Greatest annual tournament on earth sold to the highest bidder

by tigertattie Sun 01 Mar 2020, 3:28 pm

Looks like sky are getting the rights to the 6ns with BBC and ITV being told they can’t team up anymore.

So what’s the thoughts here? Surely only those into rugby will pay for the subscription which will mean bringing in new fans will be that bit more difficult?

Time for the local clubs to get the biggest share of the TV windfall to invest in grass roots rugby (yeah that’ll be right eh)

by **BigGee** Sun 01 Mar 2020, 3:36 pm

I have Sky, but still think this is a bad idea.

Every sport that goes behind a paywall loses viewers, why do they think that rugby will be any different. For a lot of people the only rugby they watch is the 6N and they won't pay to do so.

A lot of cash in the short term, but it does not help the long term future of the game.

If Sky are going to come on board, then there needs to be some sort of sharing arrangement so that some games are still free to air.

by lostinwales Sun 01 Mar 2020, 3:53 pm

Its a huge pile of sh1te. I have no idea why its not a protected event anyway. So what if it isn't football.

Its a hard game, and anything reducing its exposure will just make it more and more easy for 'concerned parents' to stop little jimmy playing even though what little jimmy really wants and needs is a controlled outlet for all that aggression.

by No 7&1/2 Sun 01 Mar 2020, 4:23 pm

May mean extended highlights on terrestrial for each game. Still a cat b sporting event so dont think the current 1 hour highlights would tick the box?

by 123456789. Sun 01 Mar 2020, 6:16 pm

Symptomatic of the way the game is going unfortunately. As long as the money is spent wisely I am not too fussed. It may mean people watch the games in communal spaces like rugby clubs and pubs, which in a world without Coronavirus, would be no bad thing. It is a shame because it will mean that you won't get the fair-weather big game supporters anymore. In the short term it will help us seal the financial gap and further close the playing gap to the Southern Hemisphere. In the long term, if the revenue is spent poorly, it could further exacerbate it.

by Gooseberry Sun 01 Mar 2020, 7:57 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:May mean extended highlights on terrestrial for each game.

Not very good for the scotland fans to just get 1 minute a game shown

by No9 Sun 01 Mar 2020, 8:38 pm

Gooseberry wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:May mean extended highlights on terrestrial for each game.

Not very good for the scotland fans to just get 1 minute a game shown

Spot on.... 1hr show, 30 mins of the England highlights, 10 mins of the England discussion and the remaining 20 mins shared between the 2 other matches not including England. And of course if it’s ITV, take the 10mins ads over the hour out of the 20 mins of non England coverage. That’s how they’ve e done it before.... censored

It’s the worst thing that can be done for rugby. I don’t see any Pro14 anymore, now it’s on pay to watch, although I have Sky sports I know many many others, friends and family, who don’t have Sky Tv so can’t get Sky sports or will not pay for it.

This will simply kill off rugby, with kids not seeing it and hence not wanting to play the game.

Greats of the game, like Shane Williams has said, as a kid they would grab a ball, and he wanted to be Gerald Davies, and kids today want to be Shane. Well this will all go. Its ok, to say we'll watch in the pubs and clubs, but not many of those like having kids in to watch the game. It will alienate the kids, the players of the future. Never mind, the greedy money men will get their bonuses.

Well done rugby money men, a perfect example of killing the goose that laid the golden egg.

by Soul Requiem Sun 01 Mar 2020, 9:52 pm

The death of rugby, sky tends to destroy everything it touches.

by quinsforever Sun 01 Mar 2020, 10:04 pm

i blame the private equity money men

by **LondonTiger** Mon 02 Mar 2020, 9:15 am

Who has banned BBC and ITV from doing a joint bid?

by tigertattie Mon 02 Mar 2020, 10:02 am

LondonTiger wrote:Who has banned BBC and ITV from doing a joint bid?

