Print Page | Close Window

Rugby selling out

Printed From: Scarlet Fever Llanelli Rugby Sport Wales Tickets
Category: RUGBY
Forum Name: GENERAL RUGBY
Forum Description: Other rugby chat
URL: https://www.scarletfever.org/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=46166
Printed Date: 21 October 2021 at 12:47pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Rugby selling out
Posted By: roy munster
Subject: Rugby selling out
Date Posted: 12 January 2021 at 10:44pm
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/six-nations-set-go-behind-19609618%20" rel="nofollow - https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/six-nations-set-go-behind-19609618

-------------
ROYMOND MUNTER MBE (FOR SERVICES TO THE COMBOVER)



Replies:
Posted By: Jones2004
Date Posted: 12 January 2021 at 11:29pm
Originally posted by roy munster roy munster wrote:

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/six-nations-set-go-behind-19609618%20" rel="nofollow - https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/six-nations-set-go-behind-19609618
Why have they insisted that the Six Nations goes ahead at its normal time? Surely the games will be better with supporters in the stadiums (even with limited numbers), which would result in more people buying the subscription = more money for the unions and therefore CVC. Doesn’t make sense that they insist on a February tournament unless the article is incorrect? Any explanations?


Posted By: McQ
Date Posted: 12 January 2021 at 11:41pm
.


Posted By: KID A
Date Posted: 13 January 2021 at 9:24am
Selling out? This is money that is needed to survive!


Posted By: ladram
Date Posted: 13 January 2021 at 9:26am
And when the inevitable financial fallout from covid comes how many people will be able to afford to watch it?


Posted By: Fscarlet
Date Posted: 13 January 2021 at 9:28am
Wales will get £50m from this deal which is far more than they will get from the normal deal. 

No more than 3 of each nations matches will be solely behind the paywall & it remains to be seen if S4C will screen Wales matches.

I am actually in support of this as rugby is on it's arse financially especially with the pandemic. The only side of it I am a bit wary of is how grassroots clubs will be able to afford it as for some sides, my own included, the 6 Nations is a big income generator & I worry if they will be able to afford it.


Posted By: KID A
Date Posted: 13 January 2021 at 9:31am
Originally posted by ladram ladram wrote:

And when the inevitable financial fallout from covid comes how many people will be able to afford to watch it?


More people will be watching it than the alternative - which is no rugby.


Posted By: KID A
Date Posted: 13 January 2021 at 9:35am
I just don't get it. 50 million quid coming in to Welsh rugby and people are moaning that they won't get Jiffy screeching on BBC.


Posted By: ladram
Date Posted: 13 January 2021 at 9:40am
Your not really getting the point,it's about how many people can afford it,license £157-50 sky £100 + i payed £25 for a month to bt and £12-99 to premier for a month ,it all adds up.


Posted By: KID A
Date Posted: 13 January 2021 at 9:43am
Originally posted by ladram ladram wrote:

Your not really getting the point,it's about how many people can afford it,license £157-50 sky £100 + i payed £25 for a month to bt and £12-99 to premier for a month ,it all adds up.


But if you want things, you have to pay for them.

This is how it works. Nobody should be entitled to anything, especially professional sport.


Posted By: Fscarlet
Date Posted: 13 January 2021 at 9:43am
Originally posted by ladram ladram wrote:

Your not really getting the point,it's about how many people can afford it,license £157-50 sky £100 + i payed £25 for a month to bt and £12-99 to premier for a month ,it all adds up.

There are alternatives to a yearly subscription, NOW TV offers day passes for sports at less than a tenner, some matches will still be free to air. There is nothing to say that BT sport won't get the contract thought I suspect it will be either Sky Sports, given their history of working with CVC, or Amazon Prime.



Posted By: GPR - Rochester
Date Posted: 13 January 2021 at 9:47am
I am afraid the morality/fairness of availability of watching your team play professional rugby has gone out of the window once a deal is set up with an Investment Company like CVC. Add in the crippling effects of the pandemic to finances and it becomes inevitable. 

Once this bloody pandemic is over Nigel you and your good wife are more than welcome to come and have a sleepover in mine to watch as many games as you want. Cost for room & board - a nice little bottle of red!!!!!

P.S. per game of courseWink


Posted By: Owen111
Date Posted: 13 January 2021 at 9:48am
Huge boost which is well needed at this moment in time. 

Lets hope that Amazon prime get it - at 7/8 quid a month its affordable and its a pretty good product which includes the next day delivery 1000s hours of content on Prime Video and Amazon Music 

Not to mention a good chunk of UK homes probably already have it 


Posted By: GPR - Rochester
Date Posted: 13 January 2021 at 9:51am
Originally posted by Owen111 Owen111 wrote:

Huge boost which is well needed at this moment in time. 

Lets hope that Amazon prime get it - at 7/8 quid a month its affordable and its a pretty good product which includes the next day delivery 1000s hours of content on Prime Video and Amazon Music 

As a prime customer I can vouch for the quality of the service. If they decide to go into rugby they will get it right. The coverage of the autumn games had a few blips but the commentary teams were light years ahead of Premier which I admit doesn't take much. It is, of course, a streaming service so your wi-fi quality is important. 


Posted By: dr_martinov
Date Posted: 13 January 2021 at 10:09am
I'm really disappointed because this means I won't be able to see Six Nations games. Maybe some Wales ones on S4C.

All this stuff per month is really adding up.
Broadband: 30-50
Netflix: 7+
BBC licence fee (worth noting this isn't free either): 13
Amazon prime: 7
Premier Sports: 10
Sky Sports: 18+

There is an argument why should a professional sport be free yes, I find it hard to counter this. Ultimately they are entertaining people watching them play it so not surprising TV rules because this maximises the number of people who can watch them. So if they can charge both fans at the game and fans watching then they will. 

But what has excessive commercialisation done to soccerball? Players salaries are utterly ridiculous, players are half-grown man-children, has transfer fees over £100 million and is totally out-of-touch with its working-class fan base. I used to be a football fan but it put me off the sport so much I'd never pay to watch a game now. I would be disappointed if rugby went the same way. I don't think Premier Sports has been bad for the Scarlets and I still personally want to go to games so am not seeing this as the end but if Wales were then behind a paywall I'd see them less so undoubtedly lose my interest. But as KidA alludes to, this is not the primary goal, instead it is to make as much money as possible off people willing to pay. And if you hand it over to investment companies and Amazon Prime I wonder what the sport will end up becoming.

Long post short: "fans" are now "consumers". You may justify this from a business point of view all day long but I would rather be a fan and if sport loses that, to me it's not worth watching in any form.


Posted By: Fscarlet
Date Posted: 13 January 2021 at 10:11am
Your broadband costs are high there doc! 

See if you can roll your netflix into your Sky package as they offer a new package which includes Netflix through the Sky Box.


Posted By: dr_martinov
Date Posted: 13 January 2021 at 10:14am
Originally posted by Fscarlet Fscarlet wrote:

Your broadband costs are high there doc! 

See if you can roll your netflix into your Sky package as they offer a new package which includes Netflix through the Sky Box.

Good advice, ta. We had a deal that recently expired you see and haven't had the time to deal with it. If you want the high speed stuff most broadband deals seem to be 30 or so.


Posted By: Fscarlet
Date Posted: 13 January 2021 at 10:16am
Originally posted by dr_martinov dr_martinov wrote:

Originally posted by Fscarlet Fscarlet wrote:

Your broadband costs are high there doc! 

See if you can roll your netflix into your Sky package as they offer a new package which includes Netflix through the Sky Box.

Good advice, ta. We had a deal that recently expired you see and haven't had the time to deal with it. If you want the high speed stuff most broadband deals seem to be 30 or so.

Always worth 'leaving' Sky if you're out of your initial term & they will often give you between 40-60% off when you call to cancel. I called yesterday as it goes & they reduced my price from £40 a month to £28.

Also see if your mobile phone provider does home broadband as they are all offering decent deals.


Posted By: dr_martinov
Date Posted: 13 January 2021 at 10:19am
Originally posted by Fscarlet Fscarlet wrote:

Originally posted by dr_martinov dr_martinov wrote:

Originally posted by Fscarlet Fscarlet wrote:

Your broadband costs are high there doc! 

See if you can roll your netflix into your Sky package as they offer a new package which includes Netflix through the Sky Box.

Good advice, ta. We had a deal that recently expired you see and haven't had the time to deal with it. If you want the high speed stuff most broadband deals seem to be 30 or so.

Always worth 'leaving' Sky if you're out of your initial term & they will often give you between 40-60% off when you call to cancel. I called yesterday as it goes & they reduced my price from £40 a month to £28.

Also see if your mobile phone provider does home broadband as they are all offering decent deals.

Exactly, 30-50 as I said. Even if on their "deals". This wasn't there in the TV era and is before you choose what TV package you want. I'm Virgin and think they are excellent but will try and "leave" them to get another deal.


Posted By: Fscarlet
Date Posted: 13 January 2021 at 10:32am
Originally posted by dr_martinov dr_martinov wrote:

Originally posted by Fscarlet Fscarlet wrote:

Originally posted by dr_martinov dr_martinov wrote:

Originally posted by Fscarlet Fscarlet wrote:

Your broadband costs are high there doc! 

See if you can roll your netflix into your Sky package as they offer a new package which includes Netflix through the Sky Box.

