The Virtual Terrace • Interesting Theories Regarding the future of TV deals
Call Me God wrote:
In a nutshell...THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Unfortunately for us, the problem now is that we've been overtaken by Union in terms of viewers and darts and WWE pull in comparable viewing figures, so next time around we will need to negotiate harder and not just roll over........regardless of if the money is less or more, we need to demand more games, championship games, more FTA coverage and nationally at sensible times......and the clubs, not just the RFL/SL Board need to do more to get punters back through the gates.......
......alas, it'll be the top 12 dictating what's what and so long as they ring fence their 2 mill a year each they won't care about the rest.....
Haven't the last few TV deals been negotiated on behalf of the RFL by IMG? These guys aren't idiots by any stretch of the imagination.
In any case, I think it's wrong to assume that our TV deal is a result of the RFL "not negotiating hard enough" and I think that if we're going into negotiations for the new deal offering the same as what we have now, it's not going to end well. Sky know exactly what we bring to them in terms of monetary value, and the onus is on the sport to maximise that value.
Why would Sky pay more when the top talent is playing in another competition? Why would Sky pay more when we seem to be the only sport that seems to willingly dilute our own TV audience every Friday? Why would Sky pay more in a climate where new advertising technologies means that the advertising slots around RL content are going to become less valuable against other sports?
RL fans seem to like lazy answers and like "reserve teams" and "Eddie Hearn", the "The RFL doesn't negotiate hard enough with Sky" is another one. Broadcasters and sponsors expect more - and the sport needs to offer it.
Statistics: Posted by bramleyrhino — Sun May 06, 2018 6:33 pm — Replies 15 — Views 1148