RL doesn't even get a mention. When they say 'Rugby' they don't mean our code.
When will this happen.Sounds Good only really watch RL
I use a friend's Sky online password and pay him £5 a month for it (he pays £5 for two extra users on his Sky online and I get one and he keeps the other). I get the minute or so delay which can be irritating but can watch all the sports for a super cheap price. Totally within the Sky contract too I believe which is a bit weird.
I watch four sports on Sky. Rugby League, darts, cricket and football. I watch a bit of the Ryder Cup and maybe a Union international once a year but that's it for the other sports they show. RL and darts clashing on a Thursday is rubbish, but otherwise I generally get to see what I want. I also have a BT log in from another source to cover the football they show.
The thing is, the football is just not worth the fact that it's taking up 90%+ of the subscription cost and they've reached their limit with it. I get the impression people have started to realise it isn't what it's cracked up to be and viewing figures this year have dropped. Not only that, but Sky have lost the European matches, which are not only the best matches they had but also cover them on Tues-Wed nights when nothing else is on and in the past few years they've even had Man Utd/Liverpool games with massive viewing figures on Thursdays they've stopped showing. The English sides have been rubbish in Europe now for half a decade and show no sign of improving, so you're not even watching a particularly strong league for the money.
So why would people buy Sky Sports at an inflated price from this summer? If it's going up by a significant amount as suggested in that article, to watch a football league that isn't even that strong having lost the premier club competition for that sport, a sport in F1 which is far too often one-sided, cricket when there's no home Ashes and no World Cup for another two years... what are you paying for exactly?
£18 for RL, Rugby Union and darts on this variety channel (assuming RL will move back to Monday nights as they won't switch darts) is hardly value when you know for a fact Sky are paying peanuts for those sports an' all.
Also Rugby League-wise they lost the NRL/Origin games which was really poor and sped up my Dad can cancelling Sky as he 'only bought it for the RL' and watched the football purely because he paid for it and regularly fell asleep watching it. As it happens he struggles to sleep so the Premier League was the most effective medicine he found.
If Sky offered a RL contract for £120 a year for all RL including NRL or even £150 with the promise of video refs at non-TV games, I'd be in. Otherwise, I'll stick to the streams
Thought it was going to read Chuckle Brothers are sacked, they make the sport a complete Joke! how they love forwards bashing into each other, there should be 2 only in live commentary, they trip over each other, watch how Union do it and they sound good on Sky!
If the proposition is to split the Sky Sports package into smaller packages, ie: Sky Premier League, Sky Football, Sky Cricket, Sky Golf, Sky Sports Variety, then RL will land in the 'Sky Sports Variety' section alongside stuff like NFL, WWE and netball, and this will be the cheapest. If you are someone who just watches RL then the option will probably emerge where you can just take the Sky Sports Variety pack and pay less. If however you are someone who watches several sports then you'll probably end up still taking several or indeed the lot.
The pricing structure will be important here, because Sky know they have two different markets of customers. They have a customer base that will pay the top rates, and for these people they will know that an extra £5-10 a month is not going to drive them away. A newly priced complete Sky Sports package that gets you everything will infact not give anyone else any more sport, but it will likely be priced higher. This will offset the other market of customers, who leave Sky or try to get discount rates because for them paying the full whack isn't worth it because they only watch certain sports. If they can retain these customers by offering (for example) just RL or cricket in a cheaper sports pack, this will make them more money, and the increase in price for the full pack will make up for those who end up paying less for a more steamlined pack.
If your analysis is right, it will be good news for me because I only watch RL.
I wasn't listening carefully but there was a piece on the new proposed cricket format on the Today Programme yesterday. Part of the discussion concerned the need for a terrestrial presence for cricket. It was acknowledged that Sky do a good job presenting the sport but its absence from terrestrial TV screens is having an adverse effect on the fan and playing base. I think that the new format will be on terrestrial TV.
Perhaps someone with a more detailed knowledge of cricket could expand on this because it has a bearing on RL. I think we have benefited from Sky money but have lost fans and potential players along the way.
I'll give it a go. The new city based T20 comp starting in 2020 will have some terrestrial live games. Probably about 8 of the 36 games will go to FTA, and more than likely BBC. The money cricket has taken from Sky has arguably done the sport a world of good in terms of infrastructure and player salaries, and England have had a decent Test team in the last decade. The ECB's argument is that Test matches get big crowds in England, the Test team is competitive and the Sky money has trickled down to the grassroots. However, the average ratings for an average day of a home Test on Sky is about 500,000, compared to millions when it was on BBC and then C4 before the switch a decade ago. A survey was done not so long ago that suggested that more kids under 15 in England knew who John Cena was than Joe Root. Compare that to Australia where every home Test match is live on FTA TV and their cricket players are household names.