Good advice, ta. We had a deal that recently expired you see and haven't had the time to deal with it. If you want the high speed stuff most broadband deals seem to be 30 or so.

Always worth 'leaving' Sky if you're out of your initial term & they will often give you between 40-60% off when you call to cancel. I called yesterday as it goes & they reduced my price from £40 a month to £28.

Also see if your mobile phone provider does home broadband as they are all offering decent deals.

Exactly, 30-50 as I said. Even if on their "deals". This wasn't there in the TV era and is before you choose what TV package you want. I'm Virgin and think they are excellent but will try and "leave" them to get another deal.

Virgin is the dream! It'll be nigh on another 10 years before they reach me down west LOLLOLLOL


Posted By: KID A
Date Posted: 13 January 2021 at 10:59am
There's not much live Golf, speedway, rugby league, ice hockey, fishing etc on free to air TV compared to SKY / BT / Premier sports. Have those sports sold out too?


Posted By: ladram
Date Posted: 13 January 2021 at 11:11am
Originally posted by KID A KID A wrote:

There's not much live Golf, speedway, rugby league, ice hockey, fishing etc on free to air TV compared to SKY / BT / Premier sports. Have those sports sold out too?
I realise that you have to pay these days but my problem is having to pay different companies for different entities of the same product.


Posted By: Wil Chips
Date Posted: 13 January 2021 at 11:17am
Love to see the 6N on terrestrial TV, but the again I loved the BBC coverage of cricket, footie and a stack of other stuff....

It's the way of the world, and you either get on or die.

It really is as stark as that.


Posted By: dr_martinov
Date Posted: 13 January 2021 at 11:31am
Originally posted by ladram ladram wrote:

Originally posted by KID A KID A wrote:

There's not much live Golf, speedway, rugby league, ice hockey, fishing etc on free to air TV compared to SKY / BT / Premier sports. Have those sports sold out too?
I realise that you have to pay these days but my problem is having to pay different companies for different entities of the same product.

Exactly, it all adds up and we're paying a lot more now. But in fact we're also getting a lot more. This discussion does come down to people being asked to pay for something they feel they are getting for free at present - or moving to a different subscription package from the one they current have, if you like. 

As I said, you can argue it makes sense from a business point of view and it is the way of the world but I stick by my comment we're not fans but consumers now. A large part of sport for me is some form of attachment to my hometown club or home country (or Pittsburgh teams lol) and seeing local boys become our best players is awesome. Judging from football, there'll be far less of this. If I'm in a non-paying minority then my opinion is worth exactly what I pay: nothing, zilch, nadda.

But the trend is obvious from amateurism (before my time) to professionalism. Wil is sort of right that you can't fight it which invites fatalism BUT there are actually conscious decisions being made here on directions the way of the world takes, it is just not us making them and is usually very rich corporations. 


Posted By: ap sior
Date Posted: 13 January 2021 at 1:55pm
Originally posted by dr_martinov dr_martinov wrote:

Originally posted by Fscarlet Fscarlet wrote:

Originally posted by dr_martinov dr_martinov wrote:

Originally posted by Fscarlet Fscarlet wrote:

Your broadband costs are high there doc! 

See if you can roll your netflix into your Sky package as they offer a new package which includes Netflix through the Sky Box.

Good advice, ta. We had a deal that recently expired you see and haven't had the time to deal with it. If you want the high speed stuff most broadband deals seem to be 30 or so.

Always worth 'leaving' Sky if you're out of your initial term & they will often give you between 40-60% off when you call to cancel. I called yesterday as it goes & they reduced my price from £40 a month to £28.

Also see if your mobile phone provider does home broadband as they are all offering decent deals.

Exactly, 30-50 as I said. Even if on their "deals". This wasn't there in the TV era and is before you choose what TV package you want. I'm Virgin and think they are excellent but will try and "leave" them to get another deal.

You've done well to hang on to it for this long fair play !


Posted By: ap sior
Date Posted: 13 January 2021 at 1:59pm
Originally posted by dr_martinov dr_martinov wrote:

Originally posted by ladram ladram wrote:

Originally posted by KID A KID A wrote:

There's not much live Golf, speedway, rugby league, ice hockey, fishing etc on free to air TV compared to SKY / BT / Premier sports. Have those sports sold out too?
I realise that you have to pay these days but my problem is having to pay different companies for different entities of the same product.

Exactly, it all adds up and we're paying a lot more now. But in fact we're also getting a lot more. This discussion does come down to people being asked to pay for something they feel they are getting for free at present - or moving to a different subscription package from the one they current have, if you like. 

As I said, you can argue it makes sense from a business point of view and it is the way of the world but I stick by my comment we're not fans but consumers now. A large part of sport for me is some form of attachment to my hometown club or home country (or Pittsburgh teams lol) and seeing local boys become our best players is awesome. Judging from football, there'll be far less of this. If I'm in a non-paying minority then my opinion is worth exactly what I pay: nothing, zilch, nadda.

But the trend is obvious from amateurism (before my time) to professionalism. Wil is sort of right that you can't fight it which invites fatalism BUT there are actually conscious decisions being made here on directions the way of the world takes, it is just not us making them and is usually very rich corporations. 

As can be seen with the fall out with the Capitol invasion in DC, rich corporations are even controlling free speech now. 

Personally I think inciting violence should not be tolerated on any platform, so to that end banning Trump was the correct decision, but where do you draw the line, and more importantly who should be drawing that line ??


Posted By: KID A
Date Posted: 13 January 2021 at 2:03pm
Originally posted by ap sior ap sior wrote:

Originally posted by dr_martinov dr_martinov wrote:

Originally posted by ladram ladram wrote:

Originally posted by KID A KID A wrote:

There's not much live Golf, speedway, rugby league, ice hockey, fishing etc on free to air TV compared to SKY / BT / Premier sports. Have those sports sold out too?

I realise that you have to pay these days but my problem is having to pay different companies for different entities of the same product.


Exactly, it all adds up and we're paying a lot more now. But in fact we're also getting a lot more. This discussion does come down to people being asked to pay for something they feel they are getting for free at present - or moving to a different subscription package from the one they current have, if you like. 

As I said, you can argue it makes sense from a business point of view and it is the way of the world but I stick by my comment we're not fans but consumers now. A large part of sport for me is some form of attachment to my hometown club or home country (or Pittsburgh teams lol) and seeing local boys become our best players is awesome. Judging from football, there'll be far less of this. If I'm in a non-paying minority then my opinion is worth exactly what I pay: nothing, zilch, nadda.

But the trend is obvious from amateurism (before my time) to professionalism. Wil is sort of right that you can't fight it which invites fatalism BUT there are actually conscious decisions being made here on directions the way of the world takes, it is just not us making them and is usually very rich corporations. 


As can be seen with the fall out with the Capitol invasion in DC, rich corporations are even controlling free speech now. 



That's a ridiculous thing to say. It's a private company adhering to it's own terms and conditions.

The President of the USA has the worlds press at his fingertips to put himself on the news any time he wants to call a press conference!

Anyway this is way off topic.


Posted By: SA14
Date Posted: 13 January 2021 at 5:42pm
Originally posted by KID A KID A wrote:

I just don't get it. 50 million quid coming in to Welsh rugby and people are moaning that they won't get Jiffy screeching on BBC.

Totally agree. Yes it’s not ideal but if it goes on BT, Sky or Amazon you don’t have to worry about a 24month contract. You can just sign up for the duration of the tournament then cancel. With Sky buy a Now Tv day pass. There’s loads of ways round it too. Some offer a month free or 7 day trials. (Use a different email each time.) Some you can find cheap codes online and with all of them you can share a log in with a mate. I’d suggest the majority of people watch the games in the pub too. 


Posted By: Eastern outpost
Date Posted: 13 January 2021 at 6:52pm
Originally posted by Fscarlet Fscarlet wrote:

Wales will get £50m from this deal which is far more than they will get from the normal deal. 

No more than 3 of each nations matches will be solely behind the paywall & it remains to be seen if S4C will screen Wales matches.

I am actually in support of this as rugby is on it's arse financially especially with the pandemic. The only side of it I am a bit wary of is how grassroots clubs will be able to afford it as for some sides, my own included, the 6 Nations is a big income generator & I worry if they will be able to afford it.
Iirc, the £50m is over 5 years. 

What do we get per year under the expiring deal?


-------------
In a world where you can be anything – Be Kind.


Posted By: Jones2004
Date Posted: 13 January 2021 at 7:04pm
Originally posted by Eastern outpost Eastern outpost wrote:

Originally posted by Fscarlet Fscarlet wrote:

Wales will get £50m from this deal which is far more than they will get from the normal deal. 

No more than 3 of each nations matches will be solely behind the paywall & it remains to be seen if S4C will screen Wales matches.

I am actually in support of this as rugby is on it's arse financially especially with the pandemic. The only side of it I am a bit wary of is how grassroots clubs will be able to afford it as for some sides, my own included, the 6 Nations is a big income generator & I worry if they will be able to afford it.
Iirc, the £50m is over 5 years. 

What do we get per year under the expiring deal?
The £50m is just the WRU’s share of the CVC money. The pay TV deal would be above that, although 14.5% (?) of it would be going straight to CVC.
The current TV deal is valued at £90m, although I’ve no idea if that is per year or over the whole deal. Some reports suggest the new pay TV deal could be as high as £300m, although again I’ve no idea over how long that is.


