Chapel House Motor Company Limited Advertising Banner
Page 9 of 20 FirstFirst ... 567891011121319 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 225 of 493

Thread: Issues in the game

  1. #201
    In The South Stand KentishBarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,737
    Rep Power
    18

    Default

    You've been Busy.
    Sorting though our comments and pulling then together into some sort of readable, flowing text is not easy. Well done!
    I agree with Cyprus that it should be from 'us'. Whilst it would be nice to get other teams fans involved, I think it's just too much to ask of you, or anyone else, taking this on.
    I'm quite happy with what you've written, but I would perhaps take out the final bullet point about 'golden point' as it seems too specific following on from more general questions.
    Maybe change it to question the use of unnecessary 'gimmicks' using the likes of 'club call' and 'golden point' as examples?
    Hope this helps!

  2. #202
    Got A Season Ticket guns86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    113
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    I still think something specific on the direction/leadership/management of the game and who is leading it. Questions could be:

    Why the split between RFL and SL? What are the costs and benefits? What are the aims/objectives of our leaders (where are they taking us)? How do we know if they're achieved and if they aren't what are the repercussions for that individual?

    All in all I'd like to see a justified long term plan for the development of the game. Grass roots through to SL which takes into account targetted areas; supporting or supported by an expansion plan etc. Licensing vs non-licensing benefits analysis and the cycles for those licenses if they come in as it shouldn't be an entirely closed shop. Minimum requirements for SL teams including grounds (accessibility etc.), an academy or similar (and a league for them), a women's team, community programmes. I'm sure there's loads more stuff I'm forgetting. That might be a bit ambitious and wordy for them though but surely someone is looking at the future and has a document where it's all laid out.

    The rest is really good. I'm on the fence about including the Saints fans paragraph but I do believe that these issues are visible to all fans that have spent 2 minutes considering the game.

    Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

  3. #203
    Got A Season Ticket
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Canberra, Australia
    Posts
    164
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gray77 View Post
    We've had numerous 'State of the Game' threads on here, most of them really good and containing loads of great points. But they haven't gone anywhere, and most of the issues we've raised haven't gone away and in some senses they have worsened.

    Some have said it would be a good idea to write a proper letter, signed by loads of us, sent directly to the RFL, clubs, RL media, newspapers like the Mirror that cover the game, outlining the issues that we spend loads of time talking about on here. Let's make this official, let's write something and send it, in the post, signed by loads of us, and then put copies of it online, spread it around, and see if we can't get some attention.

    We are in the great position as fans of the back-to-back champions that we can't be accused of moaning about the sport because our team is being disadvantaged or because we're not winning stuff. We are the fanbase that can complain and not have it thrown back in our faces, so why not.

    I am happy to draft something based upon your ideas and contributions. I'm also happy to get out of the way and let someone else do it if they want.

    But I/we need to know that enough of us see problems big enough to justify it. So this is your chance to give me your ideas, subjects to raise, etc. It's also your chance to tell me/us that this is un-necessary. There's no point doing it if only 6 of us want to add our name to it.

    I'm getting the ball rolling, I'm happy to get this started, but it needs others to justify it being a worthwhile venture.
    Reduce the teams to 12 a side, faster game, higher scores and more chance for the smaller players to be involved and shine.

  4. #204
    Got A Season Ticket
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Canberra, Australia
    Posts
    164
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Wee Waa Womble View Post
    Yes. Directly affects the 2 major questions about the sport:
    1) How do we get more people watching?
    2) How do we get better players playing?
    As i said in another post 12 a side, open the game up and reduce gang tackles.

  5. #205
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Wilts
    Posts
    5,346
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by guns86 View Post
    I still think something specific on the direction/leadership/management of the game and who is leading it. Questions could be:

    Why the split between RFL and SL? What are the costs and benefits? What are the aims/objectives of our leaders (where are they taking us)? How do we know if they're achieved and if they aren't what are the repercussions for that individual?


    All in all I'd like to see a justified long term plan for the development of the game. Grass roots through to SL which takes into account targetted areas; supporting or supported by an expansion plan etc. Licensing vs non-licensing benefits analysis and the cycles for those licenses if they come in as it shouldn't be an entirely closed shop. Minimum requirements for SL teams including grounds (accessibility etc.), an academy or similar (and a league for them), a women's team, community programmes. I'm sure there's loads more stuff I'm forgetting. That might be a bit ambitious and wordy for them though but surely someone is looking at the future and has a document where it's all laid out.

