Chapel House Motor Company Limited Advertising Banner
Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 2345678 LastLast
Results 126 to 150 of 188

Thread: Potential new Sky TV deal

  1. #126
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    1,105
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Interesting and to be fair private conversation I have had. SKY had huge concerns how the RFL where administrating the game and by effect the SKY funding. The SL body and indeed appointment of Elstone was driven by the Broadcaster and led to a certain RFL controlling mind given a compromise agreement. I was apoplectic about the Bulls and the person behind them being allowed back in. The RFL whilst represented did not have the influence to let the Bulls back in. It was never happening despite the noise and support from Yorkshire.

    It seems the clubs have a big decision to make. Get the 20 Million to 25 Million which they will or take back control under the RFL. Not great options it would seem. It may end with a streamlined league of 12 over a 3 year period with promotion/relegation not a given if facilities are sub standard.

  2. #127
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk Belgian Saint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    11,188
    Rep Power
    32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyprus View Post
    Interesting and to be fair private conversation I have had. SKY had huge concerns how the RFL where administrating the game and by effect the SKY funding. The SL body and indeed appointment of Elstone was driven by the Broadcaster and led to a certain RFL controlling mind given a compromise agreement. I was apoplectic about the Bulls and the person behind them being allowed back in. The RFL whilst represented did not have the influence to let the Bulls back in. It was never happening despite the noise and support from Yorkshire.

    It seems the clubs have a big decision to make. Get the 20 Million to 25 Million which they will or take back control under the RFL. Not great options it would seem. It may end with a streamlined league of 12 over a 3 year period with promotion/relegation not a given if facilities are sub standard.
    Even if he could fit, he shouldn't be allowed through a RL turnstile: unless he was paying, and there is no chance of that.

  3. #128
    Learning All The Songs
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,487
    Rep Power
    19

    Default

    Here's a fact that puts it into perspective.... For the Grand Final, Sky couldn't sell all the advertising opportunities at half time. They had to pad it out with internal Sky adverts for their own broadcast sports products. That showed them the value of our sport to the general market.
    If you have it recorded you can go and check if you like.

  4. #129
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    1,105
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    That may be so. However they have devalued our product in tandem with our Governing bodies. I watch it with radio commentary, its that bad. They should walk away themselves if they don't want RL, they are not a charity.

  5. #130
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    4,739
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyprus View Post
    That may be so. However they have devalued our product in tandem with our Governing bodies. I watch it with radio commentary, its that bad. They should walk away themselves if they don't want RL, they are not a charity.
    That's the thing though, they do want it, they want to control, manipulate and own the game. What they don't want is to throw any money they don't have to at it, in any shape or form. And right now, they really don't have to throw much our way. As you rightly say, we've been devalued to the point we're worth peanuts. The Yorkshire mafia have a lot to answer for in that regard.

  6. #131
    Learning All The Songs sinkers89's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Age
    34
    Posts
    1,297
    Rep Power
    10

    Default

    Another key issue when it comes to sponsorship and people investing their money. They want stability.

    Super League seems to lurch from season to season with something different each year.
    Will they have enough teams,
    Will they / wont they have relegation
    6 teams in the play offs, 4 teams in the play offs, 8 teams in the play off, million pound games.

  7. #132
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    4,739
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sinkers89 View Post
    Another key issue when it comes to sponsorship and people investing their money. They want stability.

    Super League seems to lurch from season to season with something different each year.
    Will they have enough teams,
    Will they / wont they have relegation
    6 teams in the play offs, 4 teams in the play offs, 8 teams in the play off, million pound games.
    Another very good point.

  8. #133
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    N-L-W
    Posts
    606
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angry Dave View Post
    That's the thing though, they do want it, they want to control, manipulate and own the game. What they don't want is to throw any money they don't have to at it, in any shape or form. And right now, they really don't have to throw much our way. As you rightly say, we've been devalued to the point we're worth peanuts. The Yorkshire mafia have a lot to answer for in that regard.
    Apart from the premier league Sky haven’t thrown any money at anything for quite a while now. Think about all the sports they’ve lost over the last 5 years. They seem to be on their arse or have thrown all their budget into the PL.