Posted By: dyniol53
Date Posted: 13 January 2021 at 8:40pm
Originally posted by KID A KID A wrote:

I just don't get it. 50 million quid coming in to Welsh rugby and people are moaning that they won't get Jiffy screeching on BBC.

I can’t tell you how hard it will be to get rugby back into public consciousness once the 6N goes behind a paywall.

Whether it’s Amazon, BT or Sky isn’t really the issue - the issue is will be that it’s not free-to-air. 

BBC and ITV literally have millions more viewers for Cash in the Attic and The Chase than Sky do for the Manchester Derby or any other big PL game (let alone BT or Amazon’s which are even smaller)

Cricket went behind a paywall a decade ago and the ECB has had to INVENT A NEW FORMAT of the game to try and get it back into public consciousness. Almost all cricket fans are against “the Hundred” and it’s a very expensive £39m bet to see if it works.

The loss of the sport in the public consciousness has long-term financial implications as well as social implications. 

With the issues around concussion atm the sport really can’t afford to become less desirable to pick up and play - for every parent that doesn’t want their kid to play rugby there’s currently a kid arguing back because he wants to be the next Itoje, Sexton, Hogg or Tipuric.

Awareness and Fame is so powerful - rugby neglects it at its own peril.


-------------
https://twitter.com/exile_podcast?lang=en


Posted By: Dic Penderyn
Date Posted: 13 January 2021 at 10:42pm
I already know many people in Llanelli who struggle to watch the Scarlets,because  they can't afford to.This is no surprise:Wales is a poor place,among the poorest in Western Europe.The national sport will now be taken further away from the poor,especially the children of the poor:that can't be good for the future of the game.


Posted By: SA14
Date Posted: 13 January 2021 at 10:58pm
With current prices for the whole tournament. 

Sky - £67.98 (or £9.99 per day passes)
Amazon - £11.98
BT - £50

Or half that if you pay for one month a mate pays for another and share a log in. 


Posted By: PE SA
Date Posted: 13 January 2021 at 11:33pm
People always moan that Wales need more money in the game from top to bottom... Mad to think those same people complain about a much needed £50m cash injection! 


Posted By: Eastern outpost
Date Posted: 14 January 2021 at 7:17am
Originally posted by PE SA PE SA wrote:

People always moan that Wales need more money in the game from top to bottom... Mad to think those same people complain about a much needed £50m cash injection! 
The game, professional especially, needs this TV money. It buys time.

There will probably be a game a week on free to air so as not to cut it off from all those that can’t or won’t pay.

SA14’s idea of a share with a mate is great and the Amazon price doesn’t seem a huge figure. It compares favourably with the other two.


-------------
In a world where you can be anything – Be Kind.


Posted By: Fscarlet
Date Posted: 14 January 2021 at 7:24am
Whatever broadcaster gets it, I really hope they factor in what small clubs will be able to afford. 


Posted By: ladram
Date Posted: 19 January 2021 at 5:35pm
Don't know if anyone else took out a month on premier sports but i went to cancel now and they gave me 3 months at £3-99 a month.


Posted By: dyniol53
Date Posted: 25 January 2021 at 9:39pm
Originally posted by dyniol53 dyniol53 wrote:

Originally posted by KID A KID A wrote:

I just don't get it. 50 million quid coming in to Welsh rugby and people are moaning that they won't get Jiffy screeching on BBC.

I can’t tell you how hard it will be to get rugby back into public consciousness once the 6N goes behind a paywall.

Whether it’s Amazon, BT or Sky isn’t really the issue - the issue is will be that it’s not free-to-air. 

BBC and ITV literally have millions more viewers for Cash in the Attic and The Chase than Sky do for the Manchester Derby or any other big PL game (let alone BT or Amazon’s which are even smaller)

Cricket went behind a paywall a decade ago and the ECB has had to INVENT A NEW FORMAT of the game to try and get it back into public consciousness. Almost all cricket fans are against “the Hundred” and it’s a very expensive £39m bet to see if it works.

The loss of the sport in the public consciousness has long-term financial implications as well as social implications. 

With the issues around concussion atm the sport really can’t afford to become less desirable to pick up and play - for every parent that doesn’t want their kid to play rugby there’s currently a kid arguing back because he wants to be the next Itoje, Sexton, Hogg or Tipuric.

Awareness and Fame is so powerful - rugby neglects it at its own peril.

Here’s a nice like-for-like comparison of the same teams at a similar time one in a relatively trivial game in the FA cup and the other a top of the table clash in the Premier League.

Man Utd v Liverpool FA cup BBC viewers - 9.2million

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/55800811" rel="nofollow - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/55800811

Man Utd v Liverpool Premiership viewers - 4.5million

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-9160459/United-vs-Liverpool-watched-Premier-League-game-Britain-4-8m-fans-tuned-in.html" rel="nofollow - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-9160459/United-vs-Liverpool-watched-Premier-League-game-Britain-4-8m-fans-tuned-in.html

The Premier league game was the most watched Premier League game in history. The FA cup tie had twice as many viewers.

When Six nations goes behind a pay wall the administrators should be clear that they are happy to reduce their audience by half (likely more) in order for more money to “fund the unions”. 

And what is the purpose of the unions..?


-------------
https://twitter.com/exile_podcast?lang=en


Posted By: dyniol53
Date Posted: 02 February 2021 at 5:17pm
Something related to this topic in this post.

https://www.supercast.com/blog/joe-rogan-got-ripped-off" rel="nofollow - https://www.supercast.com/blog/joe-rogan-got-ripped-off

Joe Rogan runs the biggest podcast in the world; moved from YouTube and Apple podcasts (free-to-air) to Spotify (subscription/freemium) and has appeared to lose ~30-50% of his listeners in the process.

That means he loses cultural capital (e.g. people chatting about it in the pub) as Spotify capture most of his gains.

I still think there’s not enough people making the obvious point to the 6N that they’ll lose half their reach if they move off free-to-air. Which means rugby will be more culturally irrelevant. 


-------------
https://twitter.com/exile_podcast?lang=en


Posted By: roy munster
Date Posted: 02 February 2021 at 5:41pm
Originally posted by dyniol53 dyniol53 wrote:

Something related to this topic in this post.

https://www.supercast.com/blog/joe-rogan-got-ripped-off" rel="nofollow - https://www.supercast.com/blog/joe-rogan-got-ripped-off

Joe Rogan runs the biggest podcast in the world; moved from YouTube and Apple podcasts (free-to-air) to Spotify (subscription/freemium) and has appeared to lose ~30-50% of his listeners in the process.

That means he loses cultural capital (e.g. people chatting about it in the pub) as Spotify capture most of his gains.

I still think there’s not enough people making the obvious point to the 6N that they’ll lose half their reach if they move off free-to-air. Which means rugby will be more culturally irrelevant. 

and so will the BBC


-------------
ROYMOND MUNTER MBE (FOR SERVICES TO THE COMBOVER)


Posted By: dyniol53
Date Posted: 02 February 2021 at 8:36pm
Originally posted by roy munster roy munster wrote:

Originally posted by dyniol53 dyniol53 wrote:

I still think there’s not enough people making the obvious point to the 6N that they’ll lose half their reach if they move off free-to-air. Which means rugby will be more culturally irrelevant

and so will the BBC

Given 56m people watched some BBC TV last week, commanding 30% of the total viewing time and people watching on average 65 minutes - I’m willing to bet the BBC is still has a way to go before becoming culturally irrelevant!

https://www.barb.co.uk/viewing-data/weekly-viewing-summary-new/" rel="nofollow - https://www.barb.co.uk/viewing-data/weekly-viewing-summary-new/




-------------
https://twitter.com/exile_podcast?lang=en


Posted By: dyniol53
Date Posted: 06 February 2021 at 12:52pm
Similar pattern in the cricket viewing figures this week.

More than a million people watched the first day of the first Test match on terrestrial television since the 2005 Ashes.

Telegraph Sport has been told Channel 4’s coverage of India v England on Friday attracted a peak audience of 1.1 million.

The peak occurred at around 11.15am, shortly after Joe Root completed a century on his 100th Test appearance, and represented an 18.4 per cent audience share.

The figure was more than double that for Sky Sports’ coverage of the opening day of last month’s Sri Lanka-England series, as was the average audience of 431,000.



-------------
https://twitter.com/exile_podcast?lang=en


Posted By: SA14
Date Posted: 06 February 2021 at 3:33pm
Cricket isn’t as popular as rugby. 


Posted By: Fscarlet
Date Posted: 06 February 2021 at 3:58pm
That’s hardly surprising given the majority of the country are working from home. 


Posted By: dyniol53
Date Posted: 06 February 2021 at 7:27pm
I agree with both points.

But my point is that by going behind a paywall it's clear you're losing half your audience. (Cricket having come out of the paywall for this India series has seen viewers double vs that of the Sri Lanka series only weeks ago, when everyone was working from home too)

If at any point unions / administrators say 'we need the money to grow the game' it's obviously untrue, because the easiest way to grow the game is to get it in front of more eyeballs. 

--

I just googled to see what was bigger rugby or cricket.

The England 2003 world cup final vs the Ashes 2005 viewing stats, both on free-to-air. 

