Televised games next season - has it been sorted yet?

[Yorky]

Apologies if I've missed it - but has the breakdown of coverage been finalised yet?

Last I heard was that all games were going to be shown live with Sky. But others saying that other outlets I.e C4/our league may get a peice of the action?

[Yakstorm]

Sky Sports will broadcast all 170-odd Men's Super League games across its linear & digital channels in 2024.

The arrangement is non-exclusive, so RL Commercial is able to resell a package to a FTA provider again.  The FTA deal can include more than the 10 games Channel 4 had in 2023.

BBC & Channel 4 are the favourites for the FTA rights.

In addition, the arrangement allows for the creation of a Super League owned streaming platform. 

The announced deal does not include Challenge Cup, Championship, L1 or England matches. 

[Chris22]

4 hours ago, Yorky said:

Apologies if I've missed it - but has the breakdown of coverage been finalised yet?

Last I heard was that all games were going to be shown live with Sky. But others saying that other outlets I.e C4/our league may get a peice of the action?

In the press release, it said there would be details of a streaming platform announced in the New Year. Rugby League Live reported BBC and Channel 4 are interested in FTA rights.

I may be reading too much into this but here is a link to Sky's fixture page. I suspect that the games showing an earlier 'on air' time will be shown on TV and the ones five minutes before kick off will be streamed only. That's just a guess though.

[Yorky]

Thanks for both replies - they had better get a move on with the season now only about 7 weeks away. 

Personally I'm really hoping it's a good FTA deal, I do have sky sports but thought channel 4 coverage was really good but more importantly, the game needs it - I think 1 game per round FTA could really help grow the game 

[my missus]

be great if we manage to get both the bbc and c4 to take matches.

[Ragingbull]

6 hours ago, Yorky said:

Apologies if I've missed it - but has the breakdown of coverage been finalised yet?

Last I heard was that all games were going to be shown live with Sky. But others saying that other outlets I.e C4/our league may get a peice of the action?

Its rugby league. 

Id fully expect it to be anounced a week before the season starts.

Non of this forward thinking rubbish that every other sport has.

 

[Harry Stottle]

On 26/12/2023 at 23:30, Ragingbull said:

Non of this forward thinking rubbish that every other sport has.

Isn't this is what IMG are now on the payroll for?

[Gooleboy]

41 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Isn't this is what IMG are now on the payroll for?

What would we do without them!

[Rugbyleaguesupporter]

Sky tennis coverage (4,000 live matches in 2024) starts on Sunday, yet nobody knows how they plan to show them (bar some games being on tv channel) 

[Whippet13]

34 minutes ago, Rugbyleaguesupporter said:

Sky tennis coverage (4,000 live matches in 2024) starts on Sunday, yet nobody knows how they plan to show them (bar some games being on tv channel) 

Plus, what does it actually matter - someone will be showing SL FTA.

Edited December 29, 2023 by Whippet13

[Dave T]

On 28/12/2023 at 10:17, Harry Stottle said:

Isn't this is what IMG are now on the payroll for?

If we are going to make statements like this every single time, then for balance we should be giving them the benefit for the fact that for the first time in history every game will be shown, VR's at every match, more games than ever on terrestrial expected and an increase in streaming content. 

All forward thinking stuff that many have wanted for years but the game has never delivered. 

But some of these things take time to navigate the detail. 

[sam4731]

31 minutes ago, Dave T said:

If we are going to make statements like this every single time, then for balance we should be giving them the benefit for the fact that for the first time in history every game will be shown, VR's at every match, more games than ever on terrestrial expected and an increase in streaming content. 

All forward thinking stuff that many have wanted for years but the game has never delivered. 

But some of these things take time to navigate the detail. 

Do we have to give credit to them for that? SL has wanted this for a while.

It's a bit off topic but we must see IMG for what they are, an 'independent' puppet for the SL chairmen to give them a scapegoat for when things aren't going well.

How can you draft in independent consultants but give yourself a veto power over any of their suggestions? It just defeats the point, given that they have 12 individual self interests.

[JohnM]

1 minute ago, sam4731 said:

Do we have to give credit to them for that? SL has wanted this for a while.

It's a bit off topic but we must see IMG for what they are, an 'independent' puppet for the SL chairmen to give them a scapegoat for when things aren't going well.

How can you draft in independent consultants but give yourself a veto power over any of their suggestions? It just defeats the point, given that they have 12 individual self interests.

The clue is in the word "consultants".   In any case, the NHS would be under even greater stress as a few disgruntled posters suffer the effects of high blood pressure if IMG could make these arrangements without the approval of SL owners.

[RigbyLuger]

3 hours ago, Whippet13 said:

Plus, what does it actually matter - someone will be showing SL FTA.

