Board index ‹ RLFANS MAIN ‹ The Virtual Terrace ‹ Future Sky Deal.

Ganson's Optician wrote:

Last week SSN said that 50% of Sky RL viewers live in the south of England. I imagine the majority of these are casual viewers, and whilst they enjoy watching the greatest game of all I don't think many would be willing to pay an extra subscription to Premier Sports on top of their pre-existing sky bill. Moving to a small station would kill RL, for starters they wouldn't be able to offer the same money as sky, and being on SS1 is so valuable in terms of getting the sport out there.

This is of course wild speculation with no foundation to it, but I wonder whether in the next year or so Premier Sports would be interested in showing one game of SL a week along side sky and the French Operator? Their Championship coverage has been a relative success, and I am sure adding Super League to their portfolio would encourage more RL fans to subscribe.

I agree

Explain how ' relatively ' successful it has been , and the reasons for your opinion of it ?

Starbug wrote:

I agree

Explain how ' relatively ' successful it has been , and the reasons for your opinion of it ?

From what I can gather, the Championship is the only thing they do themselves, as opposed to buy off other broadcasters and it is clearly done on a low budget, for example the gazebo they were stood under last night, contrast this to sky who have a wealth of experience, cameras, stats, portable studio etc- hence my use of 'relatively'.

Despite this I can't fault their coverage, plenty of analysis and post match reaction, which was lacking in Sky's coverage of the Championship, five minutes before KO and a quick interview with the man of the match after the game. They have also been rather innovative, audio from inside the dressing room, interviews with coaches at HT and of course wiring up the video ref for the audience to hear, something which I can see Sky introducing themselves soon enough.

Hope I have answered your question

Ganson's Optician wrote:

From what I can gather, the Championship is the only thing they do themselves, as opposed to buy off other broadcasters and it is clearly done on a low budget, for example the gazebo they were stood under last night, contrast this to sky who have a wealth of experience, cameras, stats, portable studio etc- hence my use of 'relatively'.

Despite this I can't fault their coverage, plenty of analysis and post match reaction, which was lacking in Sky's coverage of the Championship, five minutes before KO and a quick interview with the man of the match after the game. They have also been rather innovative, audio from inside the dressing room, interviews with coaches at HT and of course wiring up the video ref for the audience to hear, something which I can see Sky introducing themselves soon enough.

Hope I have answered your question

So because you like the production quality, you term that as successful? , I'd suggest the viewing figures and extra revenue from advertising for both PS and the clubs themselves would be the measure of its success

Well that goes without saying. But that has been achieved thanks partly to the reasons I have mentioned. Don't quite see what you are trying to get at!

[Dave Lister]

Ganson's Optician wrote:

Well that goes without saying. But that has been achieved thanks partly to the reasons I have mentioned. Don't quite see what you are trying to get at!

Probably that you are making stuff up without any evidence whatsoever. For all we know Premier Sports could be losing money on a weekly basis and wasting cash showing dire semi professional Rugby League.

Dave Lister wrote:

For all we know Premier Sports could be losing money on a weekly basis and wasting cash showing dire semi professional Rugby League.

NRL aint that bad.

Ganson's Optician wrote:

Well that goes without saying. But that has been achieved thanks partly to the reasons I have mentioned. Don't quite see what you are trying to get at!

No, it doesnt go without saying, just because you like the show doesnt mean its a success, it is on a pay per view channel that nobody watches , I dont have access to it because it isnt on Virgin media, and I wouldnt pay for it anyway for 1 game per week, when Leigh are probably on it every 3/4 weeks

Playing midweek costs Championship clubs money, they dont get anything from the deal, it isnt worth a carrot

[Wheels]

Starbug wrote:

No, it doesnt go without saying, just because you like the show doesnt mean its a success, it is on a pay per view channel that nobody watches , I dont have access to it because it isnt on Virgin media, and I wouldnt pay for it anyway for 1 game per week, when Leigh are probably on it every 3/4 weeks

I watch it. I also watch the 5 NRL games they have every weekend. I'll watch the RL9's Finals night too. I also advertise on their channel, along with a fair few other RL companies that do so thanks to their coverage.

For £70 a year subscription and a great advertising deal, I'm not complaining.

Salty wrote:

I'd like to know what percentage of my Sky Sports fee goes to soccer and what goes to rugby league. I only really watch rugby league and feel annoyed that I help prima donnas to earn up to £200,000 per week.

Same here, I would much rather see a pay-per-view RL.

[Dave Lister]

Wheels wrote:

Starbug wrote:

No, it doesnt go without saying, just because you like the show doesnt mean its a success, it is on a pay per view channel that nobody watches , I dont have access to it because it isnt on Virgin media, and I wouldnt pay for it anyway for 1 game per week, when Leigh are probably on it every 3/4 weeks

I watch it. I also watch the 5 NRL games they have every weekend. I'll watch the RL9's Finals night too. I also advertise on their channel, along with a fair few other RL companies that do so thanks to their coverage.

For £70 a year subscription and a great advertising deal, I'm not complaining.

Seeing as you have invested in some sort of advertising deal with the channel, you must have a pretty good idea of viewing figures. Care to share?