RWC Final 2003 had 15million views at peak
Ashes 2005 had 8.3million views at peak

As was the 2019 Cricket World cup and 2019 RWC final. 

RWC Final 2019 had 12.8 million views at peak
CWC Final 2019 had 9 million viewers at peak

Rugby being bigger means it has more to lose by putting it's premier competition behind a paywall!


-------------
https://twitter.com/exile_podcast?lang=en


Posted By: SA14
Date Posted: 06 February 2021 at 9:53pm
Originally posted by dyniol53 dyniol53 wrote:

I agree with both points.

But my point is that by going behind a paywall it's clear you're losing half your audience. (Cricket having come out of the paywall for this India series has seen viewers double vs that of the Sri Lanka series only weeks ago, when everyone was working from home too)

If at any point unions / administrators say 'we need the money to grow the game' it's obviously untrue, because the easiest way to grow the game is to get it in front of more eyeballs. 

--

I just googled to see what was bigger rugby or cricket.

The England 2003 world cup final vs the Ashes 2005 viewing stats, both on free-to-air. 

RWC Final 2003 had 15million views at peak
Ashes 2005 had 8.3million views at peak

As was the 2019 Cricket World cup and 2019 RWC final. 

RWC Final 2019 had 12.8 million views at peak
CWC Final 2019 had 9 million viewers at peak

Rugby being bigger means it has more to lose by putting it's premier competition behind a paywall!

I disagree. I’d love to know the cricket audience age demographic. You don’t hear in work or in pubs (when they were open) people enthusiastically talking about cricket. It’s always football or rugby. Whoever does get it, it’ll be two months. So two payments. It’s not as if it’s taking out a 24 month subscription. 


Posted By: Rob Hunt
Date Posted: 06 February 2021 at 10:18pm
Originally posted by dyniol53 dyniol53 wrote:

I agree with both points.

But my point is that by going behind a paywall it's clear you're losing half your audience. (Cricket having come out of the paywall for this India series has seen viewers double vs that of the Sri Lanka series only weeks ago, when everyone was working from home too)

If at any point unions / administrators say 'we need the money to grow the game' it's obviously untrue, because the easiest way to grow the game is to get it in front of more eyeballs. 

--

I just googled to see what was bigger rugby or cricket.

The England 2003 world cup final vs the Ashes 2005 viewing stats, both on free-to-air. 

RWC Final 2003 had 15million views at peak
Ashes 2005 had 8.3million views at peak

As was the 2019 Cricket World cup and 2019 RWC final. 

RWC Final 2019 had 12.8 million views at peak
CWC Final 2019 had 9 million viewers at peak

Rugby being bigger means it has more to lose by putting it's premier competition behind a paywall!
It’s difficult to make direct comparisons. 
Both the 2003 and 2019 RWC Finals were on Saturday mornings in November and were obviously concentrated into 1.5 hours (2019) and 2 hours (2019) of viewing
The 2005 Ashes series was spread over 5 days, 6 hours per day, for each test and in the summer months. The CWC Final 2019 clashed with the Men’s singles final at Wimbledon.
I totally agree with your comments about putting both rugby and cricket behind pay walls, but unfortunately sport now seems to be run to coincide with the interest of the TV companies rather than the fans. 




Posted By: roy munster
Date Posted: 07 February 2021 at 12:30am
Hard to compare cricket with rugby, cricket is  a long drawn out affair , its seasonal and often gets rained off in the UK. Theres no doubt glamorgans crowds seem to have disappeared since cricket left terrrestrial tv...From those 1 off massive games youve listed, maybe rugby had the edge but as a poster says cricket is on for far more hours and the worldwide audience is much bigger...Its just a Shame sophia gardens hasnt got a roof really 

Looking worldwide obviously cricket is more popular in massively populated counttries like India, pakistan, sri lanka, bangladesh, west indies, zimbabwe, holland, namibia, kenya maybe aussie too. s africa its a split decision...worldwide theres a lot more playing cricket than rugby though probably due to rugby being so physical..and a mindboggling 2.6 billion watched world cup 2019..Ive always been perplexed as to why the chinese dont seem to indulge in either sport? 



-------------
ROYMOND MUNTER MBE (FOR SERVICES TO THE COMBOVER)


Posted By: minded
Date Posted: 08 February 2021 at 2:03am
Originally posted by dyniol53 dyniol53 wrote:

Similar pattern in the cricket viewing figures this week.

More than a million people watched the first day of the first Test match on terrestrial television since the 2005 Ashes.

Telegraph Sport has been told Channel 4’s coverage of India v England on Friday attracted a peak audience of 1.1 million.

The peak occurred at around 11.15am, shortly after Joe Root completed a century on his 100th Test appearance, and represented an 18.4 per cent audience share.

The figure was more than double that for Sky Sports’ coverage of the opening day of last month’s Sri Lanka-England series, as was the average audience of 431,000.
I watched about 3 hours of this match on Saturday morning, mainly because there was nothing else on TV. Is it likely it'll make me spend any money on live cricket post-covid? Almost definitely not.

I appreciate the Six Nations is a broader range of supporters, but it seemed to me that many of the people begrudging Pro14 going behind a paywall were people who don't contribute any of their own money to the regions by way of ticket sales or merchandise anyway.


-------------
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLPnAh1r0V9YMx4LjUAXI1AUts5jgBck9u" rel="nofollow - Scarlets Tries of the Season 2009 - 2021


Posted By: SA14
Date Posted: 08 February 2021 at 1:02pm
I don’t watch the cricket but if I did is it a year long thing on Sky sports or only certain months?


Posted By: Jones2004
Date Posted: 08 February 2021 at 1:09pm
Originally posted by SA14 SA14 wrote:

I don’t watch the cricket but if I did is it a year long thing on Sky sports or only certain months?
There are England series’ on pretty much most months but there are some bigger than others, for instance some fans might decide to only buy subscriptions for the Ashes and not the other series’. If you’re looking for a rugby comparison the closest I can think of is that some fans of English Premiership clubs would only buy a BT Sport pass for the Heineken Cup and not the English Premiership.


Posted By: dyniol53
Date Posted: 08 February 2021 at 1:34pm
Originally posted by minded minded wrote:

Originally posted by dyniol53 dyniol53 wrote:

Similar pattern in the cricket viewing figures this week.

More than a million people watched the first day of the first Test match on terrestrial television since the 2005 Ashes.

Telegraph Sport has been told Channel 4’s coverage of India v England on Friday attracted a peak audience of 1.1 million.

The peak occurred at around 11.15am, shortly after Joe Root completed a century on his 100th Test appearance, and represented an 18.4 per cent audience share.

The figure was more than double that for Sky Sports’ coverage of the opening day of last month’s Sri Lanka-England series, as was the average audience of 431,000.
I watched about 3 hours of this match on Saturday morning, mainly because there was nothing else on TV. Is it likely it'll make me spend any money on live cricket post-covid? Almost definitely not.

Forgive me, you say you won’t spend any money on cricket post-covid but by commenting on this post you’ve already shown that the move to free-to-air has engaged people with cricket it wouldn’t otherwise engaged.

I hate to sound like the England rugby coach but it’s about the percentages and probabilities. 

500k extra people have watched cricket in the last weekend than had previous weeks. 

“Almost definitely not” is a low probability but it’s better than none. Let’s say “almost definitely not” = 0.1

If 10% of those people decide to go to a game or or pick up a bat or even decide to talk about cricket on a random unrelated forum that’s 50k people who weren’t doing that last week.

Those 50k then influence other people around them talking about or playing cricket etc - over time, cricket becomes culturally relevant again.

Now reverse that. Imagine you’re the 6N and you have 10million people watching your flagship product. You then decide in exchange for £300m to half that number to 5m people. 

The 5m people who watch it - and we’re always watching it anyway - see barely any difference.

But over time they find when they go to the pub with people who used to watch the 6N, half of them don’t seem to have kept up with it, they didn’t realise it was on, they have no opinions and it seems to have passed them by. 

At this point you hesitate bringing it up, you then start to hesitate about asking them to come to a game or for a weekend in Edinburgh to watch a game etc 

That’s the cost of cultural irrelevant - and it’s harder to make culturally relevant something that lost its relevance years ago.


-------------
https://twitter.com/exile_podcast?lang=en


Posted By: Fscarlet
Date Posted: 08 February 2021 at 1:36pm
Yes more people have watched it but, again, you're forgetting that the majority of people are home working so they can access it while they work. The acid test would be to see what numbers are like when people are back working in their normal working environment. 


Posted By: dyniol53
Date Posted: 08 February 2021 at 1:44pm
Originally posted by dyniol53 dyniol53 wrote:

[QUOTE=dyniol53]
Here’s a nice like-for-like comparison of the same teams at a similar time one in a relatively trivial game in the FA cup and the other a top of the table clash in the Premier League.

Man Utd v Liverpool FA cup BBC viewers - 9.2million

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/55800811" rel="nofollow - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/55800811

Man Utd v Liverpool Premiership viewers - 4.5million

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-9160459/United-vs-Liverpool-watched-Premier-League-game-Britain-4-8m-fans-tuned-in.html" rel="nofollow - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-9160459/United-vs-Liverpool-watched-Premier-League-game-Britain-4-8m-fans-tuned-in.html

The Premier league game was the most watched Premier League game in history. The FA cup tie had twice as many viewers.

