Premier Sports offer to broadcast all Championship games

[gingerjon]

Just now, Tommygilf said:

From the report it suggests that it applies to all commercial TV deals brought into the game.

Yes. Apparently so. Baffling.

[binosh]

Or, is it not plausible to package the championship up with SL games and NRL games on the new Rugby League app??

[Harry Stottle]

2 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

That’s why Monday evenings are specifically excluded from this deal.

I have just read the thread Ginger not the article so not in the least bit surprised that Monday's have been dropped, so is the intention to have them same times are near to SL broadcasts, or are they to remain on there usual scheduled Sunday afternoons, which would be the better option for the clubs involved.

[Harry Stottle]

8 minutes ago, binosh said:

Is it completely out of the question to approach channel 4 and see if they would better the deal for a weekend slot, it’s peanuts for them and they genuinely seemed disappointed they missed out on the SL rights again.

Didn't C4 get broadcast rights free?

[sam4731]

15 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

To be fair Sam, how many Championship games do you attend in enough numbers to make a fair comparison, from my expierience as a regular attendee both home and away the move from Sunday afternoon 3.00 kick offs to 20:00 Monday evenings was telling, how many would travel cross Pennine Monday's as opposed to Sunday's I didn't.

I understand that the games were moved because of TV broadcasting but it wasn't the broadcasting itself that drove down attendances, it was the timeslot it was moved to.

If we're doing like for like, you'd be better comparing games that are taking place at the same time, with one on telly. If another Championship game was moved to a Monday night, would the attendances have been better because it wasnt on TV?

[Griff]

1 hour ago, Adelaide Tiger said:

It will be interesting to find out what the financial support is to make all grounds ‘broadcast ready’.

However, if the deal goes ahead and the income is spilt 78, 13, 9 split in favour of SL then simple math shows that each SL club would receive £3250 in year 1 rising to £6500 in year 3.  Surely, for an elite league these amounts are simply minuscule.

Here is a radical idea …. let the Championship clubs have the money!  

Math? You only have one math in Australia?

Off topic but intetesting nonetheless.

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, gingerjon said:

Yes. Apparently so. Baffling.

Is it? SL brings in more than the lions share.

This formula gives security to Championship/League 1 clubs if they bring in no money, but at the cost that any they do bring in is to be shared upwards too. Its a compromise they've had to go for given their meagre incomes over the past few years.

[gingerjon]

Just now, Tommygilf said:

Is it? SL brings in more than the lions share.

This formula gives security to Championship/League 1 clubs if they bring in no money, but at the cost that any they do bring in is to be shared upwards too. Its a compromise they've had to go for given their meagre incomes over the past few years.

It is baffling because, given the amounts will always be small, it makes it essentially not worth the Championship’s time and effort in obtaining deals if 3/4 of it will be taken from them.

[sam4731]

1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

Is it? SL brings in more than the lions share.

This formula gives security to Championship/League 1 clubs if they bring in no money, but at the cost that any they do bring in is to be shared upwards too. Its a compromise they've had to go for given their meagre incomes over the past few years.

This always annoys me though. Why should York be grateful of the money the Salford bring in. If York were in Salfords position (I.e. the central funding for being in SL) they may contribute more than them.

Being in SL is not enough of a reason to be in SL.

[Harry Stottle]

24 minutes ago, sam4731 said:

I understand that the games were moved because of TV broadcasting but it wasn't the broadcasting itself that drove down attendances, it was the timeslot it was moved to.

If we're doing like for like, you'd be better comparing games that are taking place at the same time, with one on telly. If another Championship game was moved to a Monday night, would the attendances have been better because it wasnt on TV?

Good question, there are a few other tangibles to consider, I doubt as I said there would be much travelling support Monday evening and especially cross Penine, if you take your kids next day being a school day would impact, weather could come into play, or just it's on telly.

But being tucked away on a channel that not a lot subscribe to would be more of an equaliser if it was FTA than I consider that would make for a massive discrepancy.

[Sports Prophet]

40 minutes ago, Griff said:

Math? You only have one math in Australia?

Off topic but intetesting nonetheless.

I don’t think “maths” is plural, I think it’s a poorly punctuated abbreviation of “mathematics”. “Math” would simply be another abbreviation, arguably more correct than “maths”.

Do we have more than one mathematics in Aus? Well we certainly have one, “correct” or “true”. I guess there could be “incorrect” mathematics, but then again, can “incorrect mathematics” be considered as “mathematics” at all?

Edited March 21 by Sports Prophet

[Sports Prophet]

29 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

It is baffling because, given the amounts will always be small, it makes it essentially not worth the Championship’s time and effort in obtaining deals if 3/4 of it will be taken from them.

I am guessing the share split was made without consideration to any future deal for lower divisions. I would hope the SL clubs are not petty enough to request their share of any such Championship deal.