    As everyone has said, if the game had been ran properly over the last 10 years we’d be in a stronger position to proposition BT etc to drive up the TV money. We only have ourselves to blame for the dire position we’re in now and Sky know that they can take the p**s because no one else is interested.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  9. #134
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Macclesfield
    Age
    46
    Posts
    8,428
    Rep Power
    33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by undertheradar View Post
    Apart from the premier league Sky haven’t thrown any money at anything for quite a while now. Think about all the sports they’ve lost over the last 5 years. They seem to be on their arse or have thrown all their budget into the PL.

    As everyone has said, if the game had been ran properly over the last 10 years we’d be in a stronger position to proposition BT etc to drive up the TV money. We only have ourselves to blame for the dire position we’re in now and Sky know that they can take the p**s because no one else is interested.
    I think they came to the conclusion a few years ago that they would face more competition for sports rights and therefore made more of an attempt to start making their own tv shows for Sky One and Sky Atlantic, and also try to prioritise the sports that they felt would keep subscribers. Premier League is of course the top priority, and they then worked out that they didn't need to go mad bidding daft money for Champions League because they wouldn't lose any football fans as a result of losing the CL. The other three priorities as far as I can see have been England cricket, Formula One and Golf majors. Cricket because it's obviously the big sport of the summer (and more important to them from May-Sept than RL I would argue) whereas F1 and big golf tournaments attract what they see as a different kind of subscriber who attract big advertisers. The current deal for the Open (for example) is around £15m a year for 4 days of live golf, which is amazing when you think what they're offering us for 90 live games of RL per year.

    We've been screwed, and we are badly managed. We have allowed ourselves to become the followers and not the leaders in these tv negotiations. Sky went to the PL, F1, the ECB, the R&A with bids that they hoped would be accepted, knowing they had to pay good amounts for prestigious contracts. All the power lay with the organising bodies. With Super League we seem to take what we can get, seemingly thinking we're lucky to get an offer from a prestigious sports broadcaster. It's the wrong way around, but we are where we are.

  10. #135
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    1,105
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    I wonder if they had their time over again if the three big clubs this side of the Pennines would have gone for Wood much earlier. He knew how to play the game no doubt about it, and kept Leeds very much on side, whilst warning the smaller clubs about being cast aside without the RFL staying as it was and basically stagnating.

  11. #136
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Macclesfield
    Age
    46
    Posts
    8,428
    Rep Power
    33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyprus View Post
    I wonder if they had their time over again if the three big clubs this side of the Pennines would have gone for Wood much earlier. He knew how to play the game no doubt about it, and kept Leeds very much on side, whilst warning the smaller clubs about being cast aside without the RFL staying as it was and basically stagnating.
    It’s always bothered me that we seem to have a few very smart owners in the league but they’ve seemingly done little to eradicate the mediocrity that runs the sport. I’d love 30 minutes of McManus’s time to ask him what his real thoughts are on the business decisions in the sport and whether he’s fought against the Hetherington led narrative or just accepted it.

    I’d also like 30 minutes with Elstone to ask him...
    - why SL is the only top division of a well supported league in this country that changes its structure every few years,
    - why SL is the only top division that doesn’t have a proper national weekend free to air highlights show,
    - why SL is the only top division that has allowed its broadcast partner to take advantage of empty grounds to slap its logo and its social messages front and centre in 2020 free of charge,
    - why Sky have been allowed to bag a new contract for peanuts when BT were interested,
    - why Leigh were given the 12th spot instead of giving it to Toulouse with a 3 year Catalans style relegation exemption,

    etc, etc.

  12. #137
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Wilts
    Posts
    5,346
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gray77 View Post
    It’s always bothered me that we seem to have a few very smart owners in the league but they’ve seemingly done little to eradicate the mediocrity that runs the sport. I’d love 30 minutes of McManus’s time to ask him what his real thoughts are on the business decisions in the sport and whether he’s fought against the Hetherington led narrative or just accepted it.

    I’d also like 30 minutes with Elstone to ask him...
    - why SL is the only top division of a well supported league in this country that changes its structure every few years,
    - why SL is the only top division that doesn’t have a proper national weekend free to air highlights show,
    - why SL is the only top division that has allowed its broadcast partner to take advantage of empty grounds to slap its logo and its social messages front and centre in 2020 free of charge,
    - why Sky have been allowed to bag a new contract for peanuts when BT were interested,
    - why Leigh were given the 12th spot instead of giving it to Toulouse with a 3 year Catalans style relegation exemption,

    etc, etc.
    I mentioned McManus' thoughts a few time in the thread because:
    1. He is an example of a credible leader in the sport and is a stakeholder with much more direct links to the game's administrators so was curious to his thoughts.
    2. Exasperation that the more things change, the more they stay the same - the decisions taken by the sport's leaders are questionable to say the least and the direction of the sport at this point is very much uncertain at best.

