one of the best post i have ever seen on here!
(2 refs for next season i believe)
in reply to a post by upside.(forgot to quote)
one of the best post i have ever seen on here!
(2 refs for next season i believe)
in reply to a post by upside.(forgot to quote)
Last edited by Delighted!; 20th February 2019 at 10:50. Reason: forgot to quote
Your quite right that was my typo error sorry, I was rushing out to a meeting when I typed it,
People may feel with the problems with the Crusaders The RFL should tread carefully, but there are many clubs with serious problems, only yesterday Widnes announced they have not been able to pay their staff this week with the sale of the club falling through? As I said yesterday why send out someone to access the club in detail, receive his complete recommendation and then choose to ignore it, sums up the way the RFL is being run sadly.
They made a business decision a few years back to focus on a core set of big sports rights that they knew kept certain important groups of subscribers on board.
Premier League, EFL, England cricket, F1 and Golf attract distinct sets of subscribers, and has meant they didn't go all out for Champions League, Spanish football etc as they knew they wouldn't lose football fans if they had PL and EFL.
What we don't know is if Sky regard the up to 300k or so RL fans who watch games as a distinct group who will ditch Sky if they lose the rights. Given that we and cricket are the two major sports in their summer schedules I fancy we are worth a bit to them merely because of the timing of the season. So I doubt they actively want to lose us. But whether they offer what we think we are worth post 2021 is another thing.
I agree and think you've got it spot on. I think losing the Champions league has damaged SKY and I agree that golf, F1, cricket and SL are the highlights of the slim summer pickings for them. I really feel that if they invested in SL in a constructive way, it would pay greater dividends for them. There's no weekly magazine show, no in depth "behind the scenes" looks at clubs, bar the match days there's absolutely sod all on about SL. Then there's the likes of Angela Powers gurning her stumbling way through interviews without a hint of professionalism. How is it SKY can find attractive and informative ladies to talk about other sports but we get Angela? It's a recipe for disaster. Now I'm not saying fans turn off because of SKYs presentation, of course we don't we're FANS! But SKY need to bring in folk who aren't fans and make them fans, that's the problem. They're constantly underselling their product to its and their detriment. Look at how much build up F1 gets, days of it, literally, then on actual race day the show's on for hour before the race! C'mon SKY, you've got an excellent product, get behind it!
Sky Sports is a bit of a farce at the moment with the amount of live sport being shown. The launching of new channels before immediately losing important competitions (Champions League, away Ashes series to BT, PGA Championship to bbc/eleven sports and La Liga) had left them a bit red faced and has left 8 channels worth of repeats with the odd live event thrown in. They have nowhere near the amount of sport to justify all these channels yet still manage to hide RL away in the middle of it all.
There was barely no mention of RL in the run up to the new season, The preview of the new season was done in an hour before our game with Wigan kicked off and only the Wigan v Roosters game has been on Sky Sports main event. Why with all the hours that Sky have available to them they couldn't they have a stand alone season preview show in the week before the games? For all the sport SKY are losing its hardly like they are backing RL to the hilt which suggests to me they aren't arsed about it.
Theres no magazine show, the highlights show (if its still on) is crap and whats happened to superleague supermen? The discussion show with Stevo and Rod Studd (can't remember the name of it) was axed. Sky Sports News coverage is minimal.
The last time SKY properly backed RL were the Monday night games. Games were advertised as a summer replacement for MNF, there was a big promo push, commentaries were changed to ensure that the rules were explained and it didn't last very long.
Come bidding season I just can't see SKY being that interested.
Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk
The problem we have is the length of the contract signed between Sky and the RFL. The extension to the deal was signed in Jan 2014 to take the Sky deal up until the end of the 2021 season. When stuff like that happens you are faced with two obvious consequences.
1. Sky knew at that stage that they could do as they wished, knowing that they didn't need to worry about any competition for years, meaning that they were not faced with any need to up their game because the next rights deal was far off in the distance. When that extension was signed they knew they had 7 seasons of RL tied up, which was too many IMO.
2. Anybody else who may have wished to have a go at challenging Sky wiped Super League off their medium-term plans in 2014 after that deal was signed, because Sky had it locked up for 7 years. BT signed an extension of their RU deal (coincidently to expire in 2021) the year after Sky locked RL up, and probably haven't given RL a seconds thought. Anybody else tempted by acquiring the rights looked at the 7 year deal and forgot about it. And in the intervening period Netflix has grown massively and has no need for it, and Amazon dipped their toes into PL rights from next season. We got left behind, because the deal signed in 2014 allowed Sky to put their feet up, and told everyone else not to even bother looking.
Difficult to disagree Gray 77 but just for a bit of balance, almost all SL clubs wanted a money guarantee from the RFL and voted to instruct them to do so, five year plans were being mentioned as a minimum for forward planning and instruction was given along them lines. Hindsight is a great thing, no one can predict the future and see how the other broadcasters would prosper/fail.
Do I personally think the the extension was too long, yes, and I agree with every point you make but this was signed when Europe was in recession and the Licensing fiasco was still fresh in most people`s mind.
We need a visionary in charge at the RFL someone with the guile of a Jewish accountant, the nous of an American criminal lawyer, who was once a member of the Mafia catholic cleric counsel in Rome, looks as well as Scully and speaks like Carney.
Angela Powers is awful at her job, not because of the way she looks but because the questions she asks are often factually incorrect or are dull questions.
St Helens Rugby League Football Club
Yeah, I don't disagree that back in 2014 having a guaranteed income stream for 7 years must have been welcome.