The ECB are aware that their best players are not household names in the way previous names like Botham, Gower, Flintoff and Pietersen were, and that is simply because less people are watching them play on TV. So, the T20 comp is a way to...
1, give the ECB more money by having a T20 comp that gives England it's own version of the IPL or Big Bash, and...
2, if they can generate a bidding war between Sky and BT for England Test rights then they can sell off some games of this T20 comp to the BBC and not lose out financially. They want the game to be on terrestrial in some form, and want prime time 3 hour games in the Summer holidays to get kids interested in the game. Whether this comp does the trick who knows?
I don't think it has many ramifications for RL though to be honest. We already have England's 2017 RLWC games and the entire 2021 RLWC on the BBC and already have the Challenge Cup live on the BBC until 2020. That is significant FTA coverage really, and allows big club and international games to be played in front of the biggest potential TV audience whilst still managing to get money from Sky for Super League. I don't see that changing for the foreseeable future really. The real test is to market our sport effectively so that things like England World Cup games and the Cup Final are watched by millions and not hundreds of thousands. That's a job for the RFL.
I only watch RL and Premier League football on sky and managed to get a half price BT subscription for last few years but I'm still paying a lot.
I'm 50/50 on whether I'd keep the football on sky if this comes to fruition as they lost the Champions League with no reduction in price and I'm not bothered about the Championship or La Liga (well don't have time to watch it all anyway) but certainly don't give a bugger about Golf or Formula one, wouldn't miss Cricket really only the Ashes.
Years ago Sky once talked about PL 'season tickets ' Liverpool, Man Utd and Arsenal were mentioned where you'd pay for all home and away games for the season, I thought that may have happened. It would be even better if you could choose by sport your subscription.
The NFL has a standard subscription you buy and you get all the games. The kits are all made by the same manufacturer too at it all goes in the same pool. So Green Bay could sell 100000 shirts and San Fran 5 and the money would get split between them.
The only way NFL sides can earn more money is by selling match tickets I belive
Well, unless you are in the first year of your contract you shouldn't have to pay a year's sub for anything. The 'Golf' channel will be busy most of the year with USPGA events and the like, but if you just want to watch the Majors from April-August then just add the Golf channel for 5 months then give your 30 days notice and cancel.
You are right about the conflict between the T20 and the Test team, because much like the Big Bash in Australia it won't feature Test players if they are scheduled at the same time. That really does put a huge spanner in the works if the plan is to make the big names into household names. Or, maybe it's just designed to get kids watching (and therefore wanting to play) cricket at times that are convenient for them.
Correct, and this is why the NFL works. The Premier League also works because it is effectively run by the 20 clubs, and so the Big 6 cannot outvote the other 14 at any given time. The PL are aware that it's strength is the complete brand and having an element of surprise that leagues like La Liga and Serie A lack because the big clubs have too much power and an unequal share of the revenue.
Liverpool are the perfect example. Klopp builds a style of play designed to beat the other top teams, and in a short space of time it has worked brilliantly. In any other league in Europe that would be the main thing a coach had to do. In England it is merely 12-14 games out of 38, and if you can't adapt to consistently beat the competitive but less talented teams you'll win nothing. I'm not sure coaches like he or Guardiola really envisioned how tough it would be to rack up points in the less glamourous games, because in Spain and Germany if you're good enough to beat the teams around you it means you're easily good enough to destroy the teams below you.
This is probably venturing into O/T mode to be honest. I shall move it to the O/T board in a bit unless it morphs back into RL chat.
Those Grand Slam Sundays were indeed scheduled to suit Sky. Since BT came along those weekends have disappeared because the PL has to spread the big games around in order for BT to grab enough of them. I don't think there has been a single weekend in the 4 years BT have been around that has been a Grand Slam weekend, yet beforehand they were every season.
I think the PL is the best in the World at being competitive, but that is because of the structure of how it is financed. Spain is probably the best league in terms of quality of football and having the best 'top end' but I don't ever want the PL to become so top heavy and bottom light in terms of the predictability of it all. It's Catch 22 though. Do we want a league were the money is spread around, with 6 or 7 teams competing for Top 4 and a bottom half full of teams that can on any given day beat the big sides, but were our best teams maybe aren't good enough to win the CL? Or do we want a more top heavy league were the same 3 teams compete for the league but those 3 (mainly 2) teams have a stranglehold on the genuinely world class players and are there or thereabouts every year when the CL gets to the business end? It's a constant debate.
This is defo O/T now.