The 6Ns

No idea why. Maybe they feel they can get a higher price if they give one broadcaster exclusive rights?

by Pete330v2 Mon 02 Mar 2020, 10:09 am

I already pay from Premier sports for the Pro14 and I go halfers with my Dad on a BT subscription which he gets on his sky box and I get via the mobile app which suits very well as I get to see all the rugby I want through both platforms. I simply could not justify paying for a Sky Sports subscription to catch the 6 nations.
I always hoped that rugby in general would be protected from this level of financial greed but it seems it's going the same way boxing and soccer went amongst other sports. If you have deep pockets you can watch them all, if you are one of the majority who does not then you can rely on either highlights or navigation of the various streaming sites.
Sad times for rugby in general but this move will be even sadder for the 6 nations.

by **LondonTiger** Mon 02 Mar 2020, 10:18 am

tigertattie wrote:
LondonTiger wrote:Who has banned BBC and ITV from doing a joint bid?

The 6Ns

No idea why. Maybe they feel they can get a higher price if they give one broadcaster exclusive rights?

Seems non-nonsensical though. Banning a joint bid reduces the amount BBC or ITV can bid compared to the combined bid thus makes it easier to get it cheaper for someone else. Unless I am missing something.

by WELL-PAST-IT Mon 02 Mar 2020, 10:57 am

Not a good deal at all for rugby in general but money will always win.

One good thing about Sky Sport though, you can buy a Now TV subscription for a week or a month just for the 6N, you don't have to have a full year contract.

by TightHEAD Mon 02 Mar 2020, 11:02 am

My love of the international game will stop if it moves to Sky TV.

Good way to kill the game and the 6 nations.

by No9 Mon 02 Mar 2020, 12:16 pm

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:Not a good deal at all for rugby in general but money will always win.

One good thing about Sky Sport though, you can buy a Now TV subscription for a week or a month just for the 6N, you don't have to have a full year contract.

True if you have a nice fast broadband link and a smart TV that can access Now TV (or buy a usb dongle). But not everyone has those.... Lots of places (especially in rural Wales) still have very low bandwidth on their internet.

Basically, its a quick bonus for he money men, who dont care a damn about the game.

by SecretFly Mon 02 Mar 2020, 3:25 pm

My God! Do we actually have a degree of consensus on 606 finally!!!!?

I'm amazed and delighted so many of us seem to be of the same opinion on this - i.e., not a very good development.

I think we should all clean up our pitchforks, put some cool logos on 'em and storm Six Nations headquarters!

"We're not gonna take it no more!!!!!"

6N doorgranny: "Thank you very much for your concerns. We encourage participation in conversations around the future of our great game. Your concerns and confiscated pitchforks shall of course be put on file .... IN a filing cabinet. Now pi--ss off, I'm about to sweep the step the two of you are standing in."

by 123456789. Mon 02 Mar 2020, 3:45 pm

We could become more militant. Take inspiration from the Mass Trespass of Kinder Scout. Albeit in reverse. Start a boycott of the Six Nations next year, campaign against attendance of matches and purchasing of new Sky subscriptions to watch it. That'll show 'em soon enough.

by Gooseberry Mon 02 Mar 2020, 3:48 pm

Let's start by boycotting the italy game

by **profitius** Mon 02 Mar 2020, 3:50 pm

Anyone have any figures in terms of how much the 6N currently generates Vs how much they could potentially get?

by Guest Mon 02 Mar 2020, 4:04 pm

SecretFly wrote:My God! Do we actually have a degree of consensus on 606 finally!!!!?

I'm amazed and delighted so many of us seem to be of the same opinion on this - i.e., not a very good development.

I think we should all clean up our pitchforks, put some cool logos on 'em and storm Six Nations headquarters!

"We're not gonna take it no more!!!!!"

6N doorgranny: "Thank you very much for your concerns. We encourage participation in conversations around the future of our great game. Your concerns and confiscated pitchforks shall of course be put on file .... IN a filing cabinet. Now pi--ss off, I'm about to sweep the step the two of you are standing in."

Lucky our old friend PhillBB is not here to spoil the consensus party. He's out with his own pitchfork on Twitter, heckling anyone who complains about the 6N moving behind the pay wall!

by Geordie Mon 02 Mar 2020, 4:28 pm

Well i dont have sky...and have no intention of getting it...so ill not be watching the 6n anymore...how wonderful .

