New Sky Deal

[Chrispmartha]

Apologies for the source

 

If we end up with just two games per week on sky and no other broadcaster it would he a backwards step unless they intend to make more use of SL+

[Coggo]

It’s not necessarily a backward step as all games will surely still be available for streaming, we’ll just have to pay for another service provider. That’s the world we live in now.

And Sky paying more for less could be a step forward in regards to the pick of the round being given the prominence it deserves on Main Event etc, instead of being tucked away for only the hardcore. 

[Tommygilf]

Just 2 games a week on a main TV network would be a backwards step imo for several reasons. Accessibility, profile, equality of refereeing, growth opportunities for clubs, to name but a few.

Moreover, SL+ is nowhere near mature enough as a platform or has enough content to offer a major value proposition to enough customers to make it a serious option. It also feels like its a decision 5 to 10 years too late, with streaming networks increasingly being reconsolidated under a broader network umbrella (at least in the UK).

This does raise the question of how the funding for the production and broadcast of games 3-7 will be met. I doubt an additional broadcaster would want to do that and as such would probably just want the live feed. It is a concern likewise that any increase in the headline figure would be eaten up by the production costs alone (£50k a match roughly).

It would also signal that adding 2 extra teams has not delivered additional value to Sky Sports, at least not to the extent that they wish to pay to show more of the competition.

I wonder whether Sky will still be committed to showing all clubs a minimum number of times or whether they will go for the most commercially attractive matches.

[Hopie]

17 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Apologies for the source

 

No new information here, already been alluded to in the other threads on this subject. 

[Coggo]

What odds on DAZN picking up the rest?

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, Coggo said:

It’s not necessarily a backward step as all games will surely still be available for streaming, we’ll just have to pay for another service provider. That’s the world we live in now.

And Sky paying more for less could be a step forward in regards to the pick of the round being given the prominence it deserves on Main Event etc, instead of being tucked away for only the hardcore. 

I don't buy any of that when I think about it.

In a single Sky subscription now I get all their content, plus HBO Max, Paramount Plus, Netflix, Discovery Plus, Disney plus and I'm sure there are others I don't even know. The era of separate subscriptions is being reversed in the UK at least, largely driven by the proliferation of Firesticks and IPTV.

Piracy has come back from the dead. I'm sure just from the Social media circles that SL+ would be hit hard by that.

Sky could still put their full broadcast games on Main Event now. That they often don't reflects how we have failed to grow our audience particularly in the past 15 years, whereas other products have, and they have overtaken us. People may laugh, but Darts is more likely to be shown on Main Event on a Thursday Night, and Championship or the occasional Premier League game is on a Friday too. Even our Monday night fixtures whilst typically maligned in RL circles would now likely not come back because of Premier League football on those nights.

[Northern Eel]

7 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Just 2 games a week on a main TV network would be a backwards step imo for several reasons. Accessibility, profile, equality of refereeing, growth opportunities for clubs, to name but a few.

Moreover, SL+ is nowhere near mature enough as a platform or has enough content to offer a major value proposition to enough customers to make it a serious option. It also feels like its a decision 5 to 10 years too late, with streaming networks increasingly being reconsolidated under a broader network umbrella (at least in the UK).

This does raise the question of how the funding for the production and broadcast of games 3-7 will be met. I doubt an additional broadcaster would want to do that and as such would probably just want the live feed. It is a concern likewise that any increase in the headline figure would be eaten up by the production costs alone (£50k a match roughly).

It would also signal that adding 2 extra teams has not delivered additional value to Sky Sports, at least not to the extent that they wish to pay to show more of the competition.

I wonder whether Sky will still be committed to showing all clubs a minimum number of times or whether they will go for the most commercially attractive matches.

I was a big fan of the idea of all the games being available each week in some shape or form, but the competition has been relatively poor for the most part and I haven't used the streams anywhere as much as I thought I would. I am ambiguous about the new deal, although that may change when more information becomes available.

[dufftown1]

With the source i can only imagine TNT have signed a deal to show every game live. 

But if that is true. 2 gams on sky and nothing else agreed. Thats an absolute disaster. Really catastrophic. 

