The Future for the PRO12 - Part 3 - The Union Balldance

First topic message reminder :

First article I came across on the Web.

marty2086 wrote:

The Pro14 has a bigger population to work with than the other leagues so theres plenty of reason to think that the gap can be closed at a good rate.

Italy has had a larger population than England for quite some time actually. We're still waiting for this magic moneybag to arrive.

The Top14 is getting such a great deal because of how rugby has grown there

That made me laugh out loud too. I don't even think you believe what you just typed. Like France are a 3rd tier nation come good.

marty2086 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Biltong wrote:Yeah they won't get the expensive players back, not enough revenue yet, but if this becomes successful there should be more revenue in future which might mean the pro14 can compete with salaries from France and England

With the South African sides now on board, in terms of television income there is a funding shortfall from Pro14 to Top14 of £59m. That's £59m more that the teams in the French league get funded per year, than the Pro14 teams. Before the SA teas joined the gap was £65m. So it's going in the right direction, but I don't see a day when the Pro14 competes with the big boys.

Populations
Ireland 6.584m
Wales 3.063m
Scotland 5.295m
Italy 60.6m
Bloemfontain & P. Elizabeth 1.556m
Total 77.098m

England53.01m

France66.9m

The Pro14 has a bigger population to work with than the other leagues so theres plenty of reason to think that the gap can be closed at a good rate. With the current tv deals in the UK coming up for renegotiating the league is more valuable to Sky than ever before because they've lost the ERCC, they will also have competition from Eir Sports who have said they are interested in the rights, plus TV3 have been buying up the rugby rights in Ireland for everything else.

The Top14 is getting such a great deal because of how rugby has grown there, that's why Italy is important and needs to be worked on. If it can take off there that could be a big market for the league.

Factor in the AP tv deal is a bubble that will burst due to BT over paying to out do Sky. BT have been making cuts in different areas due to the amounts they have spent and the lack of return on the investment. The money for the AP could drop or stagnate making it easier to catch them.[/b]

The rugby watching public in South Africa is over 10 million at least.

It stands to good reason they will all be following the pro14, not just those in Bloemfontein and PE

It is important to note DSTV has over 10 million subscribers which by last count 3.5 million were in SA.

Sorry in 2016 it was 5.4 million subscribers in SA.

I was being conservative with the SA figures, I also didn't mention that other teams want to join and the N. American expansion which could and should increase revenues further.

I do think the expansion ideas are the best way to develop rugby elsewhere. I've never bought into this concept that inviting national sides into the 6 Nations or the European Rugby Cups will automatically will improved them. In fact I would go as far as to say it limits their ability to develop as the only matches played are usually are against far superior and better prepared teams. Also 6-8 games per year does not drive improvement in a team sport. These sides need to be in meaningful leagues to give players more exposure and get used to playing 25 games per season at a high standard.

After the 6 Nations there was a lot of hype about including Georgia into the 6 Nations. Personally my train of thought is not expanding the international window needlessly but instead to introduce them to Pro 12 rugby. If and only if they can show their quality at this stage should inclusion to 6 Nations rugby ever be considered.

I just hope all future expansions to the Pro12 will be based on international performances and development as well as financial incentives. Sadly it will probably be all about the money.

Welshmushroom wrote:
After the 6 Nations there was a lot of hype about including Georgia into the 6 Nations.  Personally my train of thought is not expanding the international window needlessly but instead to introduce them to Pro 12 rugby.  If and only if they can show their quality at this stage should inclusion to 6 Nations rugby ever be considered.   

The Italians were introduced to the then 5Ns after a good run of results, they then stuttered and couldn't back it up. It was decided adding them to the Celtic League to form the Pro12 was a good idea to have them playing at a higher level on a weekly basis. Again this didn't work because the foundations weren't in place, there was no clear pathway, the academies weren't being run properly for too long. It now seems to be that there are some quality players coming through, whether the numbers are there only time will tell.