    The rest is really good. I'm on the fence about including the Saints fans paragraph but I do believe that these issues are visible to all fans that have spent 2 minutes considering the game.

    Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
    Definitely agree with this. Its not immediately clear who is running the game anymore and what Elstone's departure means for the sport. If it fails to change its organisational structure which at the moment create far too many conflicts then it is destined to repeat the same mistakes. It would be nice to see a sport where its the organisational structure is clear; where its easy to see who, how and why decisions were made and for the sports fans to maybe be consulted more often than they are at present.

    I'll have a breeze through the letter in more detail at some point today/tommorow.

  6. #206
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk Belgian Saint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    11,183
    Rep Power
    32

    Default

    A really good effort. Thank you

    Television coverage – we are of the opinion that the sport’s main television partner has too much influence over the game, and we do not believe that Rugby League is getting value for money from its main television deal. We also remain perplexed that Rugby League doesn’t have a nationally broadcast prime-time highlights show on a free-to-air channel.

    I think one or two examples of why we don't think we get value for money may be appropriate. Though I think one of the reasons is covered in your next point on a lack of a highlights show on FTA. Did you decide not to go into commentary under the Television Coverage? I think the treating of the presentation as a comedy show is a negative for our broadcast partner. Thanks again for your work.

  7. #207
    Got A Season Ticket
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Canterbury, Kent
    Posts
    148
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Many thanks for doing this, Gray77. Whatever people think of some of the details, surely it gets the fan base started in having more influence on the shape and direction of the game, and the fans of other clubs can get involved.

    As someone who doesn't live in the heartlands, I fervently believe that the game from the very first level must thrive in them before it can thrive elsewhere. The people who must be supported, as well as the players themselves, are the grassroots coaches, the schools' PE staff and the local and community clubs. The women's game should be nurtured as well - anything and everything to make the game healthy where it has the deepest roots - from the North West to Yorkshire and up to Cumbria here, eastern and norhern Australia and the the south west of France. Then it can radiate outwards.

    I agree with all that has been said about fiddling with the format. As to the game itself, it bewilders me how little is expected of the touch judges. Surely if they have one extra thing to do - properly police the 10 metre offside - then that would immeasurably improve the spectacle.

  8. #208
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Macclesfield
    Age
    46
    Posts
    8,427
    Rep Power
    33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Belgian Saint View Post
    Did you decide not to go into commentary under the Television Coverage? I think the treating of the presentation as a comedy show is a negative for our broadcast partner. Thanks again for your work.
    I think it's a tricky subject because in essence what you'd be accused of doing is picking on Baz and Tez, who I assume are decent fellas doing their job the way they've been told. I think a broader question about whether the powers-that-be think they are getting value for money from Sky is a better idea because really once the deal is signed Sky can do whatever they want in terms of presentation I suppose.

  9. #209
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Macclesfield
    Age
    46
    Posts
    8,427
    Rep Power
    33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Belgian Saint View Post
    I think one or two examples of why we don't think we get value for money may be appropriate.
    I was conscious of the fact that a few have stressed the need for this to be short and snappy (able to fit on two sides of A4) for example, so lots of stuff will be left out. I want to it to be read and not thrown aside because it's too long, but it does mean a few things need to be left out.

    However, this one is a good point and I think I mentioned a few examples in the thread. The proposed new deal is upwards of £30m a year.

    In comparison Sky are paying £15m a year for the Open Championship, so four days of golf (albeit our historic and prestigious Major) is worth the same as half a Super League season, which is 35-40 games give or take.

    The Sky deal for The Hundred (not prestigious and not yet proven it will work) is around £36m a year, for 35 limited over cricket games. Yes, this comp may become a part of the British summer, but will it blow Super League games out of the water on Sky in terms of ratings? I don't think so, especially given the BBC also have the rights to show 10 live games including the Final. Sky have paid more for a 5-week cricket comp that most people out there will watch on the BBC than they've paid for a 8-month rugby league season.

    Those are the two pertinent deals that I think make the point.

    A Super League game costs Sky around £375k.
    A Hundred game costs Sky around £1m, with ten of them (inc the Final) being virtually worthless as they'll also be on the BBC
    A day at the Open costs Sky £3.75m

  10. #210
    In The South Stand Tabasco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Rivington Road, St Helens
    Posts
    2,903
    Rep Power
    22

    Default

    I like the content and structure of the draft, particularly because it raises a variety of issues but does not really attempt to propose solutions. In respect of this latter point, I believe there is a danger in suggesting ways forward as it is likely to polarise opinions, possibly alienating some at the outset and preventing free and open consideration. As an example, I personally would not be in favour of reducing the number of players thereby disrupting the balance between attack and defence. That suggestion immediately riled me and led me to think that if people want plenty of tries, let them watch 9s or 7s. These certainly have a place but only in the same way that T20 and 1 Day cricket games do but not to the detriment of the longer form of the sport. Far better, therefore, to keep the document as an initial catalyst for major stakeholders to consider and debate the issues raised therein.