[M j M]

Gledhill isn't breaking any news there, just cobbling together stuff which has been said elsewhere. 

It all comes down to the detail and the value. The secondary matches which Sky can only show on their streaming platform are neither here nor there, it's the production costs that matter really. If they are increasing the amount paid, but by not much more than the amount they save from televising those games then it isn't that great a deal as these games will have relatively negligible value for broadcasters or via the Our League app.  

[M j M]

Just now, dufftown1 said:

But if that is true. 2 gams on sky and nothing else agreed. Thats an absolute disaster. Really catastrophic. 

You can't say that at all. It depends on the amounts involved. 

 

[The Blues Ox]

I might be wrong and I am a bit out of the loop with all this but it's made out to sound like Sky are going to pay more than the average they pay per game at the moment but are only going to actually show 2 games? The RFL is then free to sell the remaining games to other broadcasters? 

That can't be right can it? That would be a disaster for the game unless other broadcasters are going to stump up some decent money. Ive probably got it wrong though.

[Dave T]

The bit I struggle with is why on earth would Sky pay a premium for 2 games per week and allow the sport to sell 5 games onto another partner. 

I expect they would have playoffs and grand final tied up, but it does allow another channel to position themselves as the place to watch SL.

[M j M]

3 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

I might be wrong and I am a bit out of the loop with all this but it's made out to sound like Sky are going to pay more than the average they pay per game at the moment but are only going to actually show 2 games? The RFL is then free to sell the remaining games to other broadcasters? 

That can't be right can it? That would be a disaster for the game unless other broadcasters are going to stump up some decent money. Ive probably got it wrong though.

They only really show two games at the moment. The other games they can't show on their TV channels so have tiny viewerships anyway.

So it all comes down to money and how much more they are paying vs the cost of the sport/a third broadcaster coming in or the revenue that we think we can earn from selling them on the app. To call it a disaster without knowing any of that is very premature. 

[M j M]

5 minutes ago, Dave T said:

The bit I struggle with is why on earth would Sky pay a premium for 2 games per week and allow the sport to sell 5 games onto another partner. 

I expect they would have playoffs and grand final tied up, but it does allow another channel to position themselves as the place to watch SL.

Once you get past the Sky picks and then the BBC picks the value of the games does fall off quite considerably. Especially if that broadcaster can't show the play offs or the GF or Magic and would get very few Wigan or Leeds games. 

But there is definitely some value there - whether it is enough to actually get anyone to pay anything for them, on top of picking up the production costs, is the question. But even just getting them produced without much income probably wouldn't be too bad a result. 

Edited July 21 by M j M

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

The bit I struggle with is why on earth would Sky pay a premium for 2 games per week and allow the sport to sell 5 games onto another partner. 

I expect they would have playoffs and grand final tied up, but it does allow another channel to position themselves as the place to watch SL.

I think the "paying a premium" angle is being a tad oversold perhaps. If they go up even a little with inflation, and remove the costs of producing games 3-6(7), there's probably a small wedge of extra cash there. 

Obviously that will be eaten up by the costs of producing those extra fixtures and paying full fees for 2 extra teams.

[RigbyLuger]

Question: Who would tell him what he "knows"?

Answer: No-one who should be.

 

(And anyone could guess we'd stay with Sky, credible or not.)

Edited July 21 by RigbyLuger

[M j M]

1 minute ago, RigbyLuger said:

Question: Who would tell him what he "knows"?

Answer: No-one who should be.

 

(And anyone could guess we'd stay with Sky, credible or not.)

I don't imagine anyone has told him anything. 

[Dave T]

10 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I think the "paying a premium" angle is being a tad oversold perhaps. If they go up even a little with inflation, and remove the costs of producing games 3-6(7), there's probably a small wedge of extra cash there. 

Obviously that will be eaten up by the costs of producing those extra fixtures and paying full fees for 2 extra teams.

Yes, should have been clearer, premium is paying £25m for two games and somebody else coming in and paying, say £5m for 5 games per week, over 120 games.

