All Super League Matches Live - Confirmed

[Tommygilf]

3 minutes ago, FearTheVee said:

This idea that we can now broadcast these games far and wide tlike the NRL I suspect is not true.

Won't this be like Sky have done with the Championship where you get a silent feed with no commentary, stats, decent replays etc that only a die-hard fan of one of the teams involved would watch?

I'll wait to see what content is churned out before commenting on this deal but I suspect it's a bit of a kipper as far as additional exposure is concerned for all but the devoted.

From what I've read, this seems like they are filming and producing on field content which SL will then be able to sell onto the likes of Ch4 or OuRLeague with ancillary production features like commentary and presentation/pundits

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

From what I've read, this seems like they are filming and producing on field content which SL will then be able to sell onto the likes of Ch4 or OuRLeague with ancillary production features like commentary and presentation/pundits

It's probably slightly more complicated than that. Sky will be broadcasting every game too on various platforms. 

I don't think it has been stated that say, the 5th choice game of the weekend would be broadcast to a standard that Channel 4 would broadcast live. 

[Tommygilf]

Just now, Dave T said:

It's probably slightly more complicated than that. Sky will be broadcasting every game too on various platforms. 

I don't think it has been stated that say, the 5th choice game of the weekend would be broadcast to a standard that Channel 4 would broadcast live. 

No I agree its not been confirmed, but they are definitely looking at the other opportunities. This from the BBC article:

"Under the deal, RL Commercial will retain the right to continue free-to-air broadcasts and maintain its own online streaming service."

[FearTheVee]

8 minutes ago, Dave T said:

The devil will be in the detail. 

There are two ways this can go. 

Scenario 1 - fully produced coverage, many games on TV all with different slots over a weekend in a coordinated manner. 

Scenario 2 - It all looks like it does now, live games on Sky on Thursday and Friday, but also red button or youtube coverage as you describe being played at the same time as other games. 

Be honest - which do ytou expect given Sky's approach to RL in recent years?

[FearTheVee]

8 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

From what I've read, this seems like they are filming and producing on field content which SL will then be able to sell onto the likes of Ch4 or OuRLeague with ancillary production features like commentary and presentation/pundits

I don't understand that - they're saying that they are broadcasting on Sky platforms.

We'll see but given the lip service Sky has paid the sport for years in terms of shoddy presentation and lazy marketing, I'm expecting next to nothing good from the presentation of these extra games.

[Tommygilf]

3 minutes ago, FearTheVee said:

I don't understand that - they're saying that they are broadcasting on Sky platforms.

We'll see but given the lip service Sky has paid the sport for years in terms of shoddy presentation and lazy marketing, I'm expecting next to nothing good from the presentation of these extra games.

Yes, but clearly the sport is looking at alternatives.

That may mean that whilst Sky show everything but only really show interest in 2 or 3 games a week, the other 3 or 4 are up to SL to properly showcase and Sky platform coverage would be a 2nd choice.

The end of Ch4 and Sky being up against eachother pointlessly, would be a good thing imo. 

[Tommygilf]

Incorrect and sensational headline from a TRL article stating that Channel 4 will have "NO MATCHES" under this new agreement. That is simply not the case, the deal with FTA and OuRLeague simply hasn't been finalised and publicised yet.

[Harry Stottle]

12 hours ago, Rovers13 said:

I was going to say can you see sky competing with prem footy but tbh everyone will watch footy so will make no dif lol. 

I would sooner be hung up by fish hooks attached to my eyelids than watch live prem footy, so you can count me out of everyone Rover

[Dave T]

40 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

No I agree its not been confirmed, but they are definitely looking at the other opportunities. This from the BBC article:

"Under the deal, RL Commercial will retain the right to continue free-to-air broadcasts and maintain its own online streaming service."

Yes, I expect they will have a number that they are allowed to sell on - it was 10 to C4 this year IIRC, and didn't we show 2 or 3 on OurLeague? 

[Dave T]

39 minutes ago, FearTheVee said:

Be honest - which do ytou expect given Sky's approach to RL in recent years?

Indeed, hence my caution. 

I haven't forgot that Davey announced this same deal a few years back too. 