  11. #211
    Starting A Programme Collection MachineGunFunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    The Sintellins Metropolis
    Posts
    887
    Rep Power
    16

    Default

    Thanks a lot for doing this Gray, it's well written and put together. Appreciate the time and effort you have put in.

    At the risk of being pedantic, but for consistency shouldn't rugby league be capital R and L wherever it's mentioned, same with rugby union?

    And, if possible, within the Structure aspect, I'd like to see something regarding enforcing Academies and Reserve Grades within each club. This would provide a conveyor belt of talent and a pathway for players from youth levels through to first grade and avoid players being lost to the game as they can't go straight into the first team when they get to 18/19. At the moment it just seems to be left to the clubs to do this and hope for the best.
    "Never write off the Saints!!"

  12. #212
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk Belgian Saint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    11,183
    Rep Power
    32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gray77 View Post
    I was conscious of the fact that a few have stressed the need for this to be short and snappy (able to fit on two sides of A4) for example, so lots of stuff will be left out. I want to it to be read and not thrown aside because it's too long, but it does mean a few things need to be left out.

    However, this one is a good point and I think I mentioned a few examples in the thread. The proposed new deal is upwards of £30m a year.

    In comparison Sky are paying £15m a year for the Open Championship, so four days of golf (albeit our historic and prestigious Major) is worth the same as half a Super League season, which is 35-40 games give or take.

    The Sky deal for The Hundred (not prestigious and not yet proven it will work) is around £36m a year, for 35 limited over cricket games. Yes, this comp may become a part of the British summer, but will it blow Super League games out of the water on Sky in terms of ratings? I don't think so, especially given the BBC also have the rights to show 10 live games including the Final. Sky have paid more for a 5-week cricket comp that most people out there will watch on the BBC than they've paid for a 8-month rugby league season.

    Those are the two pertinent deals that I think make the point.

    A Super League game costs Sky around £375k.
    A Hundred game costs Sky around £1m, with ten of them (inc the Final) being virtually worthless as they'll also be on the BBC
    A day at the Open costs Sky £3.75m
    Once again thank you. You have obviously not just looked at peoples suggestions, but done quite a bit of research. I hope that this document is treated seriously by SL. With regard to sending it to SL, do you think we could garner support by having someone such as Total Rugby League publish it. That could be done either after giving SL chance to read it and reply, or concurrently in the form of an open letter to SL.

  13. #213
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Macclesfield
    Age
    46
    Posts
    8,427
    Rep Power
    33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MachineGunFunk View Post
    At the risk of being pedantic, but for consistency shouldn't rugby league be capital R and L wherever it's mentioned, same with rugby union?
    Yes, good point, I'll check that

  14. #214
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    4,739
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MachineGunFunk View Post
    Thanks a lot for doing this Gray, it's well written and put together. Appreciate the time and effort you have put in.

    At the risk of being pedantic, but for consistency shouldn't rugby league be capital R and L wherever it's mentioned, same with rugby union?

    And, if possible, within the Structure aspect, I'd like to see something regarding enforcing Academies and Reserve Grades within each club. This would provide a conveyor belt of talent and a pathway for players from youth levels through to first grade and avoid players being lost to the game as they can't go straight into the first team when they get to 18/19. At the moment it just seems to be left to the clubs to do this and hope for the best.
    As mentioned, a very well written and put together piece. I agree with this point regarding Academies and Reserves, I think I'm right in saying there's no Academy competition for the second year running? It's incredibly short sighted and I can't see any good can come from that. I'm well aware of the Covid situation but it comes across as both competitions being an after thought - clearly so with the reserves.

  15. #215
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    4,739
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    I've just seen that England RU players have received death threats after getting beat by Wales so maybe we don't have it too bad.

    It actually made me laugh some toff furiously giving out to some 20 stone giant in between sips of port.

  16. #216
    In The South Stand
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Wirral
    Posts
    2,662
    Rep Power
    15

    Default

    Cheers for sifting through the mass of pertinent and impertinent messages we've all sent you and compiling it in to something that may actually have a positive impact on our sport. Top notch Sir!

