Re: SL1 + SL2 : Mon Jun 18, 2018 9:20 am  

kobashi wrote:

Comparing the NRL TV deal vs super league is pointless. Two completely different markets.

Would love to know where you think super league is gonna get some huge TV deal from? People seem to think that you just need to call up a TV network and ask them to pay more money than sky. The reality is that BT and possibly Amazon prime are the only parties who could try and bag super league. Considering BT sport position at the moment I really would not expect to see them go big and blow sky bid out the water.

BBC would love super league coverage but they won't spend money to grab it.

Could the next deal be higher? Possibly if we see some competition to sky but even then it's not going to be anywhere near the NRL deal.

This. I'd love to know how much these "Sky don't pay us enough" types think we're being short-changed by.

Sky knows exactly what RL is worth to them. They know how many subscriptions rely on RL, they know what advertising slots around RL content are worth and it knows how many people watch RL. That knowledge determines what they offer the sport.

And its important that the sport recognises that it needs to do more to add value to Sky if we want more from them. As a sport, we're one of the few in the UK that seems to actively dilute its own TV audience (for the two rounds after Magic Weekend, three games were taking place at the same time as our Friday TV game), we've lost our ability to attract the best box-office talent, and TV ad-tech is also going to hurt this sport - Sky Adsmart will devalue ad slots around RL content, and the sport and the clubs have done little to counter that threat.

We can't see it a Sky under-valuing RL. We have to see it for what it is - RL not adding enough value to Sky.

Re: SL1 + SL2 : Mon Jun 18, 2018 10:07 am  

bramleyrhino wrote:

This. I'd love to know how much these "Sky don't pay us enough" types think we're being short-changed by.

Sky knows exactly what RL is worth to them. They know how many subscriptions rely on RL, they know what advertising slots around RL content are worth and it knows how many people watch RL. That knowledge determines what they offer the sport.

And its important that the sport recognises that it needs to do more to add value to Sky if we want more from them. As a sport, we're one of the few in the UK that seems to actively dilute its own TV audience (for the two rounds after Magic Weekend, three games were taking place at the same time as our Friday TV game), we've lost our ability to attract the best box-office talent, and TV ad-tech is also going to hurt this sport - Sky Adsmart will devalue ad slots around RL content, and the sport and the clubs have done little to counter that threat.

We can't see it a Sky under-valuing RL. We have to see it for what it is - RL not adding enough value to Sky.

There's a debatable question in your comment. Value! Who devalued the sport ? The Clubs? Sky? Or the product. Probably accumulation of all. The art is not to return to something that has already failed previously. The change must cater for all in the sport,and must remain permanent.

I wouldn't worry too much about the finances, as the quite obvious plan is for SL to take all the cake, come the end of the TV contract. Yes its the start of the 'Breakaway'...

That just leaves the lower tiers to gain their own broadcasting rights of some form that will match or even better the amount of funding currently received.

[Karen]

Re: SL1 + SL2 : Mon Jun 18, 2018 10:07 am  

Someday wrote:

Talking about not using facilities years ago we went to Australia and stayed in Penrith they use their ground for everything they have a big restaurant and 1armbandits and golf and a cinema and lots more that’s were they make their money from for the rugby league team

When we went to Australia in February for the Hull tour we visited Penrith and it's a phenomenal set up now. There are several restaurants/bars, massive casino and outside area where you buy the meat and then cook it yourself. They were so welcoming and let us have a good look round and we were astounded by the sheer magnitude of it all.

Hull fans complain at the regular new shirts/merchandise that Hull produce (4 shirts so far this season plus related training gear), but they need to realise that merchandise is a massive bulk of club revenue and without it we'd seriously struggle.

Re: SL1 + SL2 : Mon Jun 18, 2018 11:11 am  

kobashi wrote:

Would love to know where you think super league is gonna get some huge TV deal from? People seem to think that you just need to call up a TV network and ask them to pay more money than sky.

Spot on and one of the big issues with all this carry on. Easy to come out and win people over with talk of bigger deals but are they really going to be able to pull it off? I think Sky might have a thing to say about it and I'd back them to get the deal they want more than what Elstone and chums want.

Re: SL1 + SL2 : Mon Jun 18, 2018 11:32 am  

atomic wrote:

There's a debatable question in your comment. Value! Who devalued the sport ? The Clubs? Sky? Or the product. Probably accumulation of all.

It goes further than that. The 'market' has devalued us as a sport.

It has got cheaper and cheaper to reach the audiences that we reach and on top of that, there are also more leisure distractions than ever before. The response from the sport, and the clubs in particular, has been to short-sell the sport to keep those people.

What the sport should have been doing is spending more time trying to appeal to people who are most prized by advertisers and broadcasters, appealing to the people who advertisers find hard to reach. Instead, we spent more time giving discounts to people who you can reach on Google and Facebook for less than £50 per thousand.

That's a lack of value that we are delivering to Sky. At a time when TV ad value is falling, we're giving them the cheapest audiences to advertise to.

And not only that, we're giving them less and less of that audience, because it seems that almost all of our clubs now want to play on Friday nights - clashing with out prime TV slot. That's a lack of value that we're delivering to Sky.

In short, RL is becoming less and less worthwhile to Sky. Why does anyone think that they should be paying more in those circumstances?

Re: SL1 + SL2 : Mon Jun 18, 2018 12:04 pm  

bramleyrhino wrote:

This. I'd love to know how much these "Sky don't pay us enough" types think we're being short-changed by.

Sky knows exactly what RL is worth to them. They know how many subscriptions rely on RL, they know what advertising slots around RL content are worth and it knows how many people watch RL. That knowledge determines what they offer the sport.

And its important that the sport recognises that it needs to do more to add value to Sky if we want more from them. As a sport, we're one of the few in the UK that seems to actively dilute its own TV audience (for the two rounds after Magic Weekend, three games were taking place at the same time as our Friday TV game), we've lost our ability to attract the best box-office talent, and TV ad-tech is also going to hurt this sport - Sky Adsmart will devalue ad slots around RL content, and the sport and the clubs have done little to counter that threat.

We can't see it a Sky under-valuing RL. We have to see it for what it is - RL not adding enough value to Sky.

You're right to say that Sky know exactly how much RL is worth to them, as the will with every other sport that they chose to broadcast.
However, are you really trying to say that they will calculate this value and simply hold out the cash for each sport, without negotiation.
Their price will depend on many different criteria and will be affected by their competitors and like most "buyers", they will have a price that they would like to pay and a different price that they would be willing to pay if necessary.

We then come down to the million dollar question.
Do you think that Mr Wood along with his team of administrators have achieved maximum value from Sky for the rights to broadcast our sport ??
Although there is cricket, tennis and golf etc shown through the summer months, I would suggest that RL has been an ideal screen filler for them and for diluting the spectator value of our sport (spreading games over 2 extra days etc) I certainly believe that "we" should have achieved a higher price at the last round of negotiations.
The speed at which the offer was accepted seemed criminal.

Re: SL1 + SL2 : Mon Jun 18, 2018 12:17 pm  

wrencat1873 wrote:

You're right to say that Sky know exactly how much RL is worth to them, as the will with every other sport that they chose to broadcast.
However, are you really trying to say that they will calculate this value and simply hold out the cash for each sport, without negotiation.
Their price will depend on many different criteria and will be affected by their competitors and like most "buyers", they will have a price that they would like to pay and a different price that they would be willing to pay if necessary.

We then come down to the million dollar question.
Do you think that Mr Wood along with his team of administrators have achieved maximum value from Sky for the rights to broadcast our sport ??
Although there is cricket, tennis and golf etc shown through the summer months, I would suggest that RL has been an ideal screen filler for them and for diluting the spectator value of our sport (spreading games over 2 extra days etc) I certainly believe that "we" should have achieved a higher price at the last round of negotiations.
The speed at which the offer was accepted seemed criminal.

Wood hasn't been doing the negotiations. IIRC the last negotiations were done by IMG - and they are no idiots. And let's not forget that the clubs voted in favour of this deal.

What I am saying is that between the last TV deal and now, the strength of the sport has weakened - and I suspect Sky knows that as well as anyone. Why should Sky pay more, just because we want them to?

Re: SL1 + SL2 : Mon Jun 18, 2018 12:25 pm  

bramleyrhino wrote:

Wood hasn't been doing the negotiations. IIRC the last negotiations were done by IMG - and they are no idiots. And let's not forget that the clubs voted in favour of this deal.

What I am saying is that between the last TV deal and now, the strength of the sport has weakened - and I suspect Sky knows that as well as anyone. Why should Sky pay more, just because we want them to?

As I said, there is greater value to any broadcaster to show games on 4/5 days/ week compared to 2/3 days per week.
However ,this didnt appear to be reflected in the last deal.
I guess the next deal will reflect any advantage of having a Canadian side and an additional French side in the comp.(assuming that they make it into SL, should be interesting.

Re: SL1 + SL2 : Mon Jun 18, 2018 12:39 pm  

Karen wrote:

When we went to Australia in February for the Hull tour we visited Penrith and it's a phenomenal set up now. There are several restaurants/bars, massive casino and outside area where you buy the meat and then cook it yourself. They were so welcoming and let us have a good look round and we were astounded by the sheer magnitude of it all.

Hull fans complain at the regular new shirts/merchandise that Hull produce (4 shirts so far this season plus related training gear), but they need to realise that merchandise is a massive bulk of club revenue and without it we'd seriously struggle.

Also in Penrith their is nothing else to do or their was not back in 1992 when we went so if you wanted entertainment that’s were you went even if you do not like rugby league

Re: SL1 + SL2 : Mon Jun 18, 2018 4:09 pm  

wrencat1873 wrote:

I certainly believe that "we" should have achieved a higher price at the last round of negotiations.
The speed at which the offer was accepted seemed criminal.

There's two side to this though. Sky offered more last time around because they wanted a fast decision. If we'd messed them about and not hit the deadline which led to a stock market announcement covering a whole lot of sports renewals they would most probably have reduced their offer.