When Six nations goes behind a pay wall the administrators should be clear that they are happy to reduce their audience by half (likely more) in order for more money to “fund the unions”. 

And what is the purpose of the unions..?

The cricket was just another example I was giving showing the general trend that free-to-air reaches twice as many people.

The lockdown / wfh variable doesn’t really make much difference as both of these games are during lockdown when everyone is wfh.



-------------
https://twitter.com/exile_podcast?lang=en


Posted By: SA14
Date Posted: 08 February 2021 at 4:00pm
Originally posted by Jones2004 Jones2004 wrote:

Originally posted by SA14 SA14 wrote:

I don’t watch the cricket but if I did is it a year long thing on Sky sports or only certain months?
There are England series’ on pretty much most months but there are some bigger than others, for instance some fans might decide to only buy subscriptions for the Ashes and not the other series’. If you’re looking for a rugby comparison the closest I can think of is that some fans of English Premiership clubs would only buy a BT Sport pass for the Heineken Cup and not the English Premiership.

My point is that compared to sports like cricket, football and formula one for example. They all require a few months subscription or if they are day passes they still amount to a lot. The six nations will only be two months. Ok going on pay tv isn’t ideal but it’s hardly a fortune. There’s loads of ways round it too. Whatever platform it’s on they have free trials or just share a subscription with a mate so in effect you’re only paying for a month. They buy one month share the log in. You buy the other month. 

At today’s prices Sky would be £33.99 a month (or £9.99 day pass.) Amazon £5.99 a month. BT sport £25 a month. 


Posted By: dyniol53
Date Posted: 08 February 2021 at 4:24pm
You’re talking about something v different to my rants SA.

Cost to consumer does matter, which I what I think you’re talking about here.

If that were the main consideration you’d hope that Amazon Prime buy the rights to it as they’re the cheapest at £9.99 and already have significant uptake in most households. (Even if many don’t realise they have prime video with Prime)

The faffing around with Sky and BT is obviously also an issue for people as when I worked on Sky Sports people did unsubscribe at the end of the football season and so we had to run campaigns to get re-subs late July-August to get football fans back


-------------
https://twitter.com/exile_podcast?lang=en


Posted By: SA14
Date Posted: 08 February 2021 at 4:32pm
Originally posted by dyniol53 dyniol53 wrote:

You’re talking about something v different to my rants SA.

Cost to consumer does matter, which I what I think you’re talking about here.

If that were the main consideration you’d hope that Amazon Prime buy the rights to it as they’re the cheapest at £9.99 and already have significant uptake in most households. (Even if many don’t realise they have prime video with Prime)

The faffing around with Sky and BT is obviously also an issue for people as when I worked on Sky Sports people did unsubscribe at the end of the football season and so we had to run campaigns to get re-subs late July-August to get football fans back

Really? You’re stuck in an 18 month contract if you have Sky sports from Sky. You can’t just finish? I wouldn’t say there’s faffing about. Just get BT sport and watch on your Sky or BT box or smart tv. Amazon are cheaper than £9.99. 

God willing one of them gets the PRO14. Premier sports is truly abysmal. Hopefully the league rights will be snatched up when the contract ends this season. 


Posted By: dyniol53
Date Posted: 08 February 2021 at 4:48pm
Originally posted by SA14 SA14 wrote:

God willing one of them gets the PRO14. Premier sports is truly abysmal. Hopefully the league rights will be snatched up when the contract ends this season. 

I agree as the Pro14 is invisible to basically anyone who isn’t season ticket holder at one of the teams playing.

The SA teams might make the prospect more appealing to BT Sport - there are 250k South Africans in the UK. Would like to see them consolidate the HC, Premiership and P14.


-------------
https://twitter.com/exile_podcast?lang=en


Posted By: PenScarlet
Date Posted: 08 February 2021 at 5:34pm
Originally posted by dyniol53 dyniol53 wrote:

Originally posted by SA14 SA14 wrote:

God willing one of them gets the PRO14. Premier sports is truly abysmal. Hopefully the league rights will be snatched up when the contract ends this season. 

I agree as the Pro14 is invisible to basically anyone who isn’t season ticket holder at one of the teams playing.

The SA teams might make the prospect more appealing to BT Sport - there are 250k South Africans in the UK. Would like to see them consolidate the HC, Premiership and P14.
Most people in Wales have no interest in the regions and only care for the 6 nations ,also there is no such thing as free to air tv


Posted By: SA14
Date Posted: 08 February 2021 at 7:08pm
Originally posted by PenScarlet PenScarlet wrote:

Originally posted by dyniol53 dyniol53 wrote:

Originally posted by SA14 SA14 wrote:

God willing one of them gets the PRO14. Premier sports is truly abysmal. Hopefully the league rights will be snatched up when the contract ends this season. 

I agree as the Pro14 is invisible to basically anyone who isn’t season ticket holder at one of the teams playing.

The SA teams might make the prospect more appealing to BT Sport - there are 250k South Africans in the UK. Would like to see them consolidate the HC, Premiership and P14.
Most people in Wales have no interest in the regions and only care for the 6 nations ,also there is no such thing as free to air tv

So you’re saying most people in Wales only watch rugby in February and March and I’m assuming haven’t a clue who the players are because they don’t watch rugby any other time?


Posted By: PenScarlet
Date Posted: 08 February 2021 at 7:14pm
Originally posted by SA14 SA14 wrote:

Originally posted by PenScarlet PenScarlet wrote:

Originally posted by dyniol53 dyniol53 wrote:

[QUOTE=SA14]
God willing one of them gets the PRO14. Premier sports is truly abysmal. Hopefully the league rights will be snatched up when the contract ends this season. 

I agree as the Pro14 is invisible to basically anyone who isn’t season ticket holder at one of the teams playing.

The SA teams might make the prospect more appealing to BT Sport - there are 250k South Africans in the UK. Would like to see them consolidate the HC, Premiership and P14.
Most people in Wales have no interest in the regions and only care for the 6 nations ,also there is no such thing as free to air tv

So you’re saying most people in Wales only watch rugby in February and March and I’m assuming haven’t a clue who the players are because they don’t watch rugby any other time?
[/QUOTl
So where are the thousands who bother watching Wales then to support the regions ?


Posted By: RR1972
Date Posted: 08 February 2021 at 9:18pm
Originally posted by dyniol53 dyniol53 wrote:

Originally posted by minded minded wrote:

Originally posted by dyniol53 dyniol53 wrote:

Similar pattern in the cricket viewing figures this week.

More than a million people watched the first day of the first Test match on terrestrial television since the 2005 Ashes.

Telegraph Sport has been told Channel 4’s coverage of India v England on Friday attracted a peak audience of 1.1 million.

The peak occurred at around 11.15am, shortly after Joe Root completed a century on his 100th Test appearance, and represented an 18.4 per cent audience share.

The figure was more than double that for Sky Sports’ coverage of the opening day of last month’s Sri Lanka-England series, as was the average audience of 431,000.
I watched about 3 hours of this match on Saturday morning, mainly because there was nothing else on TV. Is it likely it'll make me spend any money on live cricket post-covid? Almost definitely not.

Forgive me, you say you won’t spend any money on cricket post-covid but by commenting on this post you’ve already shown that the move to free-to-air has engaged people with cricket it wouldn’t otherwise engaged.

I hate to sound like the England rugby coach but it’s about the percentages and probabilities. 

500k extra people have watched cricket in the last weekend than had previous weeks. 

“Almost definitely not” is a low probability but it’s better than none. Let’s say “almost definitely not” = 0.1

If 10% of those people decide to go to a game or or pick up a bat or even decide to talk about cricket on a random unrelated forum that’s 50k people who weren’t doing that last week.

Those 50k then influence other people around them talking about or playing cricket etc - over time, cricket becomes culturally relevant again.

Now reverse that. Imagine you’re the 6N and you have 10million people watching your flagship product. You then decide in exchange for £300m to half that number to 5m people. 

The 5m people who watch it - and we’re always watching it anyway - see barely any difference.

But over time they find when they go to the pub with people who used to watch the 6N, half of them don’t seem to have kept up with it, they didn’t realise it was on, they have no opinions and it seems to have passed them by. 

At this point you hesitate bringing it up, you then start to hesitate about asking them to come to a game or for a weekend in Edinburgh to watch a game etc 

That’s the cost of cultural irrelevant - and it’s harder to make culturally relevant something that lost its relevance years ago.
cricket wise a lot of those extra viewers will be indian fans living in the uk to i’d guess


Posted By: KID A
Date Posted: 10 February 2021 at 9:37am
Originally posted by dyniol53 dyniol53 wrote:

Originally posted by dyniol53 dyniol53 wrote:

Originally posted by KID A KID A wrote:

I just don't get it. 50 million quid coming in to Welsh rugby and people are moaning that they won't get Jiffy screeching on BBC.


I can’t tell you how hard it will be to get rugby back into public consciousness once the 6N goes behind a paywall.

Whether it’s Amazon, BT or Sky isn’t really the issue - the issue is will be that it’s not free-to-air. 

BBC and ITV literally have millions more viewers for Cash in the Attic and The Chase than Sky do for the Manchester Derby or any other big PL game (let alone BT or Amazon’s which are even smaller)

Cricket went behind a paywall a decade ago and the ECB has had to INVENT A NEW FORMAT of the game to try and get it back into public consciousness. Almost all cricket fans are against “the Hundred” and it’s a very expensive £39m bet to see if it works.