Georgia seem to have laid some good foundations and have academies throughout the country, their u20s look like they have some good players but not yet a complete team. Adding them to the Pro14 would definitely help I think, if the likes of Romania, Germany, Russia and Spain can join or even set up their own pan European league it may help. Even add a Cup competition across leagues during Test windows.

Really coming round to the Pro14 and the SA sides...With extra cash and 1 trip or tour to SA a year, I cant see any players, clubs or fans complaining! The home matches against the SA teams will be more of a draw than some existing fixtures.

I just hope they are thinking ahead sensibly with this expansion, ..I do wonder where it will end and how they will organise the conferences & fixtures, with discussion about;
- 2 from US/Can rumoured for next year
- 4 remaining SA sides, (I guess whenever their contract is due up with Super Rugby)
- Franchises in Georgia, Romania, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Russia and Belgium all of whose national sides are in the 6 nationsB.
 (I do agree with WelshMushroom, that regular league will be more beneficial than 5/6 international matches a year)
- Lastly, although another story...I would have thought there would also be demand for a team based in London, judging on the amount of expats from the celtic nations & SA there. (Cant actually understand why (although muted with Lwelsh) this hasn't yet)

We will see how successful the Pro14 is in the next year. If the money generated is higher, could we potentially see the Aviva approaching the SARFU to POACH the ultimately more successful 4 remaining SA franchises. The Pro14 need to have their NOSES IN FRONT here....I do wonder if there is some small print / clause in the current contract with SARFU about this?

As for the Euro sides....
- 2nd divsion to this Pro League (lets call it   ) - This gets them started. They can then feed into the main Pro20 with Promo/Relegation/Playoff (Might get the side perenially at the bottom to pull up their socks) Alternatively expand the conferences & reshaping when they meet certain criteria to be included...

Either way, I see the Euro cup becoming less and less important if the expansion continues.

RF09 wrote:Really coming round to the Pro14 and the SA sides...With extra cash and 1 trip or tour to SA a year, I cant see any players, clubs or fans complaining! The home matches against the SA teams will be more of a draw than some existing fixtures.

I just hope they are thinking ahead sensibly with this expansion, ..I do wonder where it will end and how they will organise the conferences & fixtures, with discussion about;
- 2 from US/Can rumoured for next year
- 4 remaining SA sides, (I guess whenever their contract is due up with Super Rugby)
- Franchises in Georgia, Romania, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Russia and Belgium all of whose national sides are in the 6 nationsB.
 (I do agree with WelshMushroom, that regular league will be more beneficial than 5/6 international matches a year)
- Lastly, although another story...I would have thought there would also be demand for a team based in London, judging on the amount of expats from the celtic nations & SA there. (Cant actually understand why (although muted with Lwelsh) this hasn't yet)

We will see how successful the Pro14 is in the next year. If the money generated is higher, could we potentially see the Aviva approaching the SARFU to POACH the ultimately more successful 4 remaining SA franchises. The Pro14 need to have their NOSES IN FRONT here....I do wonder if there is some small print / clause in the current contract with SARFU about this?

As for the Euro sides....
- 2nd divsion to this Pro League (lets call it   ) - This gets them started. They can then feed into the main Pro20 with Promo/Relegation/Playoff (Might get the side perenially at the bottom to pull up their socks) Alternatively expand the conferences & reshaping when they meet certain criteria to be included...

Either way, I see the Euro cup becoming less and less important if the expansion continues.

I would think if pro 14 is succesful it will bring in the revenue, so there won't really be a reason for SARU to renage on the pro 14 in favour of the Aviva.

Biltong wrote:

I would think if pro 14 is succesful it will bring in the revenue, so there won't really be a reason for SARU to renage on the pro 14 in favour of the Aviva.

But the Pro14 is currently £26m per year behind the Aviva Premeirship in terms of TV deal and sponsorship.

There seems to be this blind hope that somehow fortunes are bound to change now that 2 very mediocre South African teams have joined.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Biltong wrote:

I would think if pro 14 is succesful it will bring in the revenue, so there won't really be a reason for SARU to renage on the pro 14 in favour of the Aviva.