    I made the point that the sport is run like a newsagent across almost all levels with a "just take t' money" attitude that does more harm then good.

    For example SKY offered a big cheque book in the past but have decisions to allow the Challenge Cup to be run into the ground done our game much good? What exactly does the 'Magic Weekend' offer? Why are we so craven of confidence that the format of the League must change like an 'its a knockout' contest every year (can anyone not see how damaging this is)? Why do clubs take a few grand from various small business to transform the playing strip into a walking billboard when they appear unaware of their own brand significance and the damage their athletes turning out in a billboard of vapor fags, bingo, mini mart, local taxi rank and skip hire does to it as a result?

    These are all examples that feed into your point. Its pointless being backed into a corner by SKY as always happens because of the tunnel vision and self interest of others. The sport needs to be more strategic in its decision making but blend that with more pragmatic views. Toronto was never going to fly because we aren't a sport that has reached that level of growth yet. Would you see Cartier partnering a meeting at Chelmsford City? Ascot yes, because its congruent.

    I could go on about the total failure of the game to make sensible and well minded decisions and to be honest I think there are people on this board who are more able to succeed than no marks such as Rimmer; people with wider duties and under more daily pressure to suceed with an accompanying level of accountability.

  13. #138
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    4,739
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gray77 View Post
    I think they came to the conclusion a few years ago that they would face more competition for sports rights and therefore made more of an attempt to start making their own tv shows for Sky One and Sky Atlantic, and also try to prioritise the sports that they felt would keep subscribers. Premier League is of course the top priority, and they then worked out that they didn't need to go mad bidding daft money for Champions League because they wouldn't lose any football fans as a result of losing the CL. The other three priorities as far as I can see have been England cricket, Formula One and Golf majors. Cricket because it's obviously the big sport of the summer (and more important to them from May-Sept than RL I would argue) whereas F1 and big golf tournaments attract what they see as a different kind of subscriber who attract big advertisers. The current deal for the Open (for example) is around £15m a year for 4 days of live golf, which is amazing when you think what they're offering us for 90 live games of RL per year.

    We've been screwed, and we are badly managed. We have allowed ourselves to become the followers and not the leaders in these tv negotiations. Sky went to the PL, F1, the ECB, the R&A with bids that they hoped would be accepted, knowing they had to pay good amounts for prestigious contracts. All the power lay with the organising bodies. With Super League we seem to take what we can get, seemingly thinking we're lucky to get an offer from a prestigious sports broadcaster. It's the wrong way around, but we are where we are.
    Yep, I can't disagree with that. As you rightly say, they seem to have thrown money at specific sports. F1, I understand (even though I'd rather brush my teeth with a wire brush), Golf, yeah, global sport and they do a great job of the coverage, but Cricket? wtf? I don't mind watching England for an hour or 2 but couldn't care less about the county game, that's not to say others don't care but I suspect they a very small minority yet it has it's own channel. Talking about dedicated channels, NFL, and I know a few on here like it but no way on this earth is that garbage more popular in the UK than RL never mind both codes combined.

  14. #139
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Macclesfield
    Age
    46
    Posts
    8,428
    Rep Power
    33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angry Dave View Post
    Yep, I can't disagree with that. As you rightly say, they seem to have thrown money at specific sports. F1, I understand (even though I'd rather brush my teeth with a wire brush), Golf, yeah, global sport and they do a great job of the coverage, but Cricket? wtf? I don't mind watching England for an hour or 2 but couldn't care less about the county game, that's not to say others don't care but I suspect they a very small minority yet it has it's own channel. Talking about dedicated channels, NFL, and I know a few on here like it but no way on this earth is that garbage more popular in the UK than RL never mind both codes combined.
    You're not wrong in terms of how many watch NFL or county cricket, but really the cricket channel was set up to cover the 2019 World Cup, England games and (they hoped) the Hundred which should have started last summer. Most of it is filler outside of an England winter tour or the summer months, but having the England contract is big for them as the test team is still a big deal to some extent.