The loss of the sport in the public consciousness has long-term financial implications as well as social implications. 

With the issues around concussion atm the sport really can’t afford to become less desirable to pick up and play - for every parent that doesn’t want their kid to play rugby there’s currently a kid arguing back because he wants to be the next Itoje, Sexton, Hogg or Tipuric.

Awareness and Fame is so powerful - rugby neglects it at its own peril.


Here’s a nice like-for-like comparison of the same teams at a similar time one in a relatively trivial game in the FA cup and the other a top of the table clash in the Premier League.

Man Utd v Liverpool FA cup BBC viewers - 9.2million

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/55800811" rel="nofollow - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/55800811

Man Utd v Liverpool Premiership viewers - 4.5million

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-9160459/United-vs-Liverpool-watched-Premier-League-game-Britain-4-8m-fans-tuned-in.html" rel="nofollow - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-9160459/United-vs-Liverpool-watched-Premier-League-game-Britain-4-8m-fans-tuned-in.html

The Premier league game was the most watched Premier League game in history. The FA cup tie had twice as many viewers.

When Six nations goes behind a pay wall the administrators should be clear that they are happy to reduce their audience by half (likely more) in order for more money to “fund the unions”. 

And what is the purpose of the unions..?


Doesn't that prove that the premier league going behind a pay wall was completely justified? It's still one of the most valuable sports competitions on the planet.

Premier league tv rights value : £4.5 billion
FA Cup tv rights value - £410m

If you want to pay the players, fund your academies, and pay your electricity bill then you need the income. I'm really sorry that Dai from Aberflyarff won't get his Saturday France v Italy game on ITV.


Posted By: RR1972
Date Posted: 10 February 2021 at 10:12am
I'm a fan of free to air sport on tv, it's a shame it's come to this but I guess it is inevitable
 
Progress isn't always for the better though


Posted By: EJPT
Date Posted: 10 February 2021 at 11:21am
Agreed with some of the sentiment here. When everything is behind a paywall it will actually stop some audiences from following the sport. Rugby isn’t anywhere near the level football is, we are one of the biggest clubs and we get around 7k people to any given game. Its not like football with huge fanbases in America and Asia.
The cost is escalating year on year but i don’t think the sport is growing in terms of fanbases at least not not at club level. It ends up more of a squeeze on the supporters. 

I would however pay for a streaming service which i could access replays of all the games, highlights and content from multiple leagues and competitions. I wont be paying for premier sports, BT, Sky and whatever else comes through as is the case with the football


Posted By: KID A
Date Posted: 10 February 2021 at 11:26am
How much would say the 6 Nations on Amazon Prime cost to watch per year? About £15 ?

How much does someone spend in Cardiff on the pop on a single match day?


Posted By: EJPT
Date Posted: 10 February 2021 at 11:57am
Originally posted by KID A KID A wrote:

How much would say the 6 Nations on Amazon Prime cost to watch per year? About £15 ?

How much does someone spend in Cardiff on the pop on a single match day?
If it was included with Amazon that would be good as you get the prime delivery plenty of other shows etc and it is value for money. In australia and countries outside the UK you can get rugbypass and it has license to stream all the leagues and competitions. If we could get that for the UK consumer. 


Posted By: KID A
Date Posted: 10 February 2021 at 12:06pm
Originally posted by EJPT EJPT wrote:

In australia and countries outside the UK you can get rugbypass and it has license to stream all the leagues and competitions. If we could get that for the UK consumer. 


I expect that's the type of thing that CVC will push for.


Posted By: SA14
Date Posted: 10 February 2021 at 12:09pm
Originally posted by KID A KID A wrote:

How much would say the 6 Nations on Amazon Prime cost to watch per year? About £15 ?

How much does someone spend in Cardiff on the pop on a single match day?

6 nations on prime? £11.98 that’ll be please. 

Or £5.99 if you share your log in with a mate and go halfers. I dunno if people are forgetting it’s only 2 months and all providers do monthly passes. 


Posted By: dyniol53
Date Posted: 10 February 2021 at 2:11pm
Originally posted by KID A KID A wrote:

Originally posted by dyniol53 dyniol53 wrote:

Originally posted by dyniol53 dyniol53 wrote:

The loss of the sport in the public consciousness has long-term financial implications as well as social implications. 

With the issues around concussion atm the sport really can’t afford to become less desirable to pick up and play - for every parent that doesn’t want their kid to play rugby there’s currently a kid arguing back because he wants to be the next Itoje, Sexton, Hogg or Tipuric.

Awareness and Fame is so powerful - rugby neglects it at its own peril.


And what is the purpose of the unions..?


If you want to pay the players, fund your academies, and pay your electricity bill then you need the income. I'm really sorry that Dai from Aberflyarff won't get his Saturday France v Italy game on ITV.

So this is more what I’m interested in; what is the money actually useful for.

Paying players - is rugby struggling on the player salary front? As in, how many potential rugby players don’t become professional because the salaries are too low? I don’t know if that’s what motivates the kids to become pro. My guess it’s representing their country and making their families proud. 

Obviously current players and current agents would like the salaries to go up - paying players 50k more pa would be nice but it won’t impact grassroots participation or bums on seats. 

If every professional rugby player got a 5% pay increase it would be nice for them but would effectively be money wasted on the longevity of the game. 

Fund your academies - well, they don’t fund themselves, but supply is the most important factor here. Largely a numbers game - if you have fewer kids participating the academies will be worse than if there are more kids playing grassroots. Making the sport invisible to Dai from Aberflyarff will ensure his kid is less likely to play.

Electricity Bill - Someone needs to change the bulbs down a few watts if you need £300m to keep the electrics on.

At some point a portion of that £300m is going to have to go towards promoting the game beyond its core audience. MarketereX adverts, social media content. At that point the best way to spend that money would be to put the game on primetime free-to-air TV. 




-------------
https://twitter.com/exile_podcast?lang=en


Posted By: EJPT
Date Posted: 10 February 2021 at 3:48pm
I agree with you Dyniol - looking at salaries its a catch 22. You can invest in a young academy products and produce better players but when they turn pro they join clubs with little to no academy products for a larger salary. More work is needed to keep Welsh players in Wales by the union. 


Posted By: KID A
Date Posted: 10 February 2021 at 4:37pm
Originally posted by dyniol53 dyniol53 wrote:



Paying players - is rugby struggling on the player salary front?

Clearly. Or they wouldn't have all just agreed to take pay cuts.



Quote As in, how many potential rugby players don’t become professional because the salaries are too low? I don’t know if that’s what motivates the kids to become pro. My guess it’s representing their country and making their families proud. 


More money means we get to keep young players instead of shipping them to England. This is what the Irish teams do well. They keep the better youngsters and have better squad depth as a result

Quote
Obviously current players and current agents would like the salaries to go up - paying players 50k more pa would be nice but it won’t impact grassroots participation or bums on seats. 

If every professional rugby player got a 5% pay increase it would be nice for them but would effectively be money wasted on the longevity of the game. 


It's possible this money is needed to get back to previous salary levels. Let alone anyone getting a payrise.

Quote Fund your academies - well, they don’t fund themselves, but supply is the most important factor here. Largely a numbers game - if you have fewer kids participating the academies will be worse than if there are more kids playing grassroots. Making the sport invisible to Dai from Aberflyarff will ensure his kid is less likely to play.


There will be no rugby at all if the game doesn't try and generate as much income as possible.

25 years ago, England cricket sold their sport to sky sports. They may have less numbers playing at youth level but they just won the world cup and are winning a test series in India. They used the money to build academies that funded the top tier of youth.

You can have thousands of kids playing the best rugby in the world. But if you don't have the player identification strategy, scouting system and ways to get them into your academy in the first place, they'll be playing for someone else's club. This costs money.


Quote
Electricity Bill - Someone needs to change the bulbs down a few watts if you need £300m to keep the electrics on.


So at this point there's 2 things: Either

1) You genuinely think £300m is going to be spent on electricity bills

or 2) You're being deliberately obtuse as a means of trying to belittle the point being made.

I'm going for #2. So to counter that argument, it's very simple..... The kit man, the bus journeys, the team manager, the scouts, the academy coaches, the matchday programmes, the catering, the stewarding....all has to be paid for. I had wrongly assumed that using a catch all term like "paying the bills" would mean I didn't have to explain the above. Apologies.

Quote At some point a portion of that £300m is going to have to go towards promoting the game beyond its core audience. MarketereX adverts, social media content. At that point the best way to spend that money would be to put the game on primetime free-to-air TV. 


So they should spend money made from the likes of an Amazon TV deal on putting matches on ITV and BBC? I don't see how that works.

Also, who's job is 'promoting the game of rugby union'?. I am speaking in Scarlets / Wales terms here, and we have other things to think about I'd expect. If that's anyone's job it's world rugby.

At the risk of repeating one's self - The WRU had planned to share £26m between the 4 pro clubs this year. Because of the pandemic, that £26m has gone down to £3m. The government money will be around £10m to Welsh rugby (far lower than every other home nation and France per club). The game is in financial dire straits. The term "selling out" is not applicable.