But the Pro14 is currently £26m per year behind the Aviva Premeirship in terms of TV deal and sponsorship.

There seems to be this blind hope that somehow fortunes are bound to change now that 2 very mediocre South African teams have joined.

The only reason the cheetahs are mediocre is due to the fact that they cannot retain players because of financial constraints. The Province is a horbed for Springbok rugby talent and has always been.

Players such as the Du Plessis brothers, Os du Randt, Andre Joubert etc. etc hail from the free state.

The Kings have been in the rugby wilderness for two decades.

During the apartheid years they were one of the big six in SA.

The Sharks are keen to join as well.

The last deal for SANZAAR was $450 million, of which SA makes up the largest revenue in broadcasting.

SARU is currently funding/subsidising the ARU and NZRU.

Believe me there is a lot more money if this is successful

If SA are in the champs cup sometime in the near future then that should also bring them more revenue?

You would think so yes

Biltong wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Biltong wrote:

I would think if pro 14 is succesful it will bring in the revenue, so there won't really be a reason for SARU to renage on the pro 14 in favour of the Aviva.

But the Pro14 is currently £26m per year behind the Aviva Premeirship in terms of TV deal and sponsorship.

There seems to be this blind hope that somehow fortunes are bound to change now that 2 very mediocre South African teams have joined.

The only reason the cheetahs are mediocre is due to the fact that they cannot retain players because of financial constraints. The Province is a horbed for Springbok rugby talent and has always been.

Players such as the Du Plessis brothers, Os du Randt, Andre Joubert etc. etc hail from the free state.

The Kings have been in the rugby wilderness for two decades.

During the apartheid years they were one of the big six in SA.

The Sharks are keen to join as well.

The last deal for SANZAAR was $450 million, of which SA makes up the largest revenue in broadcasting.

SARU is currently funding/subsidising the ARU and NZRU.

Believe me there is a lot more money if this is successful

Isn't that 450m for the Sanzaar countries playing each other? And not the likes of Zebre ?

There's clearly money out there to pay for rugby tv deals. But I don't get how you convince anyone to part with tens of millions of pounds for something that is currently costing £17m.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Biltong wrote:

I would think if pro 14 is succesful it will bring in the revenue, so there won't really be a reason for SARU to renage on the pro 14 in favour of the Aviva.

But the Pro14 is currently £26m per year behind the Aviva Premeirship in terms of TV deal and sponsorship.

There seems to be this blind hope that somehow fortunes are bound to change now that 2 very mediocre South African teams have joined.

Yeah but a massive amount of that sponsorship comes from BT. Up until that point and on the previous TV deals they had didn't have anything like these contracts available. Keep in mind BT will have been new to the sport broadcasting game. The assumption seems to be BT will always pay this amount of money. I think the reality is now that Sky have moved their interest to the Pro14 and the way that whole thing was handled by McCafferty I find it unlikely they would ever come back and offer them another contract. So basically the revenue Aviva is getting is tied into BT. If they either have a change of heart or reduce the deal because the viewership numbers are not there then where do they go then? Also I'd be interested to see how that 26m is calculated as to my knowledge France has the best sponsorship deals in the TOP14 and their TV deal was worth twice the amount the premiership received but on that basis the Aviva is only about 10 million behind the TOP14 which I find highly unlikely.

I can only see the SA teams in the ERCC if all 6 come on board. Surely the Kings and Cheetahs are the SARUs way of dipping their toe into the European waters, if they can make a go of it then surely the bigger brands like the Bulls and Sharks would thrive

Welshmushroom wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Biltong wrote:

I would think if pro 14 is succesful it will bring in the revenue, so there won't really be a reason for SARU to renage on the pro 14 in favour of the Aviva.

But the Pro14 is currently £26m per year behind the Aviva Premeirship in terms of TV deal and sponsorship.

There seems to be this blind hope that somehow fortunes are bound to change now that 2 very mediocre South African teams have joined.