But I seem to remember that it was painted as a 'take it or leave it' extension from Sky, with very little time offered for proper negotiation or internal debate. Now, we will never know if it really was 'take it or leave it'. Where Sky serious or did they simply see the RFL as a governing body with little ability or talent for self promotion and thought they could get them to sign off on a long term deal for a relatively small amount to Sky?
The deal was around £182m for 5 years, with another £18m paid going to coaching and charitable stuff. So, £200m give or take. Each club gets £1.825m annually, which takes care of most of the salary cap. On paper it was a great deal. The clubs got their wage bills cleared with TV money, the game got extra cash for coaching and that money was guaranteed through 2021. I've no issue with the clubs (some of whom were teetering) saying yes to that offer, especially when the RFL gave them the caveat that Sky wanted a quick answer.
I also look at the BT RU contract which is reportedly worth £200m over 6 seasons*, and in contrast the Sky deal looks pretty good. So, I have no issue with the value of the deal, more the length of it really.
*Premiership clubs BTW reckon that £200m deal will be blown out of the water in the next contract round for 2021 and beyond, so we will see if the RFL can get an increase as well. The RFU also have a deal with C5 for live games, which we should seriously look at replicating. BT had to allow those FTA live games to be offered, and C5 seem to be able to pick the 5 games that they want. We should use that as an example of joined up thinking, whereby the pay company gets the bulk of the rights but a FTA station gets a handful of games. Having (for example) Saints v Wigan on Good Friday, a couple of big Friday night games and a couple of end of season games live FTA would be great for the sport.
Last edited by Gray77; 21st February 2019 at 15:25.
Oh my God, what nonsense. It's called entertainment you PC misandrist! Can you imagine the NFL parading a bunch of overweight 50 somethings as the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders? How many unattractive female TV presenters can you think of? We're in the entertainment industry, not the PC department of the Womens Party. I'm all for a meritocracy personally, but that's not how the world works mate. Have you just arrived form another planet?
I'm sorry I can't remember her name but there was a female that used to introduce the rugby when premier sports used to show the championship matches seem to remember she was good
They are both entertainers. I'm sick of you "holier than thou" buffoons. What's wrong with an attractive woman fronting the sport? That's my question? If they are clued up and attractive, what's the problem? Incidentally are you suggesting that cheerleaders couldn't be journalists, if so, why? Are you suggesting that because they're attractive women, they're stupid? Look at the attractive women SKY and the BBC have as presenters for the Premier League and other sports. Doubtless all qualified in their respective fields. What is wrong with attractive people per se? What sells at the box office? Attractive people who are good at their chosen profession. From Chris Hemsworth to Nicole Kidman, it's the way entertainment works you idiots. I used the example of cheerleaders, not to compare jobs with journalists but to illustrate the fact that they are part of the entertainment industry and like it or not looks matter. it's just a fact of life! I don't have to like it, that's just the way it is. No wonder the game can't move forward if people want us to act as if we live in a parallel PC universe. Be honest with yourselves. look at newsreaders and presenters, look at their teeth for example, how many everyday people do you see with pearly whites like those on TV? Wise up. You really remind me of all those footballers who have "respect" on their sleeves, cheating and being totally disrespectful to officials, complete hypocrisy. Welcome back Stephen I've missed you.
Nothing to do with how she looks, she's just terrible as a presenter. And without being an oil painting myself either, Claire Balding was really accepted and loved because of her knowledge and enthusiasm over her Rugby League coverage, despite having no connection whatsoever to the sport
If posters care to look at my original comments on this (yesterday 22.03), they'll see the main criticism I levelled at Powers was her lack of professionalism, gurning away as she stumbled through interviews, totally unprofessional. I then asked why other SKY sports get attractive presenters and we get Powers. As anyone can see (except for the PC thought police) my main objection to Powers is her unprofessionalism. Having an attractive presenter is not a hinderance (as long as they're competent, obviously.) I wasn't criticising Powers for her looks, but her delivery. Please read what I type before crying witch,witch and sending out the PC mob with their burning torches. As someone who is not a looker, I can sympathise with the majority of folk, doesn't mean I think we should all drag ourselves down to the lowest common denominator and shuffle around in dungarees.
Yeah the BT deal was more flexible and financially better than our Sky offering. Are you saying our RFL chiefs lacked negotiation skills at that time?
The free to air games are interesting and does that include the Heineken Cup? The reason I ask is because over here the national broadcaster shows both Leinster and Munster matches of that comp. Is that the same as the BBC showing CC? The Pro14 is on Premier Sports yet some of those two`s matches are also shown on the national broadcaster channel.
Last edited by Tallaght Tiger; 21st February 2019 at 17:27.
I don’t know if local radio has any women who commentate on RL games. But the BBC have a couple of lady commentators for the football on national radio and they are appalling. Whenever they commentate at a game on MOTD i have to mute the TV.
Angela Powers is an embarrassment to RL and a totally incompetent presenter/interviewer, who shouldn't be allowed in the same postcode as a TV camera. When she's on though, it's must watch viewing, purely for those reasons, just waiting for the next stupid question or one that has no relevance to the English language. The shameful fact is though that Sky seem happy with this level of amateurism and have done nothing to improve it. All of which says, to me, they don't really care and are happy to present RL in this amateurish, cheap, its-a-knockout style. Sure, they show lots of games, but to present them the way they do just makes the game lack any sense of credibility I'm afraid.
"Never write off the Saints!!"