WiganWarriorsFans.com

Dont know if anyone has seen this,but complete revamp on the way re pricing and the way you watch sport on sky..

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/ ... lf-cricket

Here's hoping there's a cheaper option for something without Football.

endoman wrote:Here's hoping there's a cheaper option for something without Football.

Yes, agreed - I suppose if every type of sport gets its own channel, then the true worth of RL will be known, and crucial in future broadcast contract negotiations ?

Why would they change things to make less money? It's all about maximising what they've got and squeeze more money out of Joe public.

Reading between the lines they've lost between 10% - 15% of subscribers in the last 12 months, mainly due to new streaming options coming like 'Amazon','Netflix',etc. coming onto the scene.

It means people could possibly then "downsize" their choice of channel instead of being compelled to take the full Sports package, which costs a small mortgage.

This would enable both the RFL and Sky to analyse and monitor the tv subscriber users in actual numbers, even gauging the popularity of each of the SL teams at the same time and force the broadcaster to pay more to the RFL, provided the numbers of course stack up in favour of RL viewership.

Nezza Faz wrote:Reading between the lines they've lost between 10% - 15% of subscribers in the last 12 months, mainly due to new streaming options coming like 'Amazon','Netflix',etc. coming onto the scene.

It means people could possibly then "downsize" their choice of channel instead of being compelled to take the full Sports package, which costs a small mortgage.

This would enable both the RFL and Sky to analyse and monitor the tv subscriber users in actual numbers, even gauging the popularity of each of the SL teams at the same time and force the broadcaster to pay more to the RFL, provided the numbers of course stack up in favour of RL viewership.

They already know how many people watch rugby, I'm sure Bilko has commented on it in the past. We have a long term deal already in place so it won't make any difference unfortunately.

Quote Fujiman:

"They already know how many people watch rugby, I'm sure Bilko has commented on it in the past. We have a long term deal already in place so it won't make any difference unfortunately"


- That's true Fuji, but it places our game in the stark spotlight if we don't deliver the viewing figures in the future, especially with the next tv deals.

Important for the attraction of Advertisers and business model to the relevant monies the RFL can expect to attract, in direct comparison to other sports.

Sky Sports is a microcosm of everything that's wrong with the world.


The scum.

There's something goin on at the minute bout a takeover

The culture secretary has said she is "minded to" refer Rupert Murdoch's 21st Century Fox takeover of Sky to the competition watchdog.
Karen Bradley's decision is a blow to the media mogul's hopes of having the £11.7bn deal waved through without further scrutiny.
Mr Murdoch already owns 39% of the satellite broadcaster.
An earlier attempt to take over Sky was abandoned in the wake of the phone hacking scandal.
Ms Bradley told the Commons that Ofcom's report into the deal found it risked the Murdoch family having "increased influence" over the UK's news agenda and the political process.

Not got the link but it's on BBC business news for full story

maybe should be careful what we wish for re cheaper packages. My understanding is we are on "the other" channel that sweeps up the sports sky doesn't care about. So Football (x2), Cricket, Golf get their own channels and the Arena channel is used for everything else.

Im guessing this may have a direct impact on how they share their money out too, so being part of the "everyone else" channel may affect how much money we get off them, me thinks this is a ploy to better compensate the amount of money they spend on certain sports