the one that finished in 2021 and each club now getting around 700k less than they did 2 years ago. In real terms taking into account inflation clubs are easily seeing a £1m plus reduction from much of the 2016-2021 period.

The sport is literally giving away content for considerably less. The monetary loss to the sport is far in excess of the cost of filming 4 more games to a higher standard. If this deal sees more mid week games and more games of a Thursday, or even earlier in the week, it will undoubtedly affect clubs income at the gate. Thursday games already show that. The Friday, Saturday and Sunday games should be fine I'd imagine.

Do you really think the upside is anywhere near close to making up the loss the sport is facing with this deal? 

The updated value of the £40M per season we enjoyed would now be £51M per season at todays value.

I think people are kidding themselves if they think that there was any alternative broadcaster other than Sky bringing anything to the table, Sky know very well how impoverished we are as a sport and exploited that to have cheap live  broadcasts to add to their schedules.

[Harry Stottle]

8 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Either way there will be more people watching the games

Maybe, but it won't put anymore money in the game, we have a reduced set value for each of the next 3 years from the TV deal, to supplement that reduction we need more people watching the games in the stadiums spending their money at source, my opinion but I don't think screening every game will acheive that.

 

[Chrispmartha]

1 minute ago, Harry Stottle said:

Maybe, but it won't put anymore money in the game, we have a reduced set value for each of the next 3 years from the TV deal, to supplement that reduction we need more people watching the games in the stadiums spending their money at source, my opinion but I don't think screening every game will acheive that.

 

There’s no maybe about it. There will be more people watching all the games next tear.

The sporting landscape has changed massively and as a sport only having 2/3 games filmed to broadcast standards is really tinpot in this day and age.

Hiding the sport away is really poor.

You don’t seem to want these games broadcast so do you just want to continue with what were doing now now? If not what is your suggestion to move the game and its image forward?

[Wigan Riversider]

How much is the new deal worth?

Believe it went from £40 million per year to £25 million per year for the last 2 years.

[Derwent]

51 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

There’s no maybe about it. There will be more people watching all the games next tear.

The sporting landscape has changed massively and as a sport only having 2/3 games filmed to broadcast standards is really tinpot in this day and age.

Hiding the sport away is really poor.

You don’t seem to want these games broadcast so do you just want to continue with what were doing now now? If not what is your suggestion to move the game and its image forward?

It’s not about not wanting the games broadcasted, it’s about the value we have placed on them. On a fee per game basis we have devalued it by around 60%. This is a huge risk. What do you think will happen if, at the end of this deal, Sky decide they want to revert back to 2 live games a week for the next one ?  Once you discount the price so much you’ll never get it back. 

[Leyther_Matt]

I’m maybe giving Sky too much credit here, but hopefully building such a library of content might put us in the realms of having a dedicated RL channel, or at least a domination of the Arena schedules. It amazes me how little archive footage they show compared to football other than the odd Grand Final Gold. 

[Dunbar]

5 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

You amaze me at times with total inconsideration and seemingly being blinded with insular views.

I would bet if someone said to you the average height of men in the UK is 5'-09", you would shout that is rubbish look at him over there he is 6'-00" tall.

Indeed, you cannot use a ridiculously small sample size to extrapolate a conclusion.  Well argued.

[Dunbar]

2 hours ago, Rugbyleaguesupporter said:

@whatmichaelsaysisn't wrong- it's 100% right- but our chief way of monetarising content is ticket sales (after tv deal) 

It's very hard to monetarise content via other means to the extent that makes a big difference

Also maybe it's time we stop comparing to halcyon £40m a year deal. It's gone, not coming back and we need to adjust and move on? 

Personally I think new deal a bit meh- but we have to appreciate that it could have been worse and likely opportunities balance the threats (some awful management speak for you there!) 

Isn't this why we have partnered with a professional sports marketing outfit to break this dependency on ticket only income?

[Harry Stottle]

2 hours ago, Chrispmartha said:

There’s no maybe about it. There will be more people watching all the games next tear.

The sporting landscape has changed massively and as a sport only having 2/3 games filmed to broadcast standards is really tinpot in this day and age.

Hiding the sport away is really poor.

You don’t seem to want these games broadcast so do you just want to continue with what were doing now now? If not what is your suggestion to move the game and its image forward?

Where in that retort is there any mention of more money coming into the game Chris, with less funding and more games televised it is not even a balancing act, there will be less money on the sport.

[The Future is League]

23 hours ago, East Hull Robins said:

For less money does seem strange, it does however give opportunities to review sponsorship and commercial income knowing they now have a national platform for a minimum of 27 weeks per year. Good way to make up some shortfall with increased sponsorship revenue

They could but they won't.

Instead of seeking out new sponsors SOME clubs will sit on their backsides waiting for sponsors to contact them

[The Future is League]

21 hours ago, Futtocks said:

With Sky having ceded a large part of their pitchside advertising, this means sponsors will be guaranteed more visibility for their money. Clubs with good connections and canny marketing departments could benefit quite a bit if they can sell every home fixture in the season as a TV game.

I'll be interested to see what the televised coverage is like (and where/when it is shown, too). 

Do you think all clubs will grasp the nettle with pitch side advertising?

[Harry Stottle]

1 hour ago, Derwent said:

It’s not about not wanting the games broadcasted, it’s about the value we have placed on them. On a fee per game basis we have devalued it by around 60%. This is a huge risk. What do you think will happen if, at the end of this deal, Sky decide they want to revert back to 2 live games a week for the next one ?  Once you discount the price so much you’ll never get it back. 

It's not rocket science Derwent, paying less per game effectively and giving people the opportunity of watching there favourites from the comfort of their armchair or having a pint in the pub or with mates at home and spending a lot less to do so, will encourage a good number to take the easy option.

It's OK advertising it but if it doesn't bring in the profit it's useless. 

I can forsee a Cinzano moment coming along here!