[Tommygilf]

Just now, Dave T said:

Yes, I expect they will have a number that they are allowed to sell on - it was 10 to C4 this year IIRC, and didn't we show 2 or 3 on OurLeague? 

Yeah we did which seemed weirdly organised at the time.

Hopefully this isn't a total lie like it was the last time we were told video refs at each game.

[StandOffHalf]

18 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

I would sooner be hung up by fish hooks attached to my eyelids than watch live prem footy, so you can count me out of everyone Rover

I also haven't watched English soccer in years.

Not since it became flooded with furriners. No interest in watching fake tanned prima donna businessmen rolling around feigning injury and trying to get one another sent off, while verbally abusing the referee. 

[Harry Stottle]

11 hours ago, whatmichaelsays said:

The question you have to ask in conjunction with that question is what RL has done to uphold/grow the value of its rights. Simply expecting an increase because you want/think you deserve one isn't enough. 

2017 TV contract at £40M/ year for 5 years at todays value that would be £51M (Bank of England Inflation Calculator).

7 years on circa £20M/ year (I have seen conflicting sums ranging from 17.5 to 21.5M) that is -60% per year on the inflated figure or in real terms SL clubs will be 'Enjoying' £800,000/year less in funding.

Is the product on the field the only measurable thing it delivers to Sky really 60% less than it was just 7 years ago?

[HawkMan]

3 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

2017 TV contract at £40M/ year for 5 years at todays value that would be £51M (Bank of England Inflation Calculator).

7 years on circa £20M/ year (I have seen conflicting sums ranging from 17.5 to 21.5M) that is -60% per year on the inflated figure or in real terms SL clubs will be 'Enjoying' £800,000/year less in funding.

Is the product on the field the only measurable thing it delivers to Sky really 60% less than it was just 7 years ago?

Got to factor in the increase cost to Sky broadcasting all sports, inflation for wages, equipment costs etc. Have SL viewing figures kept up, no probably dropped or plateaued. So SL is worth less to Sky hence the drop in tv money.

I wonder also if Sky worry about their reputation. If they pull out of RL and the pro game collapses it won't look good on them. Headlines like "Sky stab RL in back."

If TNT for example offered say 25m would Sky battle to stay on board? We'll never know.

[gingerjon]

The biggest issue the game faces right now is lack of visibility.

Struggling to see any downside at all in getting that addressed by having all matches broadcast.

[whatmichaelsays]

17 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

2017 TV contract at £40M/ year for 5 years at todays value that would be £51M (Bank of England Inflation Calculator).

7 years on circa £20M/ year (I have seen conflicting sums ranging from 17.5 to 21.5M) that is -60% per year on the inflated figure or in real terms SL clubs will be 'Enjoying' £800,000/year less in funding.

Is the product on the field the only measurable thing it delivers to Sky really 60% less than it was just 7 years ago?

I'm not sure inflation is a particularly useful metric to be honest. A much better metric is market share (in this case, the "market" is the size and value of the TV audience). 

Other sports have invested in their products to a much greater degree than RL has in the time period you speak about in order to increase their respective market share. Since that 2017 deal, Sky Sports has invested in Formula1 (Sky Sports F1 was launched in 2018) and F1 has itself reinvented much of its presentation to be much more TV-friendly for the casual viewer. Women's football has taken off and commands a lot more airtime than it did in 2017. The value of Premier League and EFL rights has continued to grow. Cricket has developed new products to sell. American sports are now more visible in the UK. And RL has done..... some temporary and quickly-reversed tweaks to the league structure? 

All of those factors squeeze out RL for both airtime and rights value, and RL hasn't really fought back very well (whether that's due to resources, inaction or inability) to protect the value of its own rights. When people complain that Sky doesn't promote RL enough, it's because RL hasn't done enough to command that market share whereas other sports arguably have. 

So to answer the question as to whether RL is worth 60% less to Sky, I don't think it's really unfair to say that it probably is. How much of Sky's subscriber and advertiser base really relies on RL? And how much of that couldn't be made up by investments in other sports?

Edited October 16, 2023 by whatmichaelsays

[Harry Stottle]

11 hours ago, Big Picture said:

The simple answer is nothing but when the top clubs are all based in smallish unfashionable towns which don't rate with the public at large there isn't much it can do is there?