It's another stick for some to beat IMG with.

[Harry Stottle]

49 minutes ago, Dave T said:

If we are going to make statements like this every single time, then for balance we should be giving them the benefit for the fact that for the first time in history every game will be shown, VR's at every match, more games than ever on terrestrial expected and an increase in streaming content. 

All forward thinking stuff that many have wanted for years but the game has never delivered. 

But some of these things take time to navigate the detail. 

Hang about David, the statement was "non of this forward thinking rubbish that every other sport has" and I replied with "isn't that what IMG are on the pay roll for".

So are they or are they not? A simple yes or no will suffice.

[JohnM]

28 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Hang about David, the statement was "non of this forward thinking rubbish that every other sport has" and I replied with "isn't that what IMG are on the pay roll for".

So are they or are they not? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Yes....and no.....

They are not on the payroll.

[Dave T]

3 hours ago, sam4731 said:

Do we have to give credit to them for that? SL has wanted this for a while.

It's a bit off topic but we must see IMG for what they are, an 'independent' puppet for the SL chairmen to give them a scapegoat for when things aren't going well.

How can you draft in independent consultants but give yourself a veto power over any of their suggestions? It just defeats the point, given that they have 12 individual self interests.

Can't have it both ways. If any time we have a grumble it is put down to IMG, then any time something good happens, they must be given the credit. 

It's very silly either way. That's my point. 

[Dave T]

3 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

Hang about David, the statement was "non of this forward thinking rubbish that every other sport has" and I replied with "isn't that what IMG are on the pay roll for".

So are they or are they not? A simple yes or no will suffice.

If people don't see the new deal as an example of the sport being forward thinking, then I can't help them. They are increasing coverage and widening the FTA element, and progressing video refs at all games. 

It's all good stuff. Suggests things are moving in the right direction. So yes, IMG were brought in to make things better, and this new approach certainly sounds better. 

[sam4731]

5 hours ago, Dave T said:

Can't have it both ways. If any time we have a grumble it is put down to IMG, then any time something good happens, they must be given the credit. 

It's very silly either way. That's my point. 

Oh don't get me wrong, I never grumble at anything IMG 'do' because I don't believe they do anything. They are merely puppets.

[Gooleboy]

4 hours ago, sam4731 said:

Oh don't get me wrong, I never grumble at anything IMG 'do' because I don't believe they do anything. They are merely puppets.

I would like to know what they have done to warrant the first whopping invoice they submitted.

[JohnM]

8 hours ago, sam4731 said:

Oh don't get me wrong, I never grumble at anything IMG 'do' because I don't believe they do anything. They are merely puppets.

Facts trump belief every time, though.  Some puppet!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMG_(company)?wprov=sfla1

[JohnM]

4 hours ago, Gooleboy said:

I would like to know what they have done to warrant the first whopping invoice they submitted.

Back in November , Martyn Sadler wrote, "To be fair to IMG, most clubs have told me that IMG’s advice has enabled them to significantly improve their digital operations and it may be that the payment is fully justified, both by the outcome of that work and its inclusion in the IMG contract with the RFL."

[Dave T]

12 hours ago, sam4731 said:

Oh don't get me wrong, I never grumble at anything IMG 'do' because I don't believe they do anything. They are merely puppets.

I can understand that view, but I don't necessarily agree. I agree with the concern around governance, but I don't believe the stakeholders will veto everything - especially as many things will be providing expertise and support. They also didn't veto the new grading structure (my personal view is that it led to a poor outcome by compromising on P&R, but then many stakeholders, including some supporters want P&R). 

I've been following F1 much more closely in recent years, and even this year, despite the new owners and investment, the teams still have a lot of control, and absolutely have to give their blessing to major decisions. They are quite open and mature about the 'what's in it for me?' viewpoint, rather than that being frowned upon in RL. 

I don't think we should be shy about selling places in our league to millionaires, we should be more like them. 

[Dave T]

4 hours ago, JohnM said:

Back in November , Martyn Sadler wrote, "To be fair to IMG, most clubs have told me that IMG’s advice has enabled them to significantly improve their digital operations and it may be that the payment is fully justified, both by the outcome of that work and its inclusion in the IMG contract with the RFL."

It is interesting to hear how many positive stories are coming out about season ticket sales etc. I always make the point that there is no silver bullet here, it's doing good things. Then doing good things again. Over and over and over. 

[Dave T]

8 hours ago, Gooleboy said:

I would like to know what they have done to warrant the first whopping invoice they submitted.

You aren't paying. You have no right to know everything that clubs and the RFL spend money on. They spend money on all sorts each year that we don't know the detail of. 

But, apparently it was around work on digital support. A cost of c£35-40k per company (club) doesn't feel excessive.