Yeah but a massive amount of that sponsorship comes from BT.  Up until that point and on the previous TV deals they had didn't have anything like these contracts available.  Keep in mind BT will have been new to the sport broadcasting game.  The assumption seems to be BT will always pay this amount of money.  I think the reality is now that Sky have moved their interest to the Pro14 and the way that whole thing was handled by McCafferty I find it unlikely they would ever come back and offer them another contract.  So basically the revenue Aviva is getting is tied into BT.  If they either have a change of heart or reduce the deal because the viewership numbers are not there then where do they go then?  Also I'd be interested to see how that 26m is calculated as to my knowledge France has the best sponsorship deals in the TOP14 and their TV deal was worth twice the amount the premiership received but on that basis the Aviva is only about 10 million behind the TOP14 which I find highly unlikely.

The AP number is overinflated. With the ERCC going to BT, BT will be cutting spending elsewhere and the AP deal will be hit because of that.

The Sky and BBC deals have one season left to run, Sky will likely go for exclusive rights as they wanted this in the past but they will have competition this time round. That will drive the price up either way

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Biltong wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Biltong wrote:

I would think if pro 14 is succesful it will bring in the revenue, so there won't really be a reason for SARU to renage on the pro 14 in favour of the Aviva.

But the Pro14 is currently £26m per year behind the Aviva Premeirship in terms of TV deal and sponsorship.

There seems to be this blind hope that somehow fortunes are bound to change now that 2 very mediocre South African teams have joined.

The only reason the cheetahs are mediocre is due to the fact that they cannot retain players because of financial constraints. The Province is a horbed for Springbok rugby talent and has always been.

Players such as the Du Plessis brothers, Os du Randt, Andre Joubert etc. etc hail from the free state.

The Kings have been in the rugby wilderness for two decades.

During the apartheid years they were one of the big six in SA.

The Sharks are keen to join as well.

The last deal for SANZAAR was $450 million, of which SA makes up the largest revenue in broadcasting.

SARU is currently funding/subsidising the ARU and NZRU.

Believe me there is a lot more money if this is successful

Isn't that 450m for the Sanzaar countries playing each other? And not the likes of Zebre ?

There's clearly money out there to pay for rugby tv deals. But I don't get how you convince anyone to part with tens of millions of pounds for something that is currently costing £17m.

that is for the RC as well as super rugby

RugbyFan100 wrote:
Isn't that 450m for the Sanzaar countries playing each other? And not the likes of Zebre ?

There's clearly money out there to pay for rugby tv deals. But I don't get how you convince anyone to part with tens of millions of pounds for something that is currently costing £17m.

Have you seen the Sunwolves? Or even some of the Aussie teams?

Do you know what drives up prices for tv deals?

Welshmushroom wrote:

Yeah but a massive amount of that sponsorship comes from BT.  Up until that point and on the previous TV deals they had didn't have anything like these contracts available.  Keep in mind BT will have been new to the sport broadcasting game.  The assumption seems to be BT will always pay this amount of money.  I think the reality is now that Sky have moved their interest to the Pro14 and the way that whole thing was handled by McCafferty I find it unlikely they would ever come back and offer them another contract.  So basically the revenue Aviva is getting is tied into BT.  If they either have a change of heart or reduce the deal because the viewership numbers are not there then where do they go then?  

Loads of speculation and supposition in that post. You could equally say the same about any sponsor / investor / broadcaster of any sports comeptition.

Also I'd be interested to see how that 26m is calculated as to my knowledge France has the best sponsorship deals in the TOP14 and their TV deal was worth twice the amount the premiership received but on that basis the Aviva is only about 10 million behind the TOP14 which I find highly unlikely.

The 26m =

-c21m behind the aviva in tv income per annum (Pro14 = £17m per year, English Premeirship = £38m per year)
+
- c£5m per year behind the Aviva Premeirship in competition income per annum (Guinness = £1m per annum, Aviva = £5.7m per annum

The Top14 is a completely different animal again.

Biltong wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Biltong wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Biltong wrote:

I would think if pro 14 is succesful it will bring in the revenue, so there won't really be a reason for SARU to renage on the pro 14 in favour of the Aviva.

