Re: Channel 4 : Fri Sep 07, 2018 3:11 am  

Joff wrote:

NI isn't a country. It's a province of the nation of the UK!!

Actually it's 6 occupied counties of the Republic of Ireland, populated by a majority of Protestants moved there under the rule of James I in the early 1600's, whereby land once owned by Gaelic Chiefs was seized by the crown.......the reason it's not all 9 counties is because once again, the British didn't want to lose face after they lost the Irish War of Independence in 1922....if they'd included all 9 counties, then the Catholics would be in the majority.......but I digress

Re: Channel 4 : Fri Sep 07, 2018 5:50 am  

Call Me God wrote:

Buddy. You keep digging all you like....eventually you'll be that far down we won't be able to hear your inane and bias ramblings.

Back on topic.

C4 picking up these games must mean that the BBC were dealing with the home nations individually. Wales and Scotland, haven't announced they have jumped, so this means that BBC1, BBC2 & C4 will be covering the autumn test series of FTA TV stations. Combine this with the C5 Aviva games and the ITV highlights package for the premiership, the C4 deal for their European Cup and in the space of less than a decade, Union is now shown on all the major FTA stations in the UK. Furthermore, with SKY showing the England games this autumn and BT sport showing the premiership Rugby, as well as Premier Sports ow showing the Pro 14 comp, Union is now available on pretty much every platform.......

....meanwhile, we are shackled to SKY, who treat us like dirt and on a cheap deal too boot, so it's no wonder that the SL chairmen have tried to wrestle power from the RFL.......because 23 years ago there was the 6 nations on TV as far as Union was concerned.......now they are bloody everywhere whilst we are doing the same thing just on different days...

FTA coverage of rugby league:
BBC England internationals
BBC Super League highlights show
BBC Rugby League World Cup
BBC Challenge Cup

Sky coverage of rugby league
Super League
NRL
Challenge Cup

As you can see, excluding super League and NRL we have FTA coverage. Most people wouldn't know it exists though.

Next onto this ridiculous notion that the game is shackled to sky and then sky treat the game like dirt.

Where do people get this rubbish from. Sky didn't roll into RFL HQ with sub machine guns demanding super league rights. How many times does this need to be said. Nobody else is willing to pay what sky do!

Stop this fantasy of there being a queue of networks all ready to blow sky out of the water. You will see the reality of the situation soon enough when the current deal expires.

Re: Channel 4 : Fri Sep 07, 2018 8:56 am  

kobashi wrote:

Next onto this ridiculous notion that the game is shackled to sky and then sky treat the game like dirt.

Where do people get this rubbish from. Sky didn't roll into RFL HQ with sub machine guns demanding super league rights. How many times does this need to be said. Nobody else is willing to pay what sky do!

Stop this fantasy of there being a queue of networks all ready to blow sky out of the water. You will see the reality of the situation soon enough when the current deal expires.

I'm not sure anyone has disparaged Sky in the way you suggest.

I would suggest that the viewing figures I posted (that around a third of RL viewers on Sky were watching Championship games), and adding that the Championship games were routinely in the top ten programs viewed on their channel that week, shows there is an appetite for showing Championship games which is not being satisfied.

My own view is that SLE/RFL have treated clubs below Super League shabbily by sequestering the vast majority of the Sky funds for Super League and by negotiating a deal in which Campionship RL rights were sold either without checking whether games would be screened or in the full understanding that they would not. If it is the latter (that everyone knew rights were being sold but no games would be screened) then, again in my view, that amounts to restriction of trade.

As for there being 'a queue of networks', you're probably correct for Super League, but I do believe that Championship RL could find a new home and the rewards from that might be substantially greater than those currently on offer. However, it does require a Championship with the cohesion, courage and confidence to take a hold of its own future.

Re: Channel 4 : Fri Sep 07, 2018 9:17 am  

joultram wrote:

I'm not sure anyone has disparaged Sky in the way you suggest.

I would suggest that the viewing figures I posted (that around a third of RL viewers on Sky were watching Championship games), and adding that the Championship games were routinely in the top ten programs viewed on their channel that week, shows there is an appetite for showing Championship games which is not being satisfied.

My own view is that SLE/RFL have treated clubs below Super League shabbily by sequestering the vast majority of the Sky funds for Super League and by negotiating a deal in which Campionship RL rights were sold either without checking whether games would be screened or in the full understanding that they would not. If it is the latter (that everyone knew rights were being sold but no games would be screened) then, again in my view, that amounts to restriction of trade.

As for there being 'a queue of networks', you're probably correct for Super League, but I do believe that Championship RL could find a new home and the rewards from that might be substantially greater than those currently on offer. However, it does require a Championship with the cohesion, courage and confidence to take a hold of its own future.

The problem with looking at the Championship viewer numbers in isolation is that they don't necessarily make the business case for Sky showing more of the Championship. Many of those viewers may simply be channel-hoppers who landed on a bit of RL, or people who subscribed for Super League content. Whilst you can apportion the viewing figures to argue that Championship clubs deserve that proportion of the revenue, you can't make the case that the Championship clubs are actually generating that proportion of demand - the TV demand is disproportionately for SL content.

