Would you follow Wigan Rugby Union?

[Nezza Faz]

If you didn't know, SKY are ditching all Premiership RU from the start of next season.
They have a new massive deal for the Football Premier League, so to pay for it are offloading Aviva union to the new BT Vision, so they don't have to increase charges to their 10M subscribers.
SKY state that it's not a great loss to them as viewing figures are very low. In comparison, Super League draws the second highest viewing audience to football. That would be a greater financial loss.
This goes to show that "grass is always greener on the other side" and perhaps League fans have a general tendency to be the biggest, negative criticisers of their own sport, which does not give a healthy image to the watching sporting world.
To put things in a truer perspective, the vast majority of union clubs are running at large losses and they themselves cannot compete with French rugby union for players. Ironically, Rugby Union Club have just folded and gone bust !

[DaveO]

If you didn't know, SKY are ditching all Premiership RU from the start of next season.
They have a new massive deal for the Football Premier League, so to pay for it are offloading Aviva union to the new BT Vision, so they don't have to increase charges to their 10M subscribers.
SKY state that it's not a great loss to them as viewing figures are very low. In comparison, Super League draws the second highest viewing audience to football. That would be a greater financial loss.

This goes to show that "grass is always greener on the other side" and perhaps League fans have a general tendency to be the biggest, negative criticisers of their own sport, which does not give a healthy image to the watching sporting world.

Well the grass is pretty darn green for RU at BT Vision. They are paying £152m for the rights to show the games!

What is more how about this:

"It will mean an increase of 50% in television revenue for our clubs and means we can look at the salary cap [which is £4.5m plus add-ons] for the season after next. Our aim has for a long time been to put ourselves on a par with football's [second tier] Championship and we are well on our way."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/se ... -broadcast

To put things in a truer perspective, the vast majority of union clubs are running at large losses and they themselves cannot compete with French rugby union for players. Ironically, Rugby Union Club have just folded and gone bust !

Well given this deal is going to give them 50% more TV revenue and they are looking to raise their already huge £4.5m salary cap that doesn't strike me as the actions of a sport with its clubs in poor financial positions.

It looks to me they have maximised their income. Sky may well have lost the sport and may well not think the viewing figures merit out-bidding BT Vision for it but that means bugger all when RU ends up with a £152m contract.

And as to Rugby they have not been a top flight club since 1991.

The only parallels I see with RU and RL are that the top flight clubs have pulled away from the next tier down so clubs like Rugby have as much chance as getting in the RU premiership as Doncaster do getting into SL.

[Nezza Faz]

The numbers don't add up DaveO - ru didn't pull in the viewers for Aviva rugby with SKY's 10M viewers. How can BT Vision offer 50% more than Sky, yet with only a tiny fraction of their subscribers (680,000).
Other TV broadcasters have attempted to take on Sky - and lost ; look at the Scottish Premier League with Setanta.
On this basis, in a time of virtual recession, the value-to-money worth of this deal just doesn't stack up.
How many people, friends and family, do you know that has BT Vision - how would they be able to attract new subscribers from Sky, and for what reason would they leave? Premier League football is still the major drawcard and Sky retain a virtual monopoly of that.
It's obviously not going to be a cheap option !

[DaveO]

The numbers don't add up DaveO - ru didn't pull in the viewers for Aviva rugby with SKY's 10M viewers. How can BT Vision offer 50% more than Sky, yet with only a tiny fraction of their subscribers (680,000).
Other TV broadcasters have attempted to take on Sky - and lost ; look at the Scottish Premier League with Setanta.
On this basis, in a time of virtual recession, the value-to-money worth of this deal just doesn't stack up.
How many people, friends and family, do you know that has BT Vision - how would they be able to attract new subscribers from Sky, and for what reason would they leave? Premier League football is still the major drawcard and Sky retain a virtual monopoly of that.
It's obviously not going to be a cheap option !

I don't care if the numbers add up at all. The fact is RU just got a TV contract worth £152m and have said what they are going to do with the money.

