Sky Sports+

[Leyther_Matt]

I don’t care who it involves, but somebody get Suoer League, the RFL, the clubs and Sky all sat around a table and sort out this absolute farce and get every game back on the main channels.

Sound and picture have been all over the place tonight. And even more ridiculously the free stream on Bet365 has been a full 15 seconds in front of watching on Sky.

And to think there have been consistent suggestions that streaming is the future of sport.

Yours,

Disgruntled Sky customer of Leigh

[sheddingswasus]

Also why are they showing an old match on the main channel? 

[Tommygilf]

3 minutes ago, Leyther_Matt said:

I don’t care who it involves, but somebody get Suoer League, the RFL, the clubs and Sky all sat around a table and sort out this absolute farce and get every game back on the main channels.

Sound and picture have been all over the place tonight. And even more ridiculously the free stream on Bet365 has been a full 15 seconds in front of watching on Sky.

And to think there have been consistent suggestions that streaming is the future of sport.

Yours,

Disgruntled Sky customer of Leigh

Even on my phone it was poor quality. 

The quality and location of broadcasts definitely should be something SL are discussing with Sky, both in terms of the current season and future contracts.

[Damien]

6 minutes ago, sheddingswasus said:

Also why are they showing an old match on the main channel? 

They've done that a few times this season so far.

Edited March 19 by Damien

[EggFace]

No problems when I watch in the front on our Sky Glass but when the othe half hasn't went to bed and I have to watch the game in our oldish Tv it's too jumpy and pausing...not good in this day and age.

[Dovster]

Shocking presentation from Sky last night. Sky are really telling us what they think of RL by making this decision and showing darts on two channels and an old match on another. Disgraceful.

The game, The Players and The Fans deserve better.

[OriginalMrC]

Agree 100%. We are becoming a red button sport hidden away from view. There are major ssues are the quality of the stream and the fact they just have random music playing at half time. People are also unable to record games if they cannot see them live. 

Ironically sky was also showing a rerun including build up of a previous Superleague game. It's confusing and needs sorting out. 

[Archie Gordon]

It's weird because Sky are actively depressing viewing figures with this approach. I've no idea who is gaining from this.

[Just Browny]

People read all this stuff, agree with it, and then go in the other thread and say Sky is the only option for the next TV deal. It's rubbish.

[Dave T]

9 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

It's weird because Sky are actively depressing viewing figures with this approach. I've no idea who is gaining from this.

They have 2 main matches per round on main channels, they can only show the other 5 on red button. Thats what helps SL+ be a thing.

They are only showing 1 this weekend though as they are showing 3 next week.

The Sky streaming is terrible though, as it also is for football.

[Rugbyleaguesupporter]

@Just Browny

@Dovster

@Archie Gordon

Out of interest, why are you so confident in your view of Sky and their motives? 

Sky have requested that they show matches on front channels, but its the RFL who have declined this- as they want to promote Super League Plus (which imho is ridiculous) 

Im not sure why Sky are getting grief here? Yes, they could have paid more for last tv deal- but picks 3 to 7 have no value to Sky- they lose money producing these matches 

The number of Sky RL subscribers is pretty much the same, whether they show 2 games or 7. So the £2.5m or so to produce matches 3 to 7 are loss leading- they dont recoup this through ad sales 

[Dave T]

3 minutes ago, Rugbyleaguesupporter said:

@Just Browny

@Dovster

@Archie Gordon

Out of interest, why are you so confident in your view of Sky and their motives? 

Sky have requested that they show matches on front channels, but its the RFL who have declined this- as they want to promote Super League Plus (which imho is ridiculous) 

Im not sure why Sky are getting grief here? Yes, they could have paid more for last tv deal- but picks 3 to 7 have no value to Sky- they lose money producing these matches 

The number of Sky RL subscribers is pretty much the same, whether they show 2 games or 7. So the £2.5m or so to produce matches 3 to 7 are loss leading- they dont recoup this through ad sales 

The t3chnical glitches arent contractual tho.

[Dovster]

I didn't realise this was by request of the RFL/SL. Wow why would the sport chose to be shown on a channel so hard to find and of so poor quality. Almost hard to believe. However this is RL we are talking about.

Regarding matches 3-7. I thought they paid less for the overall coverage as they knew they would be running at a loss but the benefits for RL (like Video Ref) was such that the RFL/SL agreed.

[gingerjon]

15 minutes ago, Just Browny said:

People read all this stuff, agree with it, and then go in the other thread and say Sky is the only option for the next TV deal. It's rubbish.