But the Pro14 is currently £26m per year behind the Aviva Premeirship in terms of TV deal and sponsorship.

There seems to be this blind hope that somehow fortunes are bound to change now that 2 very mediocre South African teams have joined.

The only reason the cheetahs are mediocre is due to the fact that they cannot retain players because of financial constraints. The Province is a horbed for Springbok rugby talent and has always been.

Players such as the Du Plessis brothers, Os du Randt, Andre Joubert etc. etc hail from the free state.

The Kings have been in the rugby wilderness for two decades.

During the apartheid years they were one of the big six in SA.

The Sharks are keen to join as well.

The last deal for SANZAAR was $450 million, of which SA makes up the largest revenue in broadcasting.

SARU is currently funding/subsidising the ARU and NZRU.

Believe me there is a lot more money if this is successful

Isn't that 450m for the Sanzaar countries playing each other? And not the likes of Zebre ?

There's clearly money out there to pay for rugby tv deals. But I don't get how you convince anyone to part with tens of millions of pounds for something that is currently costing £17m.

that is for the RC as well as super rugby

Exactly. So we're comparing chalk and cheese. It's like me quoting the value of the 6N tv deals and then saying there is plenty of money in the UK to televise the Pro14.

marty2086 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:
Isn't that 450m for the Sanzaar countries playing each other? And not the likes of Zebre ?

There's clearly money out there to pay for rugby tv deals. But I don't get how you convince anyone to part with tens of millions of pounds for something that is currently costing £17m.

Have you seen the Sunwolves? Or even some of the Aussie teams?

Do you know what drives up prices for tv deals?

Yes I have, but I have a feeling you've got something to add to it either way, so go on.....

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:
Isn't that 450m for the Sanzaar countries playing each other? And not the likes of Zebre ?

There's clearly money out there to pay for rugby tv deals. But I don't get how you convince anyone to part with tens of millions of pounds for something that is currently costing £17m.

Have you seen the Sunwolves? Or even some of the Aussie teams?

Do you know what drives up prices for tv deals?

Yes I have, but I have a feeling you've got something to add to it either way, so go on.....

Sorry what were you replying to there?

marty2086 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:
Isn't that 450m for the Sanzaar countries playing each other? And not the likes of Zebre ?

There's clearly money out there to pay for rugby tv deals. But I don't get how you convince anyone to part with tens of millions of pounds for something that is currently costing £17m.

Have you seen the Sunwolves? Or even some of the Aussie teams?

Do you know what drives up prices for tv deals?

Yes I have, but I have a feeling you've got something to add to it either way, so go on.....

Sorry what were you replying to there?

I have seen those teams. Yes. Thanks. But I have a feeling you have a point to make. So fire away.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Biltong wrote:
I would think if pro 14 is succesful it will bring in the revenue, so there won't really be a reason for SARU to renage on the pro 14 in favour of the Aviva.

But the Pro14 is currently £26m per year behind the Aviva Premeirship in terms of TV deal and sponsorship.

There seems to be this blind hope that somehow fortunes are bound to change now that 2 very mediocre South African teams have joined.

I think the £11m the pro12 was getting was a pittance. It was down to supply and demand. If you've something to sell and there's only one buyer then you will have to accept a very low price. That's the situation in Ireland and Scotland. Even the £5m sky pays is a pittance because they knew there were no competition.


Times are changing now though. You have sky which needs rugby, Eir sport, Eurosport, online platforms starting to spring up as well. In other words more competition to drive up the price. There's already a lot of interested parties waiting for the current TV deal to run out at the end of this coming season.


And I think the south Africans will be better than mediocre especially next season when they're more organised.

profitius wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Biltong wrote:
I would think if pro 14 is succesful it will bring in the revenue, so there won't really be a reason for SARU to renage on the pro 14 in favour of the Aviva.

But the Pro14 is currently £26m per year behind the Aviva Premeirship in terms of TV deal and sponsorship.