[Dave T]

56 minutes ago, sam4731 said:

I understand that the games were moved because of TV broadcasting but it wasn't the broadcasting itself that drove down attendances, it was the timeslot it was moved to.

If we're doing like for like, you'd be better comparing games that are taking place at the same time, with one on telly. If another Championship game was moved to a Monday night, would the attendances have been better because it wasnt on TV?

 A key element of being televised is that scheduling is affected. Some of that impact will be through no-standard days/times, but some will be down to lateness of changes. 

But those things are only happening because of a TV deal. 

When people talk about tv deals impacting crowds, they aren't just talking about the actual end point of the match being on telly. 

 

[Dave T]

45 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

It is baffling because, given the amounts will always be small, it makes it essentially not worth the Championship’s time and effort in obtaining deals if 3/4 of it will be taken from them.

Yup. It's a poor structure if that is what's been agreed. And we are just going off RL journos. 

Things should pass the sniff test, and this doesn't. It's not difficult to have commercial agreements that are weighted in favour of the main focus of the deal. 

I'm sure international tv deals won't be weighted like that, so I'm not sure it will be true. 

[Blind side johnny]

13 hours ago, StandOffHalf said:

The game of the round should be televised. Monday night on Premier was working well before ViaPlay came in with their short-lived takeover. I always suspected that they would pull out pretty quickly, and so it proved.

One Championship game a round gives the comp a visibility, but I think it has to be a variety in terms of teams/grounds visited. Televising the same team most weeks gets a bit boring.

Just my view, as an Irish viewer who enjoyed the Premier output - and was disappointed it ended for non-UK audiences when ViaPlay came in.

Monday night games are simply terrible for part-time players and not so great for the fans. Thankfully there will be none under this proposal.

[Blind side johnny]

2 hours ago, gingerjon said:

Doesn't the 78/13/9 apply to the Sky deal? For this deal, all the money would go to the Championship clubs?

I believe that it applies to all broadcasting income, but may be wrong.

[Dave T]

We do need to get a clear view of what are the benefits of a lower league TV deal. I know people who say it offers no benefits are dismissed as neanderthals, but we do need to be wary of fantasy stuff. 

Let's be honest, there is no up front financial value in this deal, hopefully no costs at best. But we do need to have a clear strategy around how to turn it into a positive - we can all talk about things like awareness, benefits for sponsors, fan engagement etc. but I'm not convinced many of these bullet points are worth the paper they are written on for 2nd and 3rd tier comps with clubs the size of ours. 

I don't think it's just as clear cut as seeing any tv deal as a positive. 

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, Blind side johnny said:

I believe that it applies to all broadcasting income, but may be wrong.

What about the share for RL comm, including the RFL and IMG? 

I expect the split isn't that simple. 

[RigbyLuger]

1 hour ago, binosh said:

Is it completely out of the question to approach channel 4 and see if they would better the deal for a weekend slot, it’s peanuts for them and they genuinely seemed disappointed they missed out on the SL rights again.

Why would Channel 4 want second division rugby? Only Premier seems to want it, doesn't that say something?

[Tommygilf]

2 hours ago, gingerjon said:

It is baffling because, given the amounts will always be small, it makes it essentially not worth the Championship’s time and effort in obtaining deals if 3/4 of it will be taken from them.

I don't disagree, but its clearly a compromise being agreed so that the lower divisions are guaranteed some significant income.

[Griff]

1 hour ago, Sports Prophet said:

I don’t think “maths” is plural, I think it’s a poorly punctuated abbreviation of “mathematics”. “Math” would simply be another abbreviation, arguably more correct than “maths”.

"Math" is just wrong.

[Sports Prophet]

20 minutes ago, Griff said:

"Math" is just wrong.

It can’t be wrong. Without accuracy and correctness, math wouldn’t exist.

[POR]

1 hour ago, Blind side johnny said:

I believe that it applies to all broadcasting income, but may be wrong.

The money would go into a central pot controlled by Rugby League Commercial and then distributed between the clubs and  as part of the collaborative approach with Rugby League Commercial, any commercial deal results in Super League clubs receiving 78% of the income, Championship clubs receiving 13% and League 1 clubs 9%.

[Barley Mow]

This might have already been mentioned up the thread, but does this 78/13/9 split mean that individual L1 clubs get more income from any deal than their Championship counterparts this year?

9% divided by 9 L1 clubs = 1% each

13% divided by 14 Champ clubs =0.929% each

[Sports Prophet]

3 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

This might have already been mentioned up the thread, but does this 78/13/9 split mean that individual L1 clubs get more income from any deal than their Championship counterparts this year?

9% divided by 9 L1 clubs = 1% each

13% divided by 14 Champ clubs =0.929% each

Look at that! Talk about good math aye @Griff?