[Dave T]

13 minutes ago, M j M said:

Once you get past the Sky picks and then the BBC picks the value of the games does fall off quite considerably. Especially if that broadcaster can't show the play offs or the GF or Magic and would get very few Wigan or Leeds games. 

But there is definitely some value there - whether it is enough to actually get anyone to pay anything for them, on top of picking up the production costs, is the question. But even just getting them produced without much income probably wouldn't be too bad a result. 

I wonder whether its would be worth a few million for a channel looking for content, say Premier. 

Whilst most here dont seem to like RL games, in reality we probably have a larger number of attractive teams - Wigan, Leeds, Saints, Wire, Hull KR plus then the likes of Leigh and Wakey, are more attractive than ever, Hull are always a draw, bizarrely, and the French teams offer some interest. It'll be interesting to watch if the Bulls can continue to grow. Outside of the top 2 games per week, there are good games.

It'll be interesting to sèe what happens with BBC, because they dont produce any of their own games, so they'd probably always share.

[Amber Avenger]

1 hour ago, Coggo said:

What odds on DAZN picking up the rest?

Extremely low I'd say - not the sort of company that picks up the dregs of someone else's second choice, more interested in owning everything if they have any part 

[Dave T]

It would make sense for Sky to have a deal that prevents selling other matches to a key rival, effectively making it so that SL+ is the alternative.

As a customer, if the outcome is that we cant watch every game, its a disaster. 

I can live with Sky top 2, then SL+ the rest, as long as the total value is higher.

[Amber Avenger]

With the genie out of the bottle with every game being broadcast over the past few years, I find it hard to see Ian Nolan's appointment and his experience with broadcasting and marry that with the fact that less matches will be broadcast, wherever that may be. It's not just that they might all not get watched but the way the highlights look across all matches across the top flight matters these days. If you look for highlights for some matches that weren't on Sky less than ten years ago on YouTube, they look like they're from filmed someone's phone. It's a worry if we're creeping back towards that, although I appreciate it's a fine balance. 

Personally if Sky isn't involved in the remaining matches, I struggle to see who would take up 70% of the cost for secondary rights, and then if the other option is in house then it feels like it's going to be on the cheap. 

Edited July 21 by Amber Avenger

[yipyee]

56 minutes ago, Dave T said:

The bit I struggle with is why on earth would Sky pay a premium for 2 games per week and allow the sport to sell 5 games onto another partner. 

I expect they would have playoffs and grand final tied up, but it does allow another channel to position themselves as the place to watch SL.

There is a production cost so their costs will reduce considerably.

If the other games can get produced hopefully on free to air at cost so no cost the the SL /RFL then we get an increase overall with all games still filmed with video ref, captains challenge and possibly more eyes on the games.

I also think that it benefits sky to have more games on free to air with the premium games behind a paywall.

Didnt Sky buy ITV ? Maybe this is the deal with these 2..

[yipyee]

4 minutes ago, Amber Avenger said:

With the genie out of the bottle with every game being broadcast over the past few years, I find it hard to see Ian Nolan's appointment and his experience with broadcasting and marry that with the fact that less matches will be broadcast, wherever that may be. It's not just that they might all not get watched but the way the highlights look across all matches across the top flight matters these days. If you look for highlights for some matches that weren't on Sky less than ten years ago on YouTube, they look like they're from filmed someone's phone. It's a worry if we're creeping back towards that, although I appreciate it's a fine balance. 

Personally if Sky isn't involved in the remaining matches, I struggle to see who would take up 70% of the cost for secondary rights, and then if the other option is in house then it feels like it's going to be on the cheap. 

ITV?

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, yipyee said:

There is a production cost so their costs will reduce considerably.

If the other games can get produced hopefully on free to air at cost so no cost the the SL /RFL then we get an increase overall with all games still filmed with video ref, captains challenge and possibly more eyes on the games.

I also think that it benefits sky to have more games on free to air with the premium games behind a paywall.

Didnt Sky buy ITV ? Maybe this is the deal with these 2..

I just cant see a scenario of Sky showing 65 games and another major provider showing 135. But, tbh, TV rights have changed a lot, and Sky do some weird things in this space too now.