New Reduced Sky Deal

Currently, SL takes £30m and the balance of £10m used to fund the RFL, the Championship and League 1 clubs.

The detail of the new deal has not yet been announced, but there were suggestions of a reduction of up to £10m a year. I recollect that the SL have previously said that they will retain the same level of funding, which will mean any reduction falling on the RFL, Championship and League 1 clubs.

I guess that the Championship/League 1 are included in the deal, although Sky choose not to show any games. If there is a substantial reduction in funding to Championship/League 1 clubs, I cannot see why the RFL could not have offered these games as a separate package to BT Sport/BBC at this reduced rate.  The Championship will be a competitive league in 2021.

If the money per club in the Championship reduces, but SL and the RFL don't take a cut there becomes less and less point in belonging to the RFL at all. If you are correct Frankg, and I think you are, it does nark me that our TV exposure, and likely reduction in paying customers, is just used to boost the Sky deal, with no recompense to the Championship clubs.

Simply put, Championship games aren't exactly the most marketable from a commercial sense.

We will have some exciting games in the lower level and arguably a more interesting League race - potentially, but the media won't be able to get a return on its investment.

Looks like there may be very little money left for the likes of us if SL are to keep their bellies full. Maybe a correction of wages could alleviate this but I don't really see this as a viable outcome.

This could prove to be another historic turning point which sees the death of multiple lower League clubs. Time will tell, but to be honest I'm too disallusioned with the game these days, so take no notice.

Simply put, Rugby League isn’t worth £40m a year, it is a free market, for too long the games model has based itself on the sky money.

Ultimately, the idea that BT could have came in with a better deal is preposterous. We are minority sport, a sport that doesn’t attract substantial sponsorship or viewing figures.

First I heard of this, if it is correct and champ and L1 have less to live off, time to go. The championship next season will be an entertaining competition and should be marketed on its own

northern union part 2

Said it many times before, I don't know why the majority of clubs are allowing themselves to be dragged by the coat tails and short-changed by SL; it's not as if it's a thriving product. I'm know that a breakaway Championship wouldn't exactly be a marketer's dream but I think it could do better than now.

Said it many times before, I don’t know why the majority of clubs are allowing themselves to be dragged by the coat tails and short-changed by SL; it’s not as if it’s a thriving product. I’m know that a breakaway Championship wouldn’t exactly be a marketer’s drkeam but I think it could do better than now.

At least it could be honest and run by the clubs rather than Elstone and Sky. Simply put the SL generally see anything outside SL as an unnecessary cost. In reality the non-SL clubs serve as a filter to reveal the players ready for improvement. If thrre were no amateur/ lower league clubs where would the SL trawl for new faces?

What frustrates me about the whole process, is the attitude towards the game. Rugby league is a game not a product (terrible word), suddenly every rl fan is a marketer, a visionary, a commercial expert.

What is with the obsession with rl fans wanting the game to develop financially, or for it compete with union or the NRL. Why can’t fans just be like me and want their individual team to win every week and not care about anything else?

We can’t compete with union, union is played in every town in the country, league is not. And ultimately, for those who think “we have a great product, we just need the exposure” you are talking out of your arses.

Rugby League clearly isn’t a great sport, it has been shown on bbc for about 60 years, can’t get enough exposure than that.

What frustrates me about the whole process, is the attitude towards the game. Rugby league is a game not a product (terrible word), suddenly every rl fan is a marketer, a visionary, a commercial expert. What is with the obsession with rl fans wanting the game to develop financially, or for it compete with union or the NRL. Why can’t fans just be like me and want their individual team to win every week and not care about anything else? We can’t compete with union, union is played in every town in the country, league is not. And ultimately, for those who think “we have a great product, we just need the exposure” you are talking out of your arses. Rugby League clearly isn’t a great

 

sport, it has been shown on bbc for about 60 years, can’t get enough exposure than that.

well you make some pertinent points there, however being shown on the bbc - did it help or not, in the south it was viewed as a comedy programme and the bbc were influential in that

But Challenge cup games were still shown live potentially to millions of households? RL has been on sky for 30 years now, yet the overall viewing figures haven’t increased.

The fact is that without the Sky deal, the game would have to change.

Clubs would be reliant on paying fans coming to games and buying season tickets, local sponsorship and maybe an individual fan willing to invest their money in the club; clubs would have to look at their running costs and £100,000 salaries to Directors and Chief Executives would be a thing of the past; clubs could not afford to bring in NRL players on high contracts or try to match NRL salaries to retain the better players; clubs may have to become part-time and some would simply go out of business. Clubs would revert to being community based teams, with possibly the suggested model of fan ownership being the correct route.

The cost of running the game would reduce considerably - at least £1m a year saved by having one governing body and no justification for paying salaries of £300,000/£400,000 to a Chief Executive.

Would the game die - no, it would change focus possibly for the better with clubs rooted in the local community and having to be self-sustaining.

Would it prevent any potential for expansion of the game - no, with newly formed clubs in "expansionist" areas developing on the same self-sustaining model; and also in the knowledge that they would not have to bankrupt themselves to reach the top level.

Any future tv deals would be distributed on a fairer basis to all clubs in the leagues, with funding reflecting position in the league and criteria based on crowds, player development etc; and also used to promote the game at grass roots level and to support "expansionist" clubs.

There could be a re-vamped league structure with a Premier League of say 16 clubs and a Championship of 20 clubs, with two clubs relegated each year and the club top of the Championship automatically promoted and a play-off of the next 4 clubs for the second place.

The game should be managed by a board comprising some representatives elected by the clubs and also a number of independent directors with a good knowledge and experience of the game.

Will anything change in the foreseeable future. I doubt it.

The fact is that without the Sky deal, the game would have to change. Clubs would be reliant on paying fans coming to games and buying season tickets, local sponsorship and maybe an individual fan willing to invest their money in the club; clubs would have to look at their running costs and £100,000 salaries to Directors and Chief Executives would be a thing of the past; clubs could not afford to bring in NRL players on high contracts or try to match NRL salaries to retain the better players; clubs may have to become part-time and some would simply go out of business. Clubs would revert to being community based teams, with possibly the suggested model of fan ownership being the correct route. The cost of running the game would reduce considerably – at least £1m a year saved by having one governing body and no justification for paying salaries of £300,000/£400,000 to a Chief Executive. Would the game die – no, it would change focus possibly for the better with clubs rooted in the local community and having to be self-sustaining. Would it prevent any potential for expansion of the game – no, with newly formed clubs in “expansionist” areas developing on the same self-sustaining model; and also in the knowledge that they would not have to bankrupt themselves to reach the top level. Any future tv deals would be distributed on a fairer basis to all clubs in the leagues, with funding reflecting position in the league and criteria based on crowds, player development etc; and also used to promote the game at grass roots level and to support “expansionist” clubs. There could be a re-vamped league structure with a Premier League of say 16 clubs and a Championship of 20 clubs, with two clubs relegated each year and the club top of the Championship automatically promoted and a play-off of the next 4 clubs for the second place. The game should be managed by a board comprising some representatives elected by the clubs and also a number of independent directors with a good knowledge and experience of the game. Will anything change in the foreseeable future. I doubt it.

you sir are a visionary I applaud you