    The NFL gets mediocre ratings but the contract is for peanuts and it fills a huge amount of time because the NFL has its own 24/7 in-house network that Sky show during the week, and then five live games per weekend takes up 20-25 hours or more on the schedule. Given that the costs are next to nothing, the production, camera work, commentators etc are already provided by the US networks, all Sky had to do was pony up a bit of cash and they get wall to wall sport on one channel for six months a year with hardly any effort needed.

    I don't for a second believe that Sky value the NFL more highly than RL, but they have enough content from the US to stick it on its own channel, whereas to have a dedicated RL channel would mean them having to do alot of their own work and making alot of their own shows from Mon-Thu outside of the live games, which as we've seen they've no desire to do. We used to have Boots N All and Backchat, both cheap as chips to make, both axed.

  15. #140
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    4,739
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gray77 View Post
    You're not wrong in terms of how many watch NFL or county cricket, but really the cricket channel was set up to cover the 2019 World Cup, England games and (they hoped) the Hundred which should have started last summer. Most of it is filler outside of an England winter tour or the summer months, but having the England contract is big for them as the test team is still a big deal to some extent.

    The NFL gets mediocre ratings but the contract is for peanuts and it fills a huge amount of time because the NFL has its own 24/7 in-house network that Sky show during the week, and then five live games per weekend takes up 20-25 hours or more on the schedule. Given that the costs are next to nothing, the production, camera work, commentators etc are already provided by the US networks, all Sky had to do was pony up a bit of cash and they get wall to wall sport on one channel for six months a year with hardly any effort needed.

    I don't for a second believe that Sky value the NFL more highly than RL, but they have enough content from the US to stick it on its own channel, whereas to have a dedicated RL channel would mean them having to do alot of their own work and making alot of their own shows from Mon-Thu outside of the live games, which as we've seen they've no desire to do. We used to have Boots N All and Backchat, both cheap as chips to make, both axed.
    Fair point, I see what you mean regarding cost of content. I was meaning a dedicated Rugby channel for both codes but no doubt we'd get the shitty end of that stick too.

    So I guess it's fair to ask in that case, where do we go from here? The game is on it's arse financially, everything we've tried to improve things has either not worked or made things worse for one reason or another. People on the outside either don't want to know or look down their noses at us, it doesn't seem like we have much going for us.

  16. #141
    In The South Stand Noel Cleal's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,471
    Rep Power
    21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angry Dave View Post
    Yep, I can't disagree with that. As you rightly say, they seem to have thrown money at specific sports. F1, I understand (even though I'd rather brush my teeth with a wire brush), Golf, yeah, global sport and they do a great job of the coverage, but Cricket? wtf? I don't mind watching England for an hour or 2 but couldn't care less about the county game, that's not to say others don't care but I suspect they a very small minority yet it has it's own channel. Talking about dedicated channels, NFL, and I know a few on here like it but no way on this earth is that garbage more popular in the UK than RL never mind both codes combined.
    As others have said, the NFL is about content. They have a lot of highlight shows and documentaries that fill up tv time. Each match lasts about 3 hours and can make up a reasonable hour in highlights. Plus there are 16 games a week all professionally televised.

    The frustration with NFL and Rugby League is that the two sports have similar appeals and have opposite seasons. The NFL starts the week after the Grand Final and Super League tends to start just after the Super Bowl. You feel a smart marketing person could take advantage of this.

    The biggest opportunity that is passing us by now seems to be Amazon Prime Video. I have been a broken record over this to anyone that will listen to me but the reason Sky are not chucking money at any sports is they are a few short years from Sky Boxes being chucked into the skip along with CD players and VHS recorders. They can see the wind is turning so they are being conservative. Murdock has cashed out of Sky because he knows this. We should be aiming at an online broadcaster, which is why Elstones "there is no benefit in North America" comment is so bewildering. I would have thought making us a multi country sport would be a great attraction to an online broadcaster. But the people running our game think Sky with we around forever to prop up the game.
    I could agree with you but then we would both be wrong.