I would urge anyone to look at DAZN's presentation for *anything* and TNT's presentation for anything that isn't Premier League football or rugby union.

[gingerjon]

Just now, Dovster said:

I didn't realise this was by request of the RFL/SL. Wow why would the sport chose to be shown on a channel so hard to find and of so poor quality. Almost hard to believe. However this is RL we are talking about.

Because the contract is for two games televised on main channels, the rest produced by Sky and available live on Super League Plus and Sky Sports +.

Unless we weren't given the correct details at the time the deal was agreed that is literally what is meant to happen.

[Rugbyleaguesupporter]

8 minutes ago, Dave T said:

The t3chnical glitches arent contractual tho.

Thats a fair point. But the production costs for 2 main matches are far higher. So if Sky were to increase production standards, then distribution to clubs would be lower (as Sky would pay reduced rights fee)

Production for EFL is done by IMG for streamed matches, and to similar standard 

[Damien]

6 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Because the contract is for two games televised on main channels, the rest produced by Sky and available live on Super League Plus and Sky Sports +.

Unless we weren't given the correct details at the time the deal was agreed that is literally what is meant to happen.

Yeah I think we forget this, myself included. In the old days these games just wouldnt have been on at all.

[Rugbyleaguesupporter]

9 minutes ago, Dovster said:

I didn't realise this was by request of the RFL/SL. Wow why would the sport chose to be shown on a channel so hard to find and of so poor quality. Almost hard to believe. However this is RL we are talking about.

Regarding matches 3-7. I thought they paid less for the overall coverage as they knew they would be running at a loss but the benefits for RL (like Video Ref) was such that the RFL/SL agreed.

Yes, very broadly Sky would pay over £22m for two matches, or £21.5m for 7

Whoever thought Super League plus would work domestically and provide strong revenue was/ is living in cloud cuckoo land 

[Just Browny]

11 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

I would urge anyone to look at DAZN's presentation for *anything* and TNT's presentation for anything that isn't Premier League football or rugby union.

Why would you urge me? It sounds rubbish.

[Hopie]

All games televised was with an aim to add value, something extra to sell. Nobody is buying!

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

2 minutes ago, Hopie said:

All games televised was with an aim to add value, something extra to sell. Nobody is buying!

The problem is that SL+ doesn't allow you to watch 2 of those games live, and also many of the games kick off at the same time. So the offer isn't that great. Certainly nowhere near as good as Watch NRL.

[RigbyLuger]

13 minutes ago, Rugbyleaguesupporter said:

Yes, very broadly Sky would pay over £22m for two matches, or £21.5m for 7

Whoever thought Super League plus would work domestically and provide strong revenue was/ is living in cloud cuckoo land 

Would Degsyvision? 

[Archie Gordon]

56 minutes ago, Rugbyleaguesupporter said:

@Just Browny

@Dovster

@Archie Gordon

Out of interest, why are you so confident in your view of Sky and their motives? 

Sky have requested that they show matches on front channels, but its the RFL who have declined this- as they want to promote Super League Plus (which imho is ridiculous) 

Im not sure why Sky are getting grief here? Yes, they could have paid more for last tv deal- but picks 3 to 7 have no value to Sky- they lose money producing these matches 

The number of Sky RL subscribers is pretty much the same, whether they show 2 games or 7. So the £2.5m or so to produce matches 3 to 7 are loss leading- they dont recoup this through ad sales 

I get all that.

I don't get why this year's production and service is worse than last year's. That's what I'm not understanding.

[Click]

Can't believe we have to go over why not every match is on the main channels again ...

Although SKY's production this year has been awful, I'm not sure we have gone a game without some technical difficulty 

[phiggins]

1 hour ago, Rugbyleaguesupporter said:

Yes, very broadly Sky would pay over £22m for two matches, or £21.5m for 7

Whoever thought Super League plus would work domestically and provide strong revenue was/ is living in cloud cuckoo land 

Sky paid something like £23m for two matches. Then dropped it to £21m for six. One of the reasons given for the drop was the production costs of the extra games, which could then be sold on by RL commercial. Unfortunately, you're not going to sell many, when the games are already on a Sky platform. In hindsight, it really was a poor deal. 

On topic, the Sky Sports plus offering is just poor. Two years on, and no on demand content, is the most obvious example, before you even get to the production quality. Even the football that they show on there is a poor offering (though I think you can watch those on a delay, not sure), but it's just the old EFL iFollow coverage, which was pretty cheap and cheerful.