Do you dispute this?

I think we are roughly a mere £100M short on the money BT is paying to Sky compared to what Sky pays to RL.

[Owd Codger]

Outside the RU Premiership, many of the smaller club's are struggling to survive as a result of their game going professional in 1996. Why do you think that many allow RL games to be played on their grounds. Not all a bed of roses in the rah rah game.

[Richymac]

Last year I went to the aviva prem final at twickenham between harlequins and Leicester. I must say the game was quite quick with breaks and set moves a plenty. Yet the atmosphere was like a beer garden no one with any chants or anything. deep inside the Leicester fans section of the stadium (where I was) and there was no one really supporting like at saints away and home were this season. But I wouldn't go to a Wigan ru as at a lesser standard of rugby union the play is just dull as a spectator sport. Although playing is a laugh

[slimshady]

I think the point Dave is making is that the RFU isn't bothered about any ramifications of the viewing figures or the extent of the coverage of their sport, they are more interested in the 152m they will be picking up for being aligned to BT vision. Which as it stands is 100m more than the RFL pick up from SKY, despite RL being the 2nd most watch sport on SKY.

So the question is are the RFL selling the game short when it come to negotiating contracts with SKY?

Once again the evidence is here our sport is having the piss taken out of it by its own governing body, no way is Rugby Union worth £100m more than our game which is proven by the viewing figures both on sky and weekly attendances.

We have clubs supposedly just had their licences renewed and going bust, being served winding up orders or asking the RFL for financial help. We sell our main sponsorship for zero pounds and the kick and clap shite gets £152m. How and when can we get rid of these clowns ?

[Nezza Faz]

What I'm pointing out DaveO is that although the deal is on the table, if economically it doesn't make money, then financially it won't work long term. Just like the Scottish Premier League, who had a massive cash-windfall from a TV company, the profit and loss account never made sense, and the rug was pulled from under that league, with such massive ramifications for soccer over the border, which they've not recovered from today.
If SKY can't get the numbers to watch union with 10 Million subscribers, how are BTVision going to achieve higher viewing figures, with only one fifteenth of the audience ? Presumably, that is only "break-even."
They may well begin with a quarter of the £M152 (4 year deal) but were will it leave them after one season should financial reality kick in and the whole thing collapses ?

[HGWarrior]

What you have got to ask is why are BT Vision and others trying to get the RL contract if viewing figures are that much higher and therefore advertising premiums could be that much higher.? If its true that RU is pulling fewer viewers on Sky than RL - what's the case for the BBC?

It could be that RU is pulling more viewers (for why - I don't know) but Sky are just painting over the cracks having lost the contract. Otherwise there is no sense in TV companies falling over thenmselves for RU coverage but virtually ignoring RL coverage.

[DaveO]

What I'm pointing out DaveO is that although the deal is on the table, if economically it doesn't make money, then financially it won't work long term. Just like the Scottish Premier League, who had a massive cash-windfall from a TV company, the profit and loss account never made sense, and the rug was pulled from under that league, with such massive ramifications for soccer over the border, which they've not recovered from today.
If SKY can't get the numbers to watch union with 10 Million subscribers, how are BTVision going to achieve higher viewing figures, with only one fifteenth of the audience ? Presumably, that is only "break-even."
They may well begin with a quarter of the £M152 (4 year deal) but were will it leave them after one season should financial reality kick in and the whole thing collapses ?

The "what if's" don't matter. They have got a £152m deal. I presume there is a contract involved so I doubt BT V can just walk away.

On the face if it they are over-paying by a huge amount given the viewing figures RU got on Sky.

However BT Vision are launching a sports channel and they have secured the rights to 32 premier league soccer matches as well. I presume they want to grow the number of subscribers by offering those games and by offering RU.

So I think its pretty obvious they are investing in their own platform by buying these soccer games and signing up RU.

Will it work long term? Who knows but once the deal starts RU is on £38m a season for four years until it ends.