Re: Backchat : Thu Aug 01, 2013 10:40 am  

Why would Sky reduce their funding? They pay exactly what they need to pay to ensure they have a pro comp that they can televise.

Re: Backchat : Thu Aug 01, 2013 8:21 pm  

nadera78 wrote:

Why would Sky reduce their funding? They pay exactly what they need to pay to ensure they have a pro comp that they can televise.

Sky may see the 20 million they spend on RL better spent elsewhere.....DARTS is kicking the poop of RL ratings wise......Cricket in all 3 formats, the Lions Tour with AM kick offs, Boxing and WWE wrestling have all delivered higher ratings this summer.....SKY TV's money is not a given.
In NZ SKYTV lost the rights to English soccer...they made noises about being upset about it, but in reality, the KO times meant that soccer never made a dent into TV ratings.......if RL continues to produce fewer viewers, I wouldn't bank on SKY being prepared to continue to prop the game up...

Re: Backchat : Thu Aug 01, 2013 10:27 pm  

The new deal, that kicked in last season, saw a substantial rise in fees despite the doomsayers talking it down. Also, Sky have lost club union to BT Sport, so they're already down on live sport. They need RL, just like RL needs Sky. The next deal may stagnate in terms of price, but it won't fall and Sky won't walk away. And besides, having dumped 4 clubs the remainder can afford to see the price stagnate as they'll be getting an extra 1/2million anyway.

Re: Backchat : Thu Aug 01, 2013 11:07 pm  

nadera78 wrote:

The new deal, that kicked in last season, saw a substantial rise in fees despite the doomsayers talking it down. Also, Sky have lost club union to BT Sport, so they're already down on live sport. They need RL, just like RL needs Sky. The next deal may stagnate in terms of price, but it won't fall and Sky won't walk away. And besides, having dumped 4 clubs the remainder can afford to see the price stagnate as they'll be getting an extra 1/2million anyway.

1. The extra revenue to the rest.....SL2 as the plan stands would be on 4.4 million a year, SL1 15.6...with the third tier on another million......so that's 21 million a year out of a kitty of 19 million....there will be no extra cash.

2. Sky are that into RL that they told IMG they weren't willing to pay decent wedge for the RFLWC.....they have binned the NRL and SoO and are having their content eroded by the activities of BT.
If BT are still in the Premiership TV rights game next time around, then SKY may well need every brass farthing they have to fight them of, together with any new "on-line" operators who pop up between now and then. The Soccer TV rights deal next time will be negotiated at the same time the SL rights are...70 odd games of RL at an average of 115,000 viewers is about 8 million set of eyeballs each year.....or 7 Premiership games. Believe me, if SKY have to fight for the Soccer, then RL may well suffer....SKY have already spent extra cash on the championship by sponsoring it....if their cash resources are stretched, League will be one of the first to suffer.

Not doomsaying by the way, just pointing out that the Current RL TV deal may well be the ceiling and if so, then further sacrifices may need to be made.

Re: Backchat : Fri Aug 02, 2013 7:54 am  

Couldn't agree more with the above. As I mentioned previously in another thread, in the last 5 or so years we've seen the demise on Sky of -
1) NRL
2) State of Origin
3) The Varsity match
4) The Thursday evening Championship game and
5) The World Cup!!!

Then there was the introduction of the Monday evening game to compete head-on with EastEnders, Coronation Street and, at the time, BGT.
We now see the movement of SL games to another mid-week time slot which can only be designed to cause farther domestic conflict and thus reduce viewing figures even more. (We all know who's likely to win 'domestic conflict')
Is the above the actions of a company that still sees a future in RL?

Re: Backchat : Fri Aug 02, 2013 8:21 am  

Sky have no allegiance to us as a sport, if we were so attractive why did BT not look at RL. Changing the day of games like last night, seems to sum up the the way they look at us as a game, BBC are not better, No broadcaster would do it with Union.

Re: Backchat : Fri Aug 02, 2013 9:20 am  

gutterfax wrote:

1. The extra revenue to the rest.....SL2 as the plan stands would be on 4.4 million a year, SL1 15.6...with the third tier on another million......so that's 21 million a year out of a kitty of 19 million....there will be no extra cash.

2. Sky are that into RL that they told IMG they weren't willing to pay decent wedge for the RFLWC.....they have binned the NRL and SoO and are having their content eroded by the activities of BT.
If BT are still in the Premiership TV rights game next time around, then SKY may well need every brass farthing they have to fight them of, together with any new "on-line" operators who pop up between now and then. The Soccer TV rights deal next time will be negotiated at the same time the SL rights are...70 odd games of RL at an average of 115,000 viewers is about 8 million set of eyeballs each year.....or 7 Premiership games. Believe me, if SKY have to fight for the Soccer, then RL may well suffer....SKY have already spent extra cash on the championship by sponsoring it....if their cash resources are stretched, League will be one of the first to suffer.

Not doomsaying by the way, just pointing out that the Current RL TV deal may well be the ceiling and if so, then further sacrifices may need to be made.

1) I wasn't talking about the RFLs new structure, I was thinking aloud about what may replace it in a couple of years time. Clear as day that the changes won't improve anything and, in some cases, will actually be detrimental to the sport. That's why I think the big cubs will sideline the RFL and take control of SL in 2 or 3 years time.

2) At worst, the price paid will stagnate for the next contract.

Re: Backchat : Fri Aug 02, 2013 10:11 am  

A couple of things:

The RFL stated on twitter during the forum about re-structure that the revenue from Sky is due to increase over the next few years. No figures were stated.

Also there's 2 ways of looking at the movement of games, Monday night's in particular I think should be viewed as a positive as they seemingly consider RL to be the next down from football on the ladder.

Re: Backchat : Fri Aug 02, 2013 11:01 am  

richie166 wrote:

A couple of things:

The RFL stated on twitter during the forum about re-structure that the revenue from Sky is due to increase over the next few years. No figures were stated.

The TV deal is done...there were no incremental payments mentioned, it was 19 mill a year over 5 years...full stop! Either The RFL are lying ot they forgot to have a press release about an improved deal.....hardly likely given their recent list of failings...if they'd got a better deal they'd have told us!

richie166 wrote:

Also there's 2 ways of looking at the movement of games, Monday night's in particular I think should be viewed as a positive as they seemingly consider RL to be the next down from football on the ladder.

viewing figures for this years newly moved schedules are the only indicator as to what's working. RL got bounced to make way for the other stuff they had to show at weekends....

Re: Backchat : Fri Aug 02, 2013 11:35 am  

I was just saying what I read - https://twitter.com/TheRFL/status/362306401378385921

I was just saying what I read - https://twitter.com/TheRFL/status/362306401378385921