Thanks to all involved.

by No9 Mon 02 Mar 2020, 4:48 pm

Here's a petition...

https://www.change.org/p/the-government-keep-the-six-nations-on-free-to-air-television?recruiter=13656772&recruited_by_id=8d463260-a9b7-0130-87b1-3c764e0455b2&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink&utm_campaign=petition_dashboard

@Mods - can you put this link into the opening post...

@All - put this link up on any other Rugby forums you may visit..

It cant do any harm, but it might show the money men they're ideas of 6 Nations Pay to View is not what this tournament needs.

by Soul Requiem Mon 02 Mar 2020, 4:53 pm

The home nations have made it clear that they want it to stay on free to view television and the powers that be seem to be backtracking slightly already. Motion being put before the HOC with regards to this too.

by 123456789. Mon 02 Mar 2020, 5:11 pm

profitius wrote:Anyone have any figures in terms of how much the 6N currently generates Vs how much they could potentially get?

The BBC/ITV bid the last time was £65 million per annum according to BBC Sport. The Guardian said it was worth £90 million but does not state over which period of time. The new contract is said to be worth £300 million and last up until 2024. I assume that it's £300 million over three years as opposed to per annum. So if we assume that the BBC knows how much it spends and it's £300 million over each year then an extra £35 million per annum, so £7 million for each nation. Given we don't yet know the exact details of the CVC deal it may be as straightforward as they simply have to accept the largest offer.

Guardian 05/02/2020 wrote:The deal to sell a 15% stake in the Six Nations to the private equity company CVC is being held up over the home unions’ insistence that the tournament should remain live on terrestrial television, the Guardian has learned. Talks over the £300m agreement are in the final stages but the issue of broadcast rights remains a key sticking point between the two sides.

It is understood the outcome may hinge on whether the two sides can compromise on a hybrid package involving one match per round being screened on subscription television.

CVC, which has bought a 27% stake in the Premiership and the Guinness Pro14 for £320m, approached the Six Nations last year and the two parties started an exclusive period of negotiation in September. As part of its offer CVC wants control of the tournament’s commercial arm and the right to arrange the next broadcasting deal.

The current agreement with BBC and ITV, which is worth £90m a year, ends in 2022 and the tender process for the new contract is due to start this month, although the talks with CVC may still be continuing then. For CVC, broadcasting holds the difference between a healthy return on the £300m investment and a modest one.

“We have not set a deadline,” said Benjamin Morel, the Six Nations chief executive, “but I would expect that we will reach a decision within a matter of weeks rather than months. The talks have been constructive but negotiations like this take time because there are a number of complicated issues to deal with. We are always looking at ways of attracting investment, but it is important that we retain control.”

The Six Nations is in Group B of the government’s listed sporting events for broadcasting, which guarantees free-to-air broadcasters secondary rights. The home unions have resisted attempts to have the tournament upgraded to Group A, which would put it out of reach of pay TV, arguing that doing so would drive down the price.

The tournament has become a national event and the home unions are concerned that if the BBC and ITV lost the contract to a subscription rival the subsequent drop in the sport’s profile would not be worth the extra money generated by a deal.

CVC will be loth to leave the Six Nations with the power of veto over the TV contract, but taking all the matches away from free-to-air would lead to a public outcry and put pressure on the government to add the tournament to the Group A list.

CVC wants to aggregate the commercial rights of the six unions, bundling November internationals and the Six Nations together to achieve a maximum return. It would involve making the July and November Test windows more than a series of friendlies that have no competitive meaning beyond world ranking positions, but the Six Nations would be the most valuable property for sale.

CVC has been linked with Amazon, which screened all the Premier League football matches on Boxing Day in a bid to drive subscriptions for its Prime service. It worked, but a leading sports lawyer believes it would be difficult to tempt Amazon into rugby unless the game adopted a more global outlook.

“I think they would want something that involved countries like the United States and Japan, but rugby does not have football’s reach,” said Richard Cramer, the managing partner at Front Row Legal. “They would definitely be an option to explore, but CVC will not be looking to make a quick return on their investment. They will need to be involved for the long haul for meaningful change to happen.”