There seems to be this blind hope that somehow fortunes are bound to change now that 2 very mediocre South African teams have joined.

I think the £11m the pro12 was getting was a pittance. It was down to supply and demand. If you've something to sell and there's only one buyer then you will have to accept a very low price. That's the situation in Ireland and Scotland. Even the £5m sky pays is a pittance because they knew there were no competition.


Times are changing now though. You have sky which needs rugby, Eir sport, Eurosport, online platforms starting to spring up as well. In other words more competition to drive up the price. There's already a lot of interested parties waiting for the current TV deal to run out at the end of this coming season.


And I think the south Africans will be better than mediocre especially next season when they're more organised.

This is all great news if it comes true. As I said, the key is how much the pro14 can convince the tv companies to part with, considering it currently costs £17m.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:
Isn't that 450m for the Sanzaar countries playing each other? And not the likes of Zebre ?

There's clearly money out there to pay for rugby tv deals. But I don't get how you convince anyone to part with tens of millions of pounds for something that is currently costing £17m.

Have you seen the Sunwolves? Or even some of the Aussie teams?

Do you know what drives up prices for tv deals?

Yes I have, but I have a feeling you've got something to add to it either way, so go on.....

Sorry what were you replying to there?

I have seen those teams. Yes. Thanks. But I have a feeling you have a point to make. So fire away.

No that's whats known as a rhetorical question

You did ignore the actual question on tv deals though

Also I'd be interested to see how that 26m is calculated as to my knowledge France has the best sponsorship deals in the TOP14 and their TV deal was worth twice the amount the premiership received but on that basis the Aviva is only about 10 million behind the TOP14 which I find highly unlikely.

The 26m =

-c21m behind the aviva in tv income per annum (Pro14 = £17m per year, English Premeirship = £38m per year)
+
- c£5m per year behind the Aviva Premeirship in competition income per annum (Guinness = £1m per annum, Aviva = £5.7m per annum

The Top14 is a completely different animal again.[/quote]

Sorry I got to call bull on this post. You posted that the Aviva was 26m ahead of the Pro 12 in a earlier post which is what I queried. 17m (which has been reported by the Pro12 in TV money only) + 26m (The difference you say the Aviva is ahead by) = 43 m. So either your original post is wrong about the 26 million ahead or the post above stating Aviva Premiership income is 38m.

At any rate despite your reported values I cant find anything to verify that BT are paying the Premiership 21m per season. I thought the original deal was worth 10 million per year over 10 years for the Domestic deal. I'm sure the European Coverage was a bit more but I can't see the difference being the 11m shortfall to make it 21m per season.

Feel free to link me any news articles I may have missed.

Welshmushroom wrote:



Sorry I got to call bull on this post.  You posted that the Aviva was 26m ahead of the Pro 12 in a earlier post which is what I queried.  17m (which has been reported by the Pro12 in TV money only) + 26m (The difference you say the Aviva is ahead by) = 43 m.  So either your original post is wrong about the 26 million ahead or the post above stating Aviva Premiership income is 38m.  

26m is the gap between the pro14 and the aviva premiership, in terms of yearly tv money and yearly competition sponsorship.

21m in tv money ahead
5 m in sposnorship money ahead

At any rate despite your reported values I cant find anything to verify that BT are paying the Premiership 21m per season.

BT Sport pay the Aviva permiership £38m per season (and it's increased since that was signed)

Where exactly did you get the 1m sponsorship figure for the pro14?

So the reported 38m per year I found on news bullets as a adjusted deal. So by my math the difference is 21m ahead not 26m as per an earlier post which is 1.75m per team more in the Premiership than in the Pro12.

Welshmushroom wrote:So the reported 38m per year I found on news bullets as a adjusted deal.  So by my math the difference is 21m ahead not 26m as per an earlier post which is 1.75m per team more in the Premiership than in the Pro12.  

I don't know how many times I have to type this: You're not including the sponsorship. (Guinness v Aviva).

Aviva pay £5.7m per year.

I read in early July that Guinness pay around £1m per year. I'll try and find the article.

