Terrible financial news for Saints

[Harry Stottle]

7 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I have no idea how this point links to your claim that Sky drove this. 

Utilisation of the new medium they have created David.

[Dave T]

8 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Utilisation of the new medium they have created David.

I'm sure they are happy enough to show it, but if it was something they really desired it'd be presented far better if we're honest.

SL on the other hand have signposted this for a few years.

Edited September 14 by Dave T

[Harry Stottle]

25 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I'm sure they are happy enough to show it, but if it was something they really desired it'd be presented far better if we're honest.

SL on the other hand have signposted this for a few years.

But being the 'new' to Sky medium, it could be a very good decision by Sky to include RL on this platform, as far as I am aware they have jumped straight into this streaming with Football without really trying it our first and wanting Championship Football fans to purchase it, so what better way than "on the hoof" using the little viewed RL games to try and iron out some indiscretions that they may have not foreseen, that makes perfect buisness sense.

[Click]

54 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

But being the 'new' to Sky medium, it could be a very good decision by Sky to include RL on this platform, as far as I am aware they have jumped straight into this streaming with Football without really trying it our first and wanting Championship Football fans to purchase it, so what better way than "on the hoof" using the little viewed RL games to try and iron out some indiscretions that they may have not foreseen, that makes perfect buisness sense.

I believe sky had a streaming platform for Football before, which SS+ replaced.

[Dave T]

58 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

But being the 'new' to Sky medium, it could be a very good decision by Sky to include RL on this platform, as far as I am aware they have jumped straight into this streaming with Football without really trying it our first and wanting Championship Football fans to purchase it, so what better way than "on the hoof" using the little viewed RL games to try and iron out some indiscretions that they may have not foreseen, that makes perfect buisness sense.

I'm not really following. At launch, SS+ has football, tennis, RL amongst other things. I'm not sure what they can use RL to iron out.

[gingerjon]

23 minutes ago, Click said:

I believe sky had a streaming platform for Football before, which SS+ replaced.

The football platform that SS+ replaced was iFollow, which wasn't a Sky product.

[Tommygilf]

1 hour ago, gingerjon said:

The football platform that SS+ replaced was iFollow, which wasn't a Sky product.

They did have every mid week championship(?) Match available on red button tbf which worked in a similar fashion.

 

[dkw]

1 hour ago, gingerjon said:

The football platform that SS+ replaced was iFollow, which wasn't a Sky product.

I've been wondering if they've seen amazon's football format from the past few years, as its a very similar setup. 

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

On 10/09/2024 at 16:40, Pete Grady said:

Going semi pro is the answer.

All the best British talent will go the NRL, our National team will then prosper and the British game will be sustainable.

That sort of comment I used to be able to brush aside a wind up......

[Dave T]

26 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

They did have every mid week championship(?) Match available on red button tbf which worked in a similar fashion.

 

Despite all the back slapping by Sky, this stuff really is just repackaged red button. But a bit worse.

[whatmichaelsays]

7 hours ago, Wakefield Ram said:

Guess it depends if it's you who's expected to make up the shortfall. And think this season has been a shot in the arm for Wakefield, the club has a real buzz again, much more so than if they'd scraped another season in the lower end of SL. 

I think the challenge I have with that mindset is why does there have to be a "shortfall"? 

I have nothing against someone with Carter's skillset - again, I think there are places for prudence - but Wakefield were never going to grow under his stewardship because he was never someone who struck me as willing to invest in anything that could grow the business.

For me, there has to be a balance of approaches because if you just always do what is logical, sensible and prudent, you just end up doing the same as everthing else. I sometimes quip that if accounts had planned the D-Day landings, they'd have forced everyone to go from Dover to Calais - everyone would have ended up dead (because that's the Germans would have expected them to do), but the accountants back home would congratulate themselves on the fuel savings they made. 

[iffleyox]

16 hours ago, whatmichaelsays said:

I think the challenge I have with that mindset is why does there have to be a "shortfall"? 

I have nothing against someone with Carter's skillset - again, I think there are places for prudence - but Wakefield were never going to grow under his stewardship because he was never someone who struck me as willing to invest in anything that could grow the business.

For me, there has to be a balance of approaches because if you just always do what is logical, sensible and prudent, you just end up doing the same as everthing else. I sometimes quip that if accounts had planned the D-Day landings, they'd have forced everyone to go from Dover to Calais - everyone would have ended up dead (because that's the Germans would have expected them to do), but the accountants back home would congratulate themselves on the fuel savings they made. 

I know it’s a joke but…

the whole point about D-Day was that Accounts *did* plan it - Normandy was chosen because of how many lives and how much kit they’d have been forced to write-down/replace doing it any other way. Eisenhower was not (really) a combat general. He was a back room logistician. Monty was haunted by the cost in lives and kit of what he’d gone through as a young officer  in WW1 and was if anything as a result always criticised for being too cautious and not pressing on until the maths was overwhelmingly on his side (Market Garden being the exception that proves the rule).

[M j M]

On 13/09/2024 at 10:12, JT RL said:

Obviously it looks & is bad.

But, let’s not forget that Wigan were bust back in the day 

- hence the need to sell Central Park to survive 

And they are doing ok these days 

In what planet are Wigan doing financially "ok these days"? They're losing money just as much as the other big clubs but have minimal assets to fall back on. (Wealthy owners willing to plug gaps don't mean a club is in financial good health.)

[JT RL]

[lucky 7]

On 11/09/2024 at 01:07, bamfordsbeans said:

Sky money is probably half of what it used to be and in real terms even more.

It seems the majority of clubs have failed to find other revenue areas to compensate for this.

They should remember some of them school reports. "Must try harder"  to find other revenue streams.

[Padge]

On 13/09/2024 at 17:12, JT RL said:

Obviously it looks & is bad.

But, let’s not forget that Wigan were bust back in the day 

- hence the need to sell Central Park to survive 

And they are doing ok these days 

Wigan have never been bust, Central Park didn't need to be sold, it was sold out of spite.