  17. #217
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Macclesfield
    Age
    46
    Posts
    8,427
    Rep Power
    33

    Default

    If we want a longer television coverage section, it could read something like this. Too long? Anything need cutting? Anything need stressing more? etc

    Television coverage – we are of the opinion that the sport’s main television partner has too much influence over the game, and we do not believe that Rugby League is getting value for money from its main television deal. Rugby League is a mainstay of Sky’s weekend coverage for eight months a year, and the sport also provides Sky with important content in the summer months. Yet we believe that the finances involved in the Super League television contract do not resemble this.

    Some will say that Rugby League is a minority sport and is not in a position to haggle for a better deal, but evidence suggests otherwise. Sky’s deal to show the Hundred cricket competition stacks up at a reported £1m per game, give or take (ten of those games, including the Final, will be shared with the BBC). Sky’s deal for The Open Championship is reportedly around £15m per annum, or £3.75m per day. If we estimate that the upcoming proposed Sky deal for Super League is around £30m per annum for around 80 games, that equates to no more than £375,000 per game.

    Should we accept that an eight-month long Super League season is less valuable to Sky than a five-week long fledgling limited-overs cricket competition that a majority of viewers will watch on the BBC? And whilst The Open is a historic and prestigious competition, should we accept that four days of golf every year equate to 40 Super League games (half a season) per year in terms of value to Sky? Whilst these examples would indicate that Super League is relatively unimportant to Sky, another explanation could be that Sky do value Rugby League, but never have to truly prove it financially because they are never forced into competition for the rights.

    In addition, we also remain perplexed that Rugby League doesn’t have a nationally broadcast prime-time highlights show on a free-to-air channel. Why do fans who do not have pay-tv have to wait until late on Monday night for highlights of games? And why do fans outside of the North have to wait until Tuesday afternoon? Showing highlights of the big Thursday and Friday night games on a Monday night or Tuesday afternoon would be like football fans having to wait until Wednesday or Thursday to watch the weekends biggest games on Match of the Day. They wouldn’t stand for it, so why do we?

  18. #218
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    4,739
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gray77 View Post
    If we want a longer television coverage section, it could read something like this. Too long? Anything need cutting? Anything need stressing more? etc

    Television coverage – we are of the opinion that the sport’s main television partner has too much influence over the game, and we do not believe that Rugby League is getting value for money from its main television deal. Rugby League is a mainstay of Sky’s weekend coverage for eight months a year, and the sport also provides Sky with important content in the summer months. Yet we believe that the finances involved in the Super League television contract do not resemble this.

    Some will say that Rugby League is a minority sport and is not in a position to haggle for a better deal, but evidence suggests otherwise. Sky’s deal to show the Hundred cricket competition stacks up at a reported £1m per game, give or take (ten of those games, including the Final, will be shared with the BBC). Sky’s deal for The Open Championship is reportedly around £15m per annum, or £3.75m per day. If we estimate that the upcoming proposed Sky deal for Super League is around £30m per annum for around 80 games, that equates to no more than £375,000 per game.

    Should we accept that an eight-month long Super League season is less valuable to Sky than a five-week long fledgling limited-overs cricket competition that a majority of viewers will watch on the BBC? And whilst The Open is a historic and prestigious competition, should we accept that four days of golf every year equate to 40 Super League games (half a season) per year in terms of value to Sky? Whilst these examples would indicate that Super League is relatively unimportant to Sky, another explanation could be that Sky do value Rugby League, but never have to truly prove it financially because they are never forced into competition for the rights.

    In addition, we also remain perplexed that Rugby League doesn’t have a nationally broadcast prime-time highlights show on a free-to-air channel. Why do fans who do not have pay-tv have to wait until late on Monday night for highlights of games? And why do fans outside of the North have to wait until Tuesday afternoon? Showing highlights of the big Thursday and Friday night games on a Monday night or Tuesday afternoon would be like football fans having to wait until Wednesday or Thursday to watch the weekends biggest games on Match of the Day. They wouldn’t stand for it, so why do we?
    Nailed it.

  19. #219
    In The South Stand
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Wirral
    Posts
    2,662
    Rep Power
    15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gray77 View Post
    If we want a longer television coverage section, it could read something like this. Too long? Anything need cutting? Anything need stressing more? etc

    Television coverage – we are of the opinion that the sport’s main television partner has too much influence over the game, and we do not believe that Rugby League is getting value for money from its main television deal. Rugby League is a mainstay of Sky’s weekend coverage for eight months a year, and the sport also provides Sky with important content in the summer months. Yet we believe that the finances involved in the Super League television contract do not resemble this.