If all of the above is true then the deal with CVC seems remarkably shortsighted. If Sky are prepared to hand over £300 million for the TV rights over three years, and CVC want to pay £320 million for an indefinite stake and a share of any profits. It seems that CVC will get their return within a decade and then siphon money out of our game. The TV rights will go to whoever they want at the expense of the fans.

by Guest Mon 02 Mar 2020, 7:10 pm

Am I being cynical if I raise the question of managed decline with regard to rugby? That there is a commercial imperative to effectively profit from and then 'cap' rugby to avoid it eating in to other sports, namely NFL, but also soccer?

by 123456789. Mon 02 Mar 2020, 8:18 pm

I highly doubt that there’s any conspiracy going on. Rugby is a relatively small sport in the grand scheme of things. Infinitely smaller than football.
I suspect that’s part of the issue. Rugby is a small-c conservative sport. The Six Nations has had one format change in a hundred years. The top 8 teams in rugby have been the same now for well over a hundred years.
Those of us who follow rugby, follow it because we like the way it is. Those people who invest in rugby do so because they see a chance solely for profit. They do not care what is trampled over and destroyed to create their vision. Because whether you’ve loved rugby since the day you were born, or developed a passing, seasonal interest the money in your pocket is worth the same.

by Recwatcher16 Mon 02 Mar 2020, 8:49 pm

Those Unions who choose to fund the elite game, top down, are always going to chase the money and CVC know it.
Private Equity has been let into the 6N International game as a consequence and looks like they are going to take over the finances, eventually.

by **Rugby Fan** Tue 03 Mar 2020, 4:19 am

I'd rather have the game available on free-to-air but I'm not sure that it's a make-or-break decision for the future of rugby.

If rugby really depends on having a free-to-air Six Nations to avoid withering on the vine, then I suspect we're doomed.

What I do want from any successful bidding broadcaster is a much more open policy towards independent content creators on social media (such as Squidge Rugby). 30 years ago, I'd make an effort to buy all the Sunday newspapers as soon as they came out to read up on Saturday Five Nations games. These days, I get most of my input from forums, podcasters, YouTubers, twitter accounts etc. A lot of these sources have added to my enjoyment of the game considerably, especially when they can illustrate their points with clips from matches.

Now, a free-for-all is probably not in anyone's interests but there's currently a draconian attitude to fair use, which is strangling one of the ways the sport needs to grow its audience. Kids don't watch telly like we used to, so we need to let them find their way to the sport through other routes as well.

Clips aren't just for Youtubers. They can be used by local teams used to ceate training drills, or to educate players and referees on law interpretations. Footage of the sport is a valuable currency only when its being shared and appreciated, not when it's in the news because a broadcaster is issuing takedown notices, and getting accounts banned.

Plenty of sports have grown their particpation and audiences without prime weekend slots on terrestrial TV. Rugby has perhaps relied on that exposure to the detriment of finding other ways to promote the sport.

by Guest Tue 03 Mar 2020, 7:44 am

I would be surprised if too many kids become professional rugby players on the back of watching the six nations on TV. Those days have gone I'm afraid and the key to success is starting them young in an already rugby-mad environment. Money, contacts, and play a big part as well.

But I'm not sure that should be an argument against removing it from free to air TV. It seems with the current government hellbent on destroying the BBC to the point of having it validate their unique brand of warped non-conservative, non-British 'one nation Conservatism' this will be another sacrifice the BBC takes to try and protect its core assets of news and political access as their budget dwindles even further. Does it make a mockery with the women's football world cup being on the BBC while the Six Nations is behind a paywall? Well, yes, frankly, but that's an insight in to both the power of Sky (F1, darts, tennis, athletics...you name it, they've taken it) as well as the values of the current Beeb. Where does ITV sit in all of this? I would have thought that BT Sport's relationship with the two terrestrial channels might have counted for something but this seems designed to keep them separately weak.

At this stage it sounds like a very deliberate leak to get an emotional reaction from the public in the media at a time when it will generate headlines i.e. mid tournament. Money isn't everything but there are people who see a lot of money to be made by growing the game and you can never, ever stop these people. The six nations on Sky sounds awful to be honest but their rugby coverage has been dormant for a while and you can only assume theyve targeted this as the rebirth of rugby for them and rugby fans returning from BT.