  17. #142
    Learning All The Songs barry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Ashton in Makerfield
    Posts
    1,517
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angry Dave View Post
    Yep, I can't disagree with that. As you rightly say, they seem to have thrown money at specific sports. F1, I understand (even though I'd rather brush my teeth with a wire brush), Golf, yeah, global sport and they do a great job of the coverage, but Cricket? wtf? I don't mind watching England for an hour or 2 but couldn't care less about the county game, that's not to say others don't care but I suspect they a very small minority yet it has it's own channel. Talking about dedicated channels, NFL, and I know a few on here like it but no way on this earth is that garbage more popular in the UK than RL never mind both codes combined.
    Others have mentioned the NFL but it is the same for the golf as well and some of the Cricket. All the Euro Tour and PGA events are hosted by different Broadcasters, Sky just pay for the rights and send their comms out (pre covid) to cover the bigger events. Easy Thursday-Sunday scheduling. The rest is just the feeds from Golf Channel/CBS shown over here. The only exceptions I assume are the Open and the Ryder Cup.

    Sent from my SM-A715F using Tapatalk

  18. #143
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk Belgian Saint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    11,188
    Rep Power
    32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angry Dave View Post
    Fair point, I see what you mean regarding cost of content. I was meaning a dedicated Rugby channel for both codes but no doubt we'd get the shitty end of that stick too.

    So I guess it's fair to ask in that case, where do we go from here? The game is on it's arse financially, everything we've tried to improve things has either not worked or made things worse for one reason or another. People on the outside either don't want to know or look down their noses at us, it doesn't seem like we have much going for us.




    I think this is the most relevant point in what decisions do we take now. By persevering with the likes of Wood, and not improving things since we got rid. We have backed ourselves so far into a corner that any decision is going to lead to tough times. We either tell Sky to stick it, and hope someone else will pick it up, or we accept their offer and wait to see which clubs are the first to fold or go semi pro. The leaders, and I use that term with much reservation, have really dragged the game down, while they earn probably double what a marquee player earns.

  19. #144
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Macclesfield
    Age
    46
    Posts
    8,428
    Rep Power
    33

    Default

    There have been 7 posts on this today (8 if you include this) that have probably contained more thought about this issue than the leaders of our game have given it in the last 3 months. Maybe I'm exaggerating slightly, but I see no evidence that some serious thought has been put into this by anyone responsible for the future of the game.

  20. #145
    In The South Stand Noel Cleal's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,471
    Rep Power
    21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Belgian Saint View Post
    [/COLOR]

    I think this is the most relevant point in what decisions do we take now. By persevering with the likes of Wood, and not improving things since we got rid. We have backed ourselves so far into a corner that any decision is going to lead to tough times. We either tell Sky to stick it, and hope someone else will pick it up, or we accept their offer and wait to see which clubs are the first to fold or go semi pro. The leaders, and I use that term with much reservation, have really dragged the game down, while they earn probably double what a marquee player earns.
    There does seem to be a few old boys club in Rugby League at the moment. There is one between the Lancashire clubs the Yorkshire clubs and a group of the part time clubs. However they all seem to be against any new blood in terms of ownership and they are against anything that could make running their clubs more expensive.

    They seem to enjoy the status quo and as a result hold the whole sport back.
    I could agree with you but then we would both be wrong.

  21. #146
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    1,105
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Talking of the "status quo" and this is not a personal attack. Look at Oldham and Chris Hamilton. He has owned, Chris would say saved the club since insolvency in the Oldham Bears post Watersheddings era. However he has had no significant funds to invest and indeed the opposite could legally apply and the RFL funding may or may not provide a source of income. Oldham a big RL town, still a major player at amateur level. The semi pro club are renting Whitebank from Avro a NWCL club and the stadium is frankly awful. However the RFL keeps them ticking. The game is a mess and many clubs are run as income providing fiefdoms and that applies to one SL club in particular. The breakaway needs to come with Aussie assistance and I would have Pollard as the front man it's soon to be change or change will be forced.

  22. #147
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Refugee from the fascist state of RLFans
    Posts
    5,853
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    The elephant in the room continues to be the entertainment value of the product. It's just not attractive or exciting to any casual viewer or neutral. I know this season was disrupted, but I found watching games to be tough going and frequently lost interest, even skipping forwards for spells in less important games when I'd recorded (these were Saints games, I've lost total interest in games not involving us)

    If I wasn't already so attached to Saints and was a newbie to the sport, I'd stop going out of sheer boredom. Yet I watch some games from the first 10/12 years of SL and it was way more open and thrilling.