The real business case for showing more of the Championship for Sky is whether it would translate into more subscriptions (or whether showing less increases the number of cancelled subs). There are enough case studies to show that lower-league content doesn't necessarily translate into subscriptions both in RL (Premier Sports) and other sports (ITV Digital being a prime example). In other words, people may well be happy to watch the Championship, but are they actually willing to pay money for it? A basketball fan who subscribes to the NBA may be happy to watch BBL, but would they pay an extra subscription for it?

Re: Channel 4 : Fri Sep 07, 2018 9:35 am  

You may be right in what you say bramleyrhino, but we will never know unless someone tries. Championship RL might ever only be a 'filler' program rather than directly a subscription generator but there are plently of new, and old, sports platforms out there who, I believe, will pay for such fillers.

By the way, a number of the programs that Championship RL beat were live RU games.

Re: Channel 4 : Fri Sep 07, 2018 10:24 am  

joultram wrote:

You may be right in what you say bramleyrhino, but we will never know unless someone tries. Championship RL might ever only be a 'filler' program rather than directly a subscription generator but there are plently of new, and old, sports platforms out there who, I believe, will pay for such fillers.

By the way, a number of the programs that Championship RL beat were live RU games.

We have tried it with Premier Sports. I don't know how many subs it generated, but their ability or willingness to pay for Championship access was evidently less that Sky's. Whether Premier decided that the business case didn't stack up or whether the RFL took Sky's dollar, I don't know.

But we can't assume that the appeal of Championship and L1 RL is greater than it is. On several weeks, number of people willing to pay to watch the Championship and League One live in total can be less than the attendance at just one Super League ground.

If the Championship can't be a subscription seller, then it needs to be an advertising puller, and RL fails miserably on that count. If we genuinely want to make RL more attractive to TV, then we need to stop the blame game and the finger pointing and instead talk about how we make the sport more attractive than it is. We are not going to get an enhanced TV deal without offering Sky, BT or anyone else some added value.

Re: Channel 4 : Fri Sep 07, 2018 11:24 am  

ricardo07 wrote:

Just announced that they are showing live the autumn RU internationals for which country......IRELAND.

Can't the powers that be make some protest. They should be supporting British sport as that is the country in which they earn their revenue.

Why can't they be persuaded to broadcast our own Rugby League Championship rather covering a foreign team.

Over to you Brian Barwick, earn your money, please.

Yet you're quite happy for NRL to be broadcast in the UK? Surely SKY should be showing Wath Brow v Siddal as that is British Sport in a Country in which they earn their revenue?

Have you ever stopped to think that a few hundred thousand, if not million people would prefer to watch Rugby Union and not Rugby League? Therefore Channel 4 are showing a product people actually want to watch. Or do you think they just sit there and think 'what shall we bang out in Autumn, tell you what forget what 90% of the UK perceive to be the better code of Rugby we will show West Wales against Coventry because some bloke in Halifax likes Rugby League'

Re: Channel 4 : Fri Sep 07, 2018 11:32 am  

Joff wrote:

Again again and again I have to keep saying this! RL has a serious image problem! No corporation wants to associate with a sport that has it's 'image' like that based on the TV dramas like the Royle Family, Shameless and Benidorm! Sorry, but that is how they see the game. Tacky, cheap and common. Open your fr*cking eyes.
Union has the image. Before any uneducated troll accuses me of being a union troll, he needs to think again. I can't stand rah rah but they are bl*dy good at marketing their sport and have done pretty well for the past 30 years!
RL in the UK has FAILED to expand it's demographic!
The attitide of the flat capper is:

No middle class
No foreigners
No women
No southerners
No educated

Nailed it.

My Southern Football or Rugby Union customers laugh at me when I invite them to RL games, even Wembley or the Grand Final. They would not make the effort to cross the road to watch a game with full hospitality and free booze. Apart from Adrian Durham not one person I know at talksport will attend a game, again that includes full hospitality at Wembley, somewhere most of them go to for any Soccer game they can get into and fill their faces for free.

Rugby League is about as far from being accepted in the South (anywhere past Doncaster) Scotland, Wales and Ireland as it has ever been. It is because of a decade of mis-management whilst some fat nice person got rich and clubs went to the wall.

It is actually heartbreaking to see.

And the answer.......'ring Eddie Hearn'

Re: Channel 4 : Fri Sep 07, 2018 4:49 pm  

Lebron James wrote:

Who would buy the rights to the championship? Any broadcaster would rather sell adverts to an audience of 100, ergo rugby unions fans than to an audience of 1000 fans, ergo rugby league fans who have no money (except toyboy29 who owns a jag of course)

Regards

King James

Why have you brought me into your petty ramblings.

Re: Channel 4 : Fri Sep 07, 2018 5:03 pm  

kobashi wrote:

FTA coverage of rugby league:
BBC England internationals
BBC Super League highlights show
BBC Rugby League World Cup
BBC Challenge Cup
.

So..... To counter what said about union being on BBC, ITV, C4 and C4....... You've come up with the BBC.....who this year will have shown 8 games.