Posted By: dyniol53
Date Posted: 10 February 2021 at 6:33pm
Originally posted by KID A KID A wrote:



Quote As in, how many potential rugby players don’t become professional because the salaries are too low? I don’t know if that’s what motivates the kids to become pro. My guess it’s representing their country and making their families proud.

Quote More money means we get to keep young players instead of shipping them to England. This is what the Irish teams do well. They keep the better youngsters and have better squad depth as a result

England and Ireland would get the same financial boost, therefore would be able to lure talent across boarders or keep them in Ireland equally to how they are now - so all that’s achieved in aggregate is more money goes on player salaries and the 6N is invisible to half its usual audience.

Quote Fund your academies - well, they don’t fund themselves, but supply is the most important factor here. Largely a numbers game - if you have fewer kids participating the academies will be worse than if there are more kids playing grassroots. Making the sport invisible to Dai from Aberflyarff will ensure his kid is less likely to play.


Quote
There will be no rugby at all if the game doesn't try and generate as much income as possible.

Read that out loud. Repeat it out loud to whoever you live with. There will be no rugby. It will cease to be played. If the sport doesn’t MAXIMISE income. 

I haven’t said rugby should be run like a charity, the argument I have made is that reach and fame are more important to long term survival than cash. 

Quote
25 years ago, England cricket sold their sport to sky sports. They may have less numbers playing at youth level but they just won the world cup and are winning a test series in India. They used the money to build academies that funded the top tier of youth.

As I said in a previous post, performance on this pitch are great that’s fantastic - but the ECB has had to spend money trying to invent a new format of the game for £39m and counting. Going behind a paywall costs in the long term.

Quote
You can have thousands of kids playing the best rugby in the world. But if you don't have the player identification strategy, scouting system and ways to get them into your academy in the first place, they'll be playing for someone else's club. This costs money.
Again, this would be true if the 6N weren’t all going to collectively get the money. If Wales were the only country not to accept the broadcast money and still show it on BBC Wales - we might run the risk of becoming a supplier to the other nations like the Pacific Islands and South Africans are to NH teams. BUT if everyone in the rugby is using their money to get access to the best talent it’s Zero-sum. There can only be one RWC winner, only one 6N winner. So the money has been spent on better players, coaches and analysts - is a slightly higher quality game infront of half the number of people. 

Quote
Electricity Bill - Someone needs to change the bulbs down a few watts if you need £300m to keep the electrics on.


Quote
So at this point there's 2 things: Either

1) You genuinely think £300m is going to be spent on electricity bills

or 2) You're being deliberately obtuse as a means of trying to belittle the point being made.


I was being facetious here - I do understand that the lights need to be kept on but I’m unclear if or what’s driving up the prices - as in I’m not convinced that’s what the money will be spent on.

Quote At some point a portion of that £300m is going to have to go towards promoting the game beyond its core audience. MarketereX adverts, social media content. At that point the best way to spend that money would be to put the game on primetime free-to-air TV. 


Quote
So they should spend money made from the likes of an Amazon TV deal on putting matches on ITV and BBC? I don't see how that works.

I used to work in advertising agencies. One of the hardest things was trying to convince clients that spending more money on TV ads was worth it - they’d say “if we spend more money on social media/digital adverts we can see exactly how well they perform and improve efficiencies - the problem with TV is we can’t tell how much of it is wasted” etc etc

What would then happen is they’d run a TV campaign and suddenly all their social media adverts and digital adverts and customer emails were working harder than they were before. The reach of TV gives the brand fame, which made all their other marketing materials more effective. 

Giving your product more game is kind of like taking steroids - steroids on their own don’t make you strong - but it makes working out 2x easier - so if you go to the gym you get much stronger.

In this analogy, the 6N is the big TV advertising campaign for rugby - simply because free-to-air reaches 2x more people every year than Sky - and the other “marketing channels” are the autumn internationals, ticket sales, the rugby clubs and the bars that benefit from its reach. Once you restrict the reach you’ll start to suffocate those other branches of the game too.

[QUOTE]
Also, who's job is 'promoting the game of rugby union'?. I am speaking in Scarlets / Wales terms here, and we have other things to think about I'd expect. If that's anyone's job it's world rugby. 

This is why we’re talking past each other - I am talking the 6Nations in general, because they’re the ones going to sell the rights to a broadcaster that will reach half the number of people making the game half as relevant.

This will make the game weaker in the long run. I do understand that there are existing bills to be paid. The point I’m trying to make is people undervalue the power of fame and reach because it’s hard to measure - whereas once someone sticks £300m under your nose you can think of all the problems it will help patch up and solve. 

But none of those problems are bigger than irrelevance.


-------------
https://twitter.com/exile_podcast?lang=en


Posted By: SA14
Date Posted: 10 February 2021 at 7:18pm
All this for something going on for two months. Paying for things on TV has become a way of life. What sports are solely on free TV? A few years ago would people have thought that streaming programmes and watching Netflix would be as popular? The future is gonna be streaming and paying for everything. It’s inevitable so you may as well accept it. I sell Bt and Sky sports. It’s rare people complain about the price. All they care about is being able to watch games. 


Posted By: Eastern outpost
Date Posted: 10 February 2021 at 8:22pm
Can anyone explain to me how it is possible to renege on contracts to supply money for agreed services especially when money arrives, it’s not passed on to those that have earned it/caused it to be paid?

Why does the WRU have such a huge value for its assets, when it can’t turn enough of them into readily realisable cash?

Who decided that this was the right thing to do and why have they not subsequently realised their mistake and borrowed on the stadium, without saddling the regions with the debt? Just how incompetent is that?

Why on earth has the self-interest of the amateur game achieved ring-fencing of their funding when the money spent there is not going to be giving a good return on investment, especially when the regions are on less than starvation rations?

The gravy train is heading towards the buffers with decisions like this. The buffers in question aren’t those in the resplendent blazers with little expertise of running a multi million pound business. The buffers are the hard reality of iron and steel awaiting at the terminus. It could be a messy crash.

As someone posted on here a month or few ago, the Irish got it right by explaining to the grass roots that investment had to be made into the national team and pro game. Once that was up and running and successful, it would yield huge dividends to everyone in the rugby world, from the ground level up.

And it did.


-------------
In a world where you can be anything – Be Kind.


Posted By: surfing-mtber
Date Posted: 23 February 2021 at 5:07pm
Not sure if this has any basis in truth, if it does CVC are asserting influence. Jaguares want to join pro16 from Spain!

http://www.the42.ie/jaguares-pro14-5360685-Feb2021/" rel="nofollow - https://www.the42.ie/jaguares-pro14-5360685-Feb2021/


-------------
Joshua24:15


Posted By: ladram
Date Posted: 23 February 2021 at 5:27pm
Originally posted by surfing-mtber surfing-mtber wrote:

Not sure if this has any basis in truth, if it does CVC are asserting influence. Jaguares want to join pro16 from Spain!

http://www.the42.ie/jaguares-pro14-5360685-Feb2021/" rel="nofollow - https://www.the42.ie/jaguares-pro14-5360685-Feb2021/
It was mentioned in WOL yesterday.


Posted By: Gate12
Date Posted: 24 February 2021 at 8:00am
Originally posted by Eastern outpost Eastern outpost wrote:



As someone posted on here a month or few ago, the Irish got it right by explaining to the grass roots that investment had to be made into the national team and pro game. Once that was up and running and successful, it would yield huge dividends to everyone in the rugby world, from the ground level up.

And it did.



Spot on, this sort of continues my views on the use/value of social media, part of the problem in Wales and many other places is as soon as something's mooted to change you seemingly have to pick a side immediately, you're either outraged it may happen or outraged that people aren't 100% on board.

This isn't helped by the media, even if the articles are more informative the headline will set a different tone.

The Irish seem to understand how everything ties together, and that's not because someone shouted them down, its because someone took the time to explain it in a appropriate way.


Posted By: reesytheexile
Date Posted: 24 February 2021 at 9:42am
Originally posted by Gate12 Gate12 wrote:

Originally posted by Eastern outpost Eastern outpost wrote:



As someone posted on here a month or few ago, the Irish got it right by explaining to the grass roots that investment had to be made into the national team and pro game. Once that was up and running and successful, it would yield huge dividends to everyone in the rugby world, from the ground level up.

And it did.



Spot on, this sort of continues my views on the use/value of social media, part of the problem in Wales and many other places is as soon as something's mooted to change you seemingly have to pick a side immediately, you're either outraged it may happen or outraged that people aren't 100% on board.

This isn't helped by the media, even if the articles are more informative the headline will set a different tone.

The Irish seem to understand how everything ties together, and that's not because someone shouted them down, its because someone took the time to explain it in a appropriate way.

God knows what the appropriate way is for the Welsh who fly from love to hate in the toss of a Welshcake ! However the point is well made as the lack of real national cohesion from grassroots up is a deterrence. Also can the WRU really sit on top of the entire game or should the Pro game be separated totally from that perceived yoke or not? Either way things are not really right. 


-------------
"I'd rather have been a judge than a miner.Being a miner,as soon as you are too old and tired and sick and stupid to do the job properly,you have to go.The very opposite applies with judges!"P.Cook


Posted By: Fscarlet
Date Posted: 24 February 2021 at 9:48am
Originally posted by Gate12 Gate12 wrote:

Originally posted by Eastern outpost Eastern outpost wrote:



As someone posted on here a month or few ago, the Irish got it right by explaining to the grass roots that investment had to be made into the national team and pro game. Once that was up and running and successful, it would yield huge dividends to everyone in the rugby world, from the ground level up.