    Some will say that Rugby League is a minority sport and is not in a position to haggle for a better deal, but evidence suggests otherwise. Sky’s deal to show the Hundred cricket competition stacks up at a reported £1m per game, give or take (ten of those games, including the Final, will be shared with the BBC). Sky’s deal for The Open Championship is reportedly around £15m per annum, or £3.75m per day. If we estimate that the upcoming proposed Sky deal for Super League is around £30m per annum for around 80 games, that equates to no more than £375,000 per game.

    Should we accept that an eight-month long Super League season is less valuable to Sky than a five-week long fledgling limited-overs cricket competition that a majority of viewers will watch on the BBC? And whilst The Open is a historic and prestigious competition, should we accept that four days of golf every year equate to 40 Super League games (half a season) per year in terms of value to Sky? Whilst these examples would indicate that Super League is relatively unimportant to Sky, another explanation could be that Sky do value Rugby League, but never have to truly prove it financially because they are never forced into competition for the rights.

    In addition, we also remain perplexed that Rugby League doesn’t have a nationally broadcast prime-time highlights show on a free-to-air channel. Why do fans who do not have pay-tv have to wait until late on Monday night for highlights of games? And why do fans outside of the North have to wait until Tuesday afternoon? Showing highlights of the big Thursday and Friday night games on a Monday night or Tuesday afternoon would be like football fans having to wait until Wednesday or Thursday to watch the weekends biggest games on Match of the Day. They wouldn’t stand for it, so why do we?
    Spot on.

  20. #220
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk Belgian Saint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    11,183
    Rep Power
    32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gray77 View Post
    If we want a longer television coverage section, it could read something like this. Too long? Anything need cutting? Anything need stressing more? etc

    Television coverage – we are of the opinion that the sport’s main television partner has too much influence over the game, and we do not believe that Rugby League is getting value for money from its main television deal. Rugby League is a mainstay of Sky’s weekend coverage for eight months a year, and the sport also provides Sky with important content in the summer months. Yet we believe that the finances involved in the Super League television contract do not resemble this.

    Some will say that Rugby League is a minority sport and is not in a position to haggle for a better deal, but evidence suggests otherwise. Sky’s deal to show the Hundred cricket competition stacks up at a reported £1m per game, give or take (ten of those games, including the Final, will be shared with the BBC). Sky’s deal for The Open Championship is reportedly around £15m per annum, or £3.75m per day. If we estimate that the upcoming proposed Sky deal for Super League is around £30m per annum for around 80 games, that equates to no more than £375,000 per game.

    Should we accept that an eight-month long Super League season is less valuable to Sky than a five-week long fledgling limited-overs cricket competition that a majority of viewers will watch on the BBC? And whilst The Open is a historic and prestigious competition, should we accept that four days of golf every year equate to 40 Super League games (half a season) per year in terms of value to Sky? Whilst these examples would indicate that Super League is relatively unimportant to Sky, another explanation could be that Sky do value Rugby League, but never have to truly prove it financially because they are never forced into competition for the rights.

    In addition, we also remain perplexed that Rugby League doesn’t have a nationally broadcast prime-time highlights show on a free-to-air channel. Why do fans who do not have pay-tv have to wait until late on Monday night for highlights of games? And why do fans outside of the North have to wait until Tuesday afternoon? Showing highlights of the big Thursday and Friday night games on a Monday night or Tuesday afternoon would be like football fans having to wait until Wednesday or Thursday to watch the weekends biggest games on Match of the Day. They wouldn’t stand for it, so why do we?
    Excellent. They may argue about the appeal of the Open, but overall this says it all with regard to the contract. Your examples highlight just how poor we have been at negotiating with Sky.

  21. #221
    In The South Stand
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    3,647
    Rep Power
    22

    Default

    The TV stuff comes across small time and so very Rugby League. We’re always comparing ourselves to others and playing the victim card. It’s unnecessary and not really what I though the point of this was.
    St Helens Rugby League Football Club

  22. #222
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Macclesfield
    Age
    46
    Posts
    8,427
    Rep Power
    33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dos Cervezas View Post
    The TV stuff comes across small time and so very Rugby League. We’re always comparing ourselves to others and playing the victim card. It’s unnecessary and not really what I though the point of this was.
    If we're not receiving our fair due from the tv contract then we cannot increase the salary cap, cannot try to keep our best players, etc. How is it 'small time' to question why the game isn't offered more for their tv rights? Isn't it actually the opposite? And what else are we supposed to do to prove the point other than to compare what other sports are paid for their rights?