    The game's too regimented now, with defence given too much leeway. If the game isn't entertaining to the casual viewer, then they won't watch, and won't be included in viewing figures. The lower the viewing figures, the less attractive the sport is to Sky, the less they will pay for TV rights.

  23. #148
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Wilts
    Posts
    5,346
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Webbo Again View Post
    The elephant in the room continues to be the entertainment value of the product. It's just not attractive or exciting to any casual viewer or neutral. I know this season was disrupted, but I found watching games to be tough going and frequently lost interest, even skipping forwards for spells in less important games when I'd recorded (these were Saints games, I've lost total interest in games not involving us)

    If I wasn't already so attached to Saints and was a newbie to the sport, I'd stop going out of sheer boredom. Yet I watch some games from the first 10/12 years of SL and it was way more open and thrilling.

    The game's too regimented now, with defence given too much leeway. If the game isn't entertaining to the casual viewer, then they won't watch, and won't be included in viewing figures. The lower the viewing figures, the less attractive the sport is to Sky, the less they will pay for TV rights.
    A very honest and fair post that has merit.

    The game is going through what soccer went through around 2004 in my opinion: over focus on structure, prioritisation of risk over imagination and conservative, identikit playbooks.

    For example can anyone really get excited over an exit set. Is a winger just taking it in from the first two tackles and maybe a centre banging up the 3rd tackle going to convince anyone this is ‘the greatest game?’

    Its dogshit in my opinion and thats ignoring platform layers, the wedge and drop offs and many other moves that are as predictable as they are boring.

    We’ve a tendency to see the game through rose tinted specs at times at the same time as hammering other sports. A bad mix.

  24. #149
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Macclesfield
    Age
    46
    Posts
    8,428
    Rep Power
    33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eddiewaringsflatcap View Post
    A very honest and fair post that has merit.

    The game is going through what soccer went through around 2004 in my opinion: over focus on structure, prioritisation of risk over imagination and conservative, identikit playbooks.

    For example can anyone really get excited over an exit set. Is a winger just taking it in from the first two tackles and maybe a centre banging up the 3rd tackle going to convince anyone this is ‘the greatest game?’

    Its dogshit in my opinion and thats ignoring platform layers, the wedge and drop offs and many other moves that are as predictable as they are boring.

    We’ve a tendency to see the game through rose tinted specs at times at the same time as hammering other sports. A bad mix.
    Agreed, but see the reaction around the game to our end of season game with Wigan at LP. People in the RL media, players, fans calling it an all-time classic when it was nowhere near. It was two risk-averse sides slogging it out for an hour before one made a few mistakes which the other capitalised them for. Was it full-blooded? Definitely. Did all 34 players on the park that night earn their crust? Definitely. Was it a brilliant game? Nowhere near, it was simply a close game between big rivals for a prize, but had that exact same game been played between Wakefield and Salford in mid-March people would have tuned out by half-time. When games like that are heralded as the height of our game we are in trouble. Full respect to the players who are now fitter than at any time in our history, and full credit to those non-star players for going through the physical ordeal of 80 minutes in the modern game every week for an average wage, I have the utmost respect for them, but the game is boring as hell half the time.

  25. #150
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    4,739
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Webbo Again View Post
    The elephant in the room continues to be the entertainment value of the product. It's just not attractive or exciting to any casual viewer or neutral. I know this season was disrupted, but I found watching games to be tough going and frequently lost interest, even skipping forwards for spells in less important games when I'd recorded (these were Saints games, I've lost total interest in games not involving us)

    If I wasn't already so attached to Saints and was a newbie to the sport, I'd stop going out of sheer boredom. Yet I watch some games from the first 10/12 years of SL and it was way more open and thrilling.

    The game's too regimented now, with defence given too much leeway. If the game isn't entertaining to the casual viewer, then they won't watch, and won't be included in viewing figures. The lower the viewing figures, the less attractive the sport is to Sky, the less they will pay for TV rights.
    Spot on mate and to me, it's down to the influence of Aussie coaches which is why I can't agree with Cyprus that they have any influence in talking the British game forward. I'm not knocking what they do there but the fact is, things are different here, both in terms of the games profile and British sporting culture. As you say, towards the back end of the season some of the games were absolute shite. To be honest, probably more were shite but we were all just happy to have RL back on TV at the time, in fact if we look back over the past few season it hasn't generally been great.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •