Just been announced that sky have retained most packages for the 2017/2019 seasons. However a few changes are they have got Saturday lunchtimes instead of Saturday evenings. Also they have Friday night games, I think it is 10 per season to start off with.

Now we've all heard how RL is one of the most watched sports on sky which is believed to be one of the reasons why we moved to Thursday's when they acquired Saturday evening football. So assuming they won't show RL and premier league at the same time, we could lose some friday games? I'm a big fan of friday games, hopefully they move the thursday games back to Saturday evenings now, and also hopefully schedule most friday premier league games for the rugby off season, however having RL on Fridays mainly and the odd Thursday game wouldn't be too bad.

If we go back to permanent saturdays and majority fridays i would be pleased with that.

Thoughts?

BT got the Saturday evening games, so you'd expect Sky would want one of their highest rating sports/shows to be on for the 5.30 kick offs, which may just be us.

Peter Smith has tweeted that SL backchat was shelved because it cost £100,000 a season, or 54 seconds of a premier league match

I'm a hull fan and most of our games are on Fridays. I personally would like less Friday games because it is a push to get to games on time after work cos it takes me like an hour to get to ground so would definitely like more weekend games, I would reckon they would put more Saturday evening games on now they have a slot free so good news.

didnt saturday evening get the lowest ratings when we had that day before.

obviously going head to head vs BT is different then going head to head vs a rival sky sports channel. Still, I think it is a bit worrying to be honest!

interested to see what Sky do.

I've heard the Friday Premier League games will be played during the SL off season, so it probably won't have much bearing.

But knowing Sky, they will change their mind, put us in direct competition or shunt us off to a Wednesday or Sunday night.

How it effects RL... How much of the ~£25/month that the Sky Sports package went towards Rugby League last year? How much of that is free to be used for Rugby League now with a massive increase of the football costs? I work full time, have young kids and very little free time for watching sports on TV. I'll go as far to say that the only reason that I pay for Sky Sports is to watch RL. Bundles make Sports and Films attractive, but with plenty of online options for films is it time for me to ditch Sky partially in protest at the way my subscription is being used: www.totalrl.com/ins-outs-super-l ... w-tv-deal/ £200m/8 years = £25m/year www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/31357409 = £1.39bn/year You would think that the strategists at