Populations
Ireland 6.584m
Wales 3.063m
Scotland 5.295m
Italy 60.6m
SA 56m
USA 323.1m
Canada 36.29m
Total 490.332m

England53.01m
France66.9m

490m potential viewers must be attractive to sponsors etc

If we take biltong at his word that the rugby watching public in South Africa is over 10 million at least, and say 10% of USA/CAD+Italy, thats 67.4m

I know that you will point out that 10% etc is not a realistic take on numbers of viewers, but I do think its a realistic estimate on potential viewers, after all the 53m isn't the number of people in England watching rugby its the potential number of viewers.

The target to get 10% of the people in USA/CAD+Italy to watch Rugby is the same as getting everyone in England watching and therefore is maybe a conservative estimate.

The number watching in England for the first half of last season was 4.41m across all games on BT, given that thet usually show at least 2 games a round that's an avg of less than 250k a game

Except for Biltong's input, does anyone have a clue what they're talking about?

Kingshu wrote: Populations
Ireland 6.584m
Wales 3.063m
Scotland 5.295m
Italy 60.6m
SA 56m
USA 323.1m
Canada 36.29m
Total 490.332m

England53.01m
France66.9m

490m potential viewers must be attractive to sponsors etc

If we take biltong at his word that the rugby watching public in South Africa is over 10 million at least, and say 10% of USA/CAD+Italy, thats 67.4m

I know that you will point out that 10% etc is not a realistic take on numbers of viewers, but I do think its a realistic estimate on potential viewers, after all the 53m isn't the number of people in England watching rugby its the potential number of viewers.

The target to get 10% of the people in USA/CAD+Italy to watch Rugby is the same as getting everyone in England watching and therefore is maybe a conservative estimate

They might no be too interested but the weight of numbers should begin to tell, in terms of generating money for the league. 2% of that population is 20m people.

Been away a while.

Last time I posted someone suggested I was bullshitting because I was unaware that the BT-Aviva deal had 4 years to run.
Therefore claiming that BT were going to reduce their level of financial commitment was wrong.

I have since been told that BT are most definitely planning to reduce their investment in sport across the board in the coming years.
Now given the place with respect to soccer I suspect it will be in other sports so I would humbly suggest my original assumption may not be so wide of the mark.

I see the structure is as predicted

It's just common sense that BT will cut spending at some point, the AP renewal was a strange one when it still had plenty of time to run, but their tactic was to take as much off Sky as they could by any means necessary in the hope of crippling them which means they could pick up the scraps on the cheap and downgrade their spending over rights cycles

I think sky lost some tennis rights to Amazon lately! I think its great to see new competition and internet based companies will start a new sports coverage revolution.


The way things are going from what I can see is instead of one or two massive companies like sky and BT controlling everything within a certain area (UK and Ireland in this case), things will become more borken down. What I mean by that is there'll be more companies coming in and they'll have less sports each one but it will give people the opportunity to pick and choose what they want to pay for.


At the moment if you want to get sky just for the rugby, it costs a fortune and you'll essentially be paying 99% of your subscription for other sports, mainly soccer. In 5 years time I can see internet based companies coming in and specialising in sports. So instead of paying €40 to sky you'd pay about €8 to a rugby website. You'd get to see a lot more rugby for far less cost and the same amount of money or more would still make its way to professional rugby. You're essentially cutting out the highly expensive middleman (Sky).

Sky are trying to respond and have plans for subscribers to buy just one sport - £18 a month is a figure I've heard - more for soccer
Get 2 for say £22, 3 for say £25, up to the maximum for the full set of sports
Something along those lines

geoff999rugby wrote:Sky are trying to respond and have plans for subscribers to buy just one sport - £18 a month is a figure I've heard - more for soccer
Get 2 for say £22, 3 for say £25, up to the maximum for the full set of sports
Something along those lines

I think its £27 for everything but if you want just one channel it'll cost £18. Kind of defeats the purpose of splitting the channels imo.