I don't know what to make of this other than many people who would otherwise watch out of tradition now won't be able to at home. The extra money gained, if spent well, will likely benefit grassroots rugby more in the long run but it may mean general interest in the game wanes like cricket has. Rugby is dying in Wales and people do not watch their local teams on their doorstep when the games are on TV and when they are not. I am more concerned about the need to do justice to restructing the club game than international but whatever happens this does now appear to be the end of the Six Nations as that traditional cornerstone like Wimbledon and eventually once money becomes key that will make it easier to change its place in the calendar and look at dropping or replacing Italy and other commercial moves.

I don't think it's a good thing yet the whole CVC investment seems rife with trouble.

by Soul Requiem Tue 03 Mar 2020, 8:04 am

guestalt_physicality wrote:I would be surprised if too many kids become professional rugby players on the back of watching the six nations on TV. Those days have gone I'm afraid and the key to success is starting them young in an already rugby-mad environment. Money, contacts, and play a big part as well.

Which is exactly why I mentioned Sinckler and Genge, neither went the route you suggest.

by Guest Tue 03 Mar 2020, 8:16 am

Soul Requiem wrote:
guestalt_physicality wrote:I would be surprised if too many kids become professional rugby players on the back of watching the six nations on TV. Those days have gone I'm afraid and the key to success is starting them young in an already rugby-mad environment. Money, contacts, and play a big part as well.

Which is exactly why I mentioned Sinckler and Genge, neither went the route you suggest.

Yes they did. They got in to rugby because of contacts. Sinckler went to a rugby school on a scholarship and that is why he is now playing for England. Genge got a scholarship to Hartpury. Without that access it would be almost guaranteed, however interested in the sport he might have been, he would not have made it. By the time kids are old enough to take interest in rugby independently i.e. not just watching what their parents and siblings do, it is likely that they already play with a local club.

I think another thing which is being overlooked is the internet. Most teenagers don't watch TV they 'watch' the internet. I can't speak for all pre-teenage children but the trend is similar. Rugby does a horrible job of broadcasting itself over social media for the most part and has been slow to catch up but that is where you can pick up the late bloomers not a tournament which is on for a few weeks a year.

Again, that's not a reason to get rid of it. Quite the opposite. Pensioners' wants and needs are just a burden to corporate interests unless they can profit from them but they shouldn't be for the rest of us. They are cut off from the internet and having rugby on the BBC seems the sensible thing to do in their interests in particular at least in the short term.

by Soul Requiem Tue 03 Mar 2020, 8:21 am

guestalt_physicality wrote:
Soul Requiem wrote:
guestalt_physicality wrote:I would be surprised if too many kids become professional rugby players on the back of watching the six nations on TV. Those days have gone I'm afraid and the key to success is starting them young in an already rugby-mad environment. Money, contacts, and play a big part as well.

Which is exactly why I mentioned Sinckler and Genge, neither went the route you suggest.

Yes they did. They got in to rugby because of contacts. Sinckler went to a rugby school on a scholarship and that is why he is now playing for England. Without that access it would be almost guaranteed, however interested in the sport he might have been, he would not have made it. By the time kids are old enough to take interest in rugby independently i.e. not just watching what their parents and siblings do, it is likely that they already play with a local club.

I think another thing which is being overlooked is the internet. Most teenagers don't watch TV they 'watch' the internet. I can't speak for all pre-teenage children but the trend is similar. Rugby does a horrible job of broadcasting itself over social media for the most part and has been slow to catch up but that is where you can pick up the late bloomers not a tournament which is on for a few weeks a year.

Again, that's not a reason to get rid of it. Quite the opposite. Pensioners' wants and needs are just a burden to corporate interests unless they can profit from them but they shouldn't be for the rest of us. They are cut off from the internet and having rugby on the BBC seems the sensible thing to do in their interests in particular at least in the short term.

Erm no they didn't, the pair went to comprehensive schools and in the case of Sinckler starting his own rugby team, he then earned a rugby scholarship.

by Guest Tue 03 Mar 2020, 8:24 am

Yes but you're missing the point. Players still need the access to elite opportunities. Many kids don't get that purely through the postcode lottery, in both England and Wales, probably true in Scotland as well. More money = better academies = more opportunity and all the rest of it. Protecting this idea that a child watches the six nations (for a few weeks a year) and self motivates themselves in to the professional game on the back of that is nonsense, frankly. You're missing the point. I'm sure Genge and Sinckler started playing rugby because they were useless at football more than anything else.

by Soul Requiem Tue 03 Mar 2020, 8:26 am

I'm not missing the point at all, you're conveniently ignoring all the bits that don't suit your argument.

by Guest Tue 03 Mar 2020, 8:30 am

What point are you making? I can't see anything other than devil's advocate.

It's very simple. The implication is keeping rugby on TV via the six nations should be done so children outside the traditional catchment area of rugby's heartlands who don't have access to a club through parents or school can feel motivated enough to play it. This will in turn create the international players of tomorrow. But all the points I've made are trying to help you see why this is a very (at best) outdated view to take.

So what's your point?

by Soul Requiem Tue 03 Mar 2020, 8:32 am

guestalt_physicality wrote:What point are you making? I can't see anything other than devil's advocate.

It's very simple. The implication is keeping rugby on TV via the six nations should be done so children outside the traditional catchment area of rugby's heartlands who don't have access to a club through parents or school can feel motivated enough to play it. This will in turn create the international players of tomorrow. But all the points I've made are trying to help you see why this is a very (at best) outdated view to take.

So what's your point?

Outdated aside from the examples that prove that to be rubbish thumbsup

by Guest Tue 03 Mar 2020, 8:33 am

Ok so you never had a point to make. Just devil's advocate.

by Soul Requiem Tue 03 Mar 2020, 8:41 am

You're right nobody ever got into rugby by watching it on tv.

by Guest Tue 03 Mar 2020, 8:49 am

Not many professional players, no. Most of them get in to the sport through parents, friends, and the local community first and foremost and what separates the community game from the academy players is what I mentioned: talent, contacts, and money.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you haven't realised this but your examples are already a generation out of date. Being generous, we're talking about the 10 year olds of today (who are growing up with TikTok and YouTube and SnapChat not just 4 or even 5 channel television) who might be the professional rugby players of tomorrow. Being more accurate we might be dealing with the 10 year olds in 5-10 years time when any television change would occur and then start the be felt. That means players born 2010-2020. The two examples you use were born in the mid 90s. That's a generation out of date.

In all likelihood the next generation of players who come to rugby from outside the heartlands will (like is already happening) be picked on athletic ability in other sports. Watching rugby on tv definitely did not inspire either of the two players you mention, Sinckler says he much prefers NFL for starters. Kids becoming professional rugby players has next to nothing to do with TV (other than money = more incentive to chase it as a career, therefore more parents pushing children at an earlier age and all the rest of it) and has nothing to do with this debate to be honest. It's the kind of emotional yet empty thing you'd expect to hear from someone who doesn't know what they're talking about.

by No 7&1/2 Tue 03 Mar 2020, 8:51 am

Stop with the catty barbs.

by Soul Requiem Tue 03 Mar 2020, 8:52 am

guestalt_physicality wrote:Not many professional players, no. Most of them get in to the sport through parents, friends, and the local community first and foremost and what separates the community game from the academy players is what I mentioned: talent, contacts, and money.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you haven't realised this but your examples are already a generation out of date. Being generous, we're talking about the 10 year olds of today (who are growing up with TikTok and YouTube and SnapChat not just 4 or even 5 channel television) who might be the professional rugby players of tomorrow. Being more accurate we might be dealing with the 10 year olds in 5-10 years time when any television change would occur and then start the be felt. That means players born 2010-2020. The two examples you use were born in the mid 90s. That's a generation out of date.

In all likelihood the next generation of players who come to rugby from outside the heartlands will (like is already happening) be picked on athletic ability in other sports. Watching rugby on tv definitely did not inspire either of the two players you mention, Sinckler says he much prefers NFL for starters. Kids becoming professional rugby players has next to nothing to do with TV (other than money = more incentive to chase it as a career, therefore more parents pushing children at an earlier age and all the rest of it) and has nothing to do with this debate to be honest. It's the kind of emotional yet empty thing you'd expect to hear from someone who doesn't know what they're talking about.