    Please explain your point, I don't understand how asking for RL to be more demanding in the money they expect from tv contracts is 'small time'. Are you happy with £30m for 80 games a season? Should we accept whatever Sky offer us? Surely that is 'small time' to do what no other sport does and just take what is offered without any sense of our true value and worth. They've covered the league for over 25 years, it is an integral part of their sports offering which means they value us. They should be asked to prove it, and we should be asking them to prove it when compared to better deals they offer for stuff which are nowhere near as important to them business wise.

    They pay more for 5 weeks of some invented cricket comp than they do for a season of SL. Gaining those rights will not add a single subscriber because cricket fans already take the sub for England games, and anyone who just wants to watch The Hundred (if any) can watch the best games on BBC. We on the other hand add thousands of subscribers, and without us they would see a drop in subs because SL is exclusive to them. So which is more important to them? Why is it 'playing the victim' to expect more?

    And... this is only part of the letter after all.

  23. #223
    In The South Stand
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    3,647
    Rep Power
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gray77 View Post
    If we're not receiving our fair due from the tv contract then we cannot increase the salary cap, cannot try to keep our best players, etc. How is it 'small time' to question why the game isn't offered more for their tv rights? Isn't it actually the opposite? And what else are we supposed to do to prove the point other than to compare what other sports are paid for their rights?

    Please explain your point, I don't understand how asking for RL to be more demanding in the money they expect from tv contracts is 'small time'. Are you happy with £30m for 80 games a season? Should we accept whatever Sky offer us? Surely that is 'small time' to do what no other sport does and just take what is offered without any sense of our true value and worth. They've covered the league for over 25 years, it is an integral part of their sports offering which means they value us. They should be asked to prove it, and we should be asking them to prove it when compared to better deals they offer for stuff which are nowhere near as important to them business wise.

    And... this is only part of the letter after all.
    I mean, are we really asking why sports with far bigger global followings and different broadcasters willing to show their sport why they’re more valuable than Rugby League? It’s complete common sense, surely?

    I can understand and know that multiple sports have seen drops in their broadcasting packages, this isn’t an isolated incident to Rugby League and we need to get over that victim mentality and read the room better. The way people consume sport is changing and as such, some of your smaller sports are not receiving as much as they once did.
    St Helens Rugby League Football Club

  24. #224
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Macclesfield
    Age
    46
    Posts
    8,427
    Rep Power
    33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dos Cervezas View Post
    I mean, are we really asking why sports with far bigger global followings and different broadcasters willing to show their sport why they’re more valuable than Rugby League? It’s complete common sense, surely?

    I can understand and know that multiple sports have seen drops in their broadcasting packages, this isn’t an isolated incident to Rugby League and we need to get over that victim mentality and read the room better. The way people consume sport is changing and as such, some of your smaller sports are not receiving as much as they once did.
    The RU Premiership just received a bigger deal from BT. They get lower tv ratings than SL games on Sky, and club RU has never been a driver in RU's popularity with the masses, but BT know that the 150-200,000 subscribers they get for club RU are important to their business model, much like Sky will know that the 200,000 subscribers they get for club RL are important to them, especially between the football seasons in May-Aug. One deal went up, the other looks to be going down.

    Cricket and golfs popularity only means so much. Sky don't buy the Open then sell it around the world, there are different contracts in the US for the majors, so Sky buy the Open for the prestige and name value, which is entirely fair enough. But in the last Open they had 800,000 viewers watch the last round, with more watching the highlights on BBC. £15m a year for something that is watched by 800,000 over one weekend may be a fair deal when taking into account the quality of advertising revenue associated with it, but my issue isn't what Sky pay for the Open. My issue is that £30m buys them something that 200-250,000 people watch every weekend for 8 months. The Open is worth whatever Sky want to pay for it, but is SL worth whatever Sky feel they need to pay for it when we don't seem to care to look elsewhere or challenge them on cost?

  25. #225
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    4,739
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dos Cervezas View Post
    The TV stuff comes across small time and so very Rugby League. We’re always comparing ourselves to others and playing the victim card. It’s unnecessary and not really what I though the point of this was.
    It's a relevant and necessary comparison. No one is playing the victim card, it's and example to highlight an issue. No surprise you not getting that after your performance in the James Child thread.

Posting Permissions

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