And it did.



Spot on, this sort of continues my views on the use/value of social media, part of the problem in Wales and many other places is as soon as something's mooted to change you seemingly have to pick a side immediately, you're either outraged it may happen or outraged that people aren't 100% on board.

This isn't helped by the media, even if the articles are more informative the headline will set a different tone.

The Irish seem to understand how everything ties together, and that's not because someone shouted them down, its because someone took the time to explain it in a appropriate way.

I don't know if anyone else has seen them but the Irish schools rugby finals are always immensely well attended. I'd go so far as to say more people attend some of them than some Pro 14 matches.


Posted By: GPR - Rochester
Date Posted: 24 February 2021 at 9:51am
Until Welsh rugby is run by professionals it will struggle. 


Posted By: scarletnut
Date Posted: 24 February 2021 at 10:40am
Originally posted by GPR - Rochester GPR - Rochester wrote:

Until Welsh rugby is run by professionals it will struggle. 
ClapClap

-------------
I still wake up late at night and think of what might have been when tim stimpson hit that jammy penalty1


Posted By: dyniol53
Date Posted: 24 February 2021 at 11:01am
Originally posted by Fscarlet Fscarlet wrote:


I don't know if anyone else has seen them but the Irish schools rugby finals are always immensely well attended. I'd go so far as to say more people attend some of them than some Pro 14 matches.

Yep, certainly seems to be the trend in NZ, England and Ireland. Clubs become less important to community and schools effectively becoming pro-rugby sides from U15 upwards.

It has its pro’s and cons. A lot of players come out of it fantastic, nearly pro rugby players. But then there’s a lot of players who leave school, play a bit of rugby at uni, but then abandon the game althogether. 

Can’t help but feel it detracts from the club game. 

But maybe it’s the future and WRU should try and create a few rugby factories like Millfield 


-------------
https://twitter.com/exile_podcast?lang=en


Posted By: SA14
Date Posted: 24 February 2021 at 1:01pm
Originally posted by GPR - Rochester GPR - Rochester wrote:

Until Welsh rugby is run by professionals it will struggle. 

Rugby in general. Bill Beaumont the chairman of world rugby. Dear god. If ever the term dinosaur applied to a person. 


Posted By: SA14
Date Posted: 11 March 2021 at 1:46pm

Private equity giants CVC have further strengthened their hand in rugby union by finalising a £365m deal for a 14% share in the Six Nations. 

The deal has been two years in the making, and comes after CVC bought a stake in the Premiership and Pro14.

The money will be split on a sliding scale between the unions, with the Rugby Football Union receiving £95m.

"This is a hugely positive development," said Six Nations chief executive Ben Morel. 

"When we started this journey, our aim was to ensure we found the right strategic partner, who can add real value and is committed to a long-term relationship. 

"CVC recognises the exciting potential in the Six Nations Championships and autumn international series, and they are aligned with our vision for the future." 

The deal incorporates the Women's and Under-20s tournaments, plus the autumn international series, with the six unions recently centralising their ownership and operational activities.

The Six Nations say the objective of the partnership with CVC is to "invest to grow and develop the game", with an aim to "attract a new more diverse and global fan base".

"The CVC Fund VII investment into Six Nations Rugby will be paid to the six unions over a period of five years, reflecting the long-term nature of the partnership," said a Six Nations statement.

"This capital investment, combined with the expected growth of the tournaments, will help the unions to support the development of rugby at all levels in their respective territories over the years ahead."



Posted By: KID A
Date Posted: 11 March 2021 at 2:35pm
Excellent news that this probably means 6Nations on Amazon, and WRU gets £51m

Not so good news that the £51m will be spent on more hotels and breweries, and not a penny will come to the 4 professional regions.


Posted By: ap sior
Date Posted: 11 March 2021 at 2:56pm
Originally posted by KID A KID A wrote:

Excellent news that this probably means 6Nations on Amazon, and WRU gets £51m

Not so good news that the £51m will be spent on more hotels and breweries, and not a penny will come to the 4 professional regions.

Why are England getting £44M more than Wales ??????? 

Would be nice to know how much more than us are the French getting ???


Posted By: dyniol53
Date Posted: 11 March 2021 at 2:58pm
Money is money and more of it is typically good news.

The crucial part to keep an eye on is “use this money to invest in and develop the game”.

How much of that goes into promoting the game, match day experience and reaching new audiences vs player, coach and administrator salaries we’ll see in 5 years.


-------------
https://twitter.com/exile_podcast?lang=en


Posted By: KID A
Date Posted: 11 March 2021 at 3:10pm
Originally posted by ap sior ap sior wrote:

Originally posted by KID A KID A wrote:

Excellent news that this probably means 6Nations on Amazon, and WRU gets £51m

Not so good news that the £51m will be spent on more hotels and breweries, and not a penny will come to the 4 professional regions.


Why are England getting £44M more than Wales ??????? 

Would be nice to know how much more than us are the French getting ???


Because the viewership is much higher apparently.


Posted By: roy munster
Date Posted: 11 March 2021 at 3:39pm
and viewership is higher in wales than italy and scotland

-------------
ROYMOND MUNTER MBE (FOR SERVICES TO THE COMBOVER)


Posted By: KID A
Date Posted: 11 March 2021 at 4:50pm
Originally posted by roy munster roy munster wrote:

and viewership is higher in wales than italy and scotland
WRU is getting more than Scotland, Ireland and Italy.


Posted By: RR1972
Date Posted: 11 March 2021 at 5:19pm
Originally posted by KID A KID A wrote:

Excellent news that this probably means 6Nations on Amazon, and WRU gets £51m

Not so good news that the £51m will be spent on more hotels and breweries, and not a penny will come to the 4 professional regions.
 
shocking but true, the wru are handicapping the regions
 
with this new investment. all of the pro 14 cvc money should be handed to the regions but it won't be


Posted By: KID A
Date Posted: 11 March 2021 at 6:47pm
It seems that the days of us having proper steel to fight the WRU are long gone. We will never have the backing to be European Cup winning teams if this does not change.


Posted By: ladram
Date Posted: 11 March 2021 at 6:58pm
Originally posted by KID A KID A wrote:

It seems that the days of us having proper steel to fight the WRU are long gone. We will never have the backing to be European Cup winning teams if this does not change.
do you not think that now might be a time to rebel?the union won't get any money without any welsh teams,even if we have to play each other and a few friendlies,i know it will hurt financially but they would have to pay for the players they use more than they do now.


Posted By: roy munster
Date Posted: 11 March 2021 at 7:13pm
Originally posted by KID A KID A wrote:

Originally posted by roy munster roy munster wrote:

and viewership is higher in wales than italy and scotland
WRU is getting more than Scotland, Ireland and Italy.

really ? wow more than the irish? whats the breakdown per nation kidA


-------------
ROYMOND MUNTER MBE (FOR SERVICES TO THE COMBOVER)


Posted By: scarletnut
Date Posted: 11 March 2021 at 7:27pm
Originally posted by ladram ladram wrote:

Originally posted by KID A KID A wrote:

It seems that the days of us having proper steel to fight the WRU are long gone. We will never have the backing to be European Cup winning teams if this does not change.
do you not think that now might be a time to rebel?the union won't get any money without any welsh teams,even if we have to play each other and a few friendlies,i know it will hurt financially but they would have to pay for the players they use more than they do now.
I agree with the sentiment 

-------------
I still wake up late at night and think of what might have been when tim stimpson hit that jammy penalty1


Posted By: ladram
Date Posted: 11 March 2021 at 7:53pm
Originally posted by scarletnut scarletnut wrote:

Originally posted by ladram ladram wrote:

[QUOTE=KID A]It seems that the days of us having proper steel to fight the WRU are long gone. We will never have the backing to be European Cup winning teams if this does not change.
do you not think that now might be a time to rebel?the union won't get any money without any welsh teams,even if we have to play each other and a few friendlies,i know it will hurt financially but they would have to pay for the players they use more than they do now.
[/QUOTE]I agree with the sentiment 
Do you hear the people sing steff?LOL


Posted By: Fscarlet
Date Posted: 11 March 2021 at 8:11pm
Originally posted by ladram ladram wrote:

Originally posted by scarletnut scarletnut wrote:

Originally posted by ladram ladram wrote:

[QUOTE=KID A]It seems that the days of us having proper steel to fight the WRU are long gone. We will never have the backing to be European Cup winning teams if this does not change.
do you not think that now might be a time to rebel?the union won't get any money without any welsh teams,even if we have to play each other and a few friendlies,i know it will hurt financially but they would have to pay for the players they use more than they do now.
[/QUOTE]I agree with the sentiment 
Do you hear the people sing steff?LOL

Singing the songs of angry men!! 


Posted By: SA14
Date Posted: 11 March 2021 at 9:05pm
Amazon be good to have it on. Ways and mean to get out of paying full price whatever it’s on. 


Posted By: SA14
Date Posted: 13 March 2021 at 1:43pm
Whenever I watch ITV coverage of rugby I don’t mind paying for better coverage. They’re awful. 



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2021 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net