Exactly, and that is never going to change BP, there is very little appetite for RL Football elsewhere in the UK than in the M62 corridor, and certainly not in big cities entrenched in Association Football.

And this is a reflection on the contract value Sky put on the table, Sky know who watches what and even where they live, a simple algorithm can deliver the information they require.

I have no doubt that they were bitten by the £200M 5 year contract, and the present £60M 3 year contract INCLUDING all the games they demanded as part of the package is probably fair for a scheduled broadcast 'Filler' sport.

[Harry Stottle]

2 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

So to answer the question as to whether RL is worth 60% less to Sky, I don't think it's really unfair to say that it probably is. How much of Sky's subscriber and advertiser base really relies on RL? And how much of that couldn't be made up by investments in other sports?

That is the answer I was looking for, hence my answer to BP above.

[Chrispmartha]

6 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Exactly, and that is never going to change BP, there is very little appetite for RL Football elsewhere in the UK than in the M62 corridor, and certainly not in big cities entrenched in Association Football.

And this is a reflection on the contract value Sky put on the table, Sky know who watches what and even where they live, a simple algorithm can deliver the information they require.

I have no doubt that they were bitten by the £200M 5 year contract, and the present £60M 3 year contract INCLUDING all the games they demanded as part of the package is probably fair for a scheduled broadcast 'Filler' sport.

Isn't it something like 50% of viewers on Sky are from the South of England?

I'll try find the stat

[Just Browny]

7 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

The biggest issue the game faces right now is lack of visibility.

Struggling to see any downside at all in getting that addressed by having all matches broadcast.

No downside but minimal upside.

We'd improve visibility on the status quo if we only had one game per week on Sky but it was always on Main Event. There is close to zero chance of anyone stumbling upon our game on Sky Sports 10 like we usually are; nobody watches TV nowadays by flicking through the entire channel list.

[whatmichaelsays]

6 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

That is the answer I was looking for, hence my answer to BP above.

To be honest, I don't agree with BP's premise.

Expansion is not a geography problem. It's an audience problem. 

[gingerjon]

7 minutes ago, Just Browny said:

No downside but minimal upside.

We'd improve visibility on the status quo if we only had one game per week on Sky but it was always on Main Event. There is close to zero chance of anyone stumbling upon our game on Sky Sports 10 like we usually are; nobody watches TV nowadays by flicking through the entire channel list.

What would be quite handy is being on YouTube (or any young person's equivalent) once or twice a week during the season.

It may shock you to learn that I watch clips from a whole bunch of sports on there which means that when I go to the main YT page there are often live matches going on in those sports that the algorithm is handily recommending I watch. And I;ll then end up watching something that hadn't necessarily been what I was looking for.(*)

Agree with you about Main Event. It should be a minimum requirement of the contract to be on there with at least one of our games each week. It's the channel the bored pubs stick on and don't change and it is comfortably the most watched at home.

(* - probably should make clear that this isn't always low level amateur European handball but frequently includes top level cricket, basketball, football ...)

Edited October 16, 2023 by gingerjon

[Harry Stottle]

37 minutes ago, StandOffHalf said:

I also haven't watched English soccer in years.

Not since it became flooded with furriners. No interest in watching fake tanned prima donna businessmen rolling around feigning injury and trying to get one another sent off, while verbally abusing the referee. 

Why are you describing St Helen's in your last paragraph

[17 stone giant]

2 hours ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

I'd suggest that RL needs some shorter format comp that could grab some headlines over a short period and gain some attention. The sports market is just too saturated to expect a massive audience to suddenly engage and commit to following an 8-month competition. What that shorter format competition could be, I haven't got a clue.

Those are my thoughts too. You say you haven't got a clue, but I think you can come up with something. I'd love to see you play Armchair Administrator and briefly outline an idea.

It's something that I like to do on here occasionally, until GUBRATS comes along and ruins things with his realism. He's crushed my last three events within minutes. It always comes down to money, you see. What I'm suggesting probably costs £50m, but rugby league only has three shillings and six pence to spend.

[Harry Stottle]

13 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

Expansion is not a geography problem. It's an audience problem. 

How do you separate the two? A perfect Chicken and Egg scenario there Micheal.