For one channel its £18, for two its £22, for three its £26 and the full package is worth £27.50

Sky also have their Mix channel which shows a handful of live sports events free too

profitius wrote:I think sky lost some tennis rights to Amazon lately! I think its great to see new competition and internet based companies will start a new sports coverage revolution.


The way things are going from what I can see is instead of one or two massive companies like sky and BT controlling everything within a certain area (UK and Ireland in this case), things will become more borken down. What I mean by that is there'll be more companies coming in and they'll have less sports each one but it will give people the opportunity to pick and choose what they want to pay for.


At the moment if you want to get sky just for the rugby, it costs a fortune and you'll essentially be paying 99% of your subscription for other sports, mainly soccer. In 5 years time I can see internet based companies coming in and specialising in sports. So instead of paying €40 to sky you'd pay about €8 to a rugby website. You'd get to see a lot more rugby for far less cost and the same amount of money or more would still make its way to professional rugby. You're essentially cutting out the highly expensive middleman (Sky).

Unbundling TV may well have a downside for the consumer. Check out this article https://stratechery.com/2017/the-great-unbundling/

That doesn't mean it won't happen, but the only people whom unbundling helps are those who only care about 1 thing. If you only care about rugby, unbundling is cheaper, but once you add in your netflex, amazon, HBO etc it will come to about the same price if not more than now.

wolfball wrote:

profitius wrote:I think sky lost some tennis rights to Amazon lately! I think its great to see new competition and internet based companies will start a new sports coverage revolution.


The way things are going from what I can see is instead of one or two massive companies like sky and BT controlling everything within a certain area (UK and Ireland in this case), things will become more borken down. What I mean by that is there'll be more companies coming in and they'll have less sports each one but it will give people the opportunity to pick and choose what they want to pay for.


At the moment if you want to get sky just for the rugby, it costs a fortune and you'll essentially be paying 99% of your subscription for other sports, mainly soccer. In 5 years time I can see internet based companies coming in and specialising in sports. So instead of paying €40 to sky you'd pay about €8 to a rugby website. You'd get to see a lot more rugby for far less cost and the same amount of money or more would still make its way to professional rugby. You're essentially cutting out the highly expensive middleman (Sky).

Unbundling TV may well have a downside for the consumer. Check out this article https://stratechery.com/2017/the-great-unbundling/

That doesn't mean it won't happen, but the only people whom unbundling helps are those who only care about 1 thing. If you only care about rugby, unbundling is cheaper, but once you add in your netflex, amazon, HBO etc it will come to about the same price if not more than now.

It'll be good for some bad for others but overall it will give the consumers more power and flexibility to decide. Sure, if you want to watch everything it'll cost more but those type people are being subsidised by (for example) Bob who is vastly overpaying because he only wants to watch a bit of rugby.


I also think illegal streaming is great for all consumers. Not just the people watching the illegal streams but everyone. Its basically new competition for the big sports broadcasters, its free and its getting easier to watch so they're going to have to lower prices.

We're already seeing the effect of unbundling, thats essentially what has happened with BT and they know it. They had to break Skys grip and have failed to do it like they needed to as many fans won't go out and buy two subscriptions to sports channels.

With Sky holding the majority of the rights to the Premier League they hold the attention of most football fans meaning Sky aren't getting the ratings and subscribers they needed. I think its what has hurt the ERCC too.

As prof says, illegal streaming is hurting business too thats why Sky recently changed their code and its harder for fans to access it illegally now

The first b@lls up of our league:-

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/ospreys-landmark-first-welsh-pro14-13450788

How exactly is it?

Maybe reading the article will tell you a number of reasons

Not necessarily a balls up, they can move to a nearby stadium (SA is a big place), or just make the KO a tad earlier.

Whilst on the subject, does anyone have a Now TV subscription?

mikey_dragon wrote:Not necessarily a balls up, they can move to a nearby stadium (SA is a big place), or just make the KO a tad earlier.

A double header would make plenty of sense, it helps promote the league outside of the Cheetahs fan base and can draw fans into supporting them during the Pro14 season while their Super Rugby team is in off season