Sorry but I can't debate with someone so clearly out of touch with reality. We'll ignore all the players at all the different levels who have watched rugby and got into it through that route because Miaow thinks differently.

by Guest Tue 03 Mar 2020, 8:57 am

Ha. And there's that weird miaow "insult" again. I'll jot you down in the 'do not engage' list for next time Soul. Have a great day everyone!

by SecretFly Tue 03 Mar 2020, 9:24 am

Without a doubt, increased TV exposure (free-to-air) has broadened and solidified the appeal of Rugby, certainly in Ireland. And for a sport to thrive, you not only need players (who might have come to the sport from traditional family involvement, friendships or close community links; something perhaps more pertinent to Wales than other Nations perhaps) ..... you also need an audience.
You need a crowd - either watching on the sidelines or sitting on their couches at home. An audience creates an attractive package for sponsors to get involved with. Extra money from sponsorship increases budgets of clubs. Bigger budgets means better coaching, better facilities, better prepared players, better product, more publicity, bigger crowds, bigger budgets, better coaches, better facilities, better players........

Without a doubt, a rugby game rumbling away in the background in a household not fully engaged with the sport, WILL catch the eye of young people in their formative years - it did catch me in the 70s, when bloody football was virtually inescapable. I hated football - as a TV spectacle - as a playground card swapping nightmare! - but this other sport that I caught now and then in the dark days of winter, these guys darting about and throwing a ball one way and another way to get to a line on the opposite side of the field......... hooked.

Now an audience never has to touch a rugby ball, never needs to play - but an audience is the very oxygen for growth, or if I use a 'green' analogy instead, the very carbon dioxide of growth. Wink

These new plans to take the 6N to subscription are obviously not plans to kill an audience. But they are plans to shift that audience - to 'globalise' it. So they'll project an even bigger audience in real terms for 6N. But they'll gladly sacrifice big numbers of that traditional audience within the traditional Nations that actually participate in the 6N. We've played our role. We've provided a marketable entity. Now time to Cash In and brush us aside.

I won't be going subscription to sustain my emotional involvement in the 6N. I'll bow to the end of an age and move on with the rest of my life.

by bsando Tue 03 Mar 2020, 9:38 am

There's a streaming company called DAZN (said like "Da Zone" apparently Erm

) that are targeting Premier League in UK for their streaming platform. They already have a quite an extensive list of sport in countries around Europe in a short period of time. I wonder if they'll come into the 6N equation in the future? https://www.theverge.com/2020/3/3/21162594/dazn-international-expansion-200-countries-canelo-nfl-nhl

by Barney McGrew did it Tue 03 Mar 2020, 10:19 am

In today’s world of pay up or s0dd off, not to mention the demise of sport on the beeb, I’m more or less resigned to pay extra to watch test RU. What I object to is how difficult Sky (& their minions) make subscribing for a month – they require a month’s notice to cancel so you have to subscribe and cancel on the same day which I think is only possible on the phone: they make it deliberately difficult and last time it took me about 30 minutes to do this. So it’s not just the money, it’s also the sheer effort. The 6N will be over two months of course, so I guess I can spread the contact over a longer period, whoopee.

And I think Now TV won’t allow you to record the game, so you have to watch it live (not always possible, esp for every game).

And subscription only rugby will effect the popularity of the game - look at where HW boxing is these days (altho I am looking forward to when they do the whole thing in fancy dress - I'd certainly pay to see Fury box dressed as Mr Blobby, and Ruiz maybe as a weeble).

Anyhoo I’m having difficulty deciding who to despise more: the beeb, the 6N, Sky or Now TV - it used to be easier when I just settled for Murdoch.

by quinsforever Tue 03 Mar 2020, 10:52 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:Stop with the catty barbs.

by TightHEAD Fri 06 Mar 2020, 2:51 pm

Government getting involved now, I'm sure they will do a grand job as always. Rolling Eyes

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/51765780

by No 7&1/2 Fri 06 Mar 2020, 2:55 pm

Bit embarrassing the Tory MP is not up to speed on which events are protected.

by Soul Requiem Fri 06 Mar 2020, 3:00 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:Bit embarrassing the Tory MP is not up to speed on which events are protected.

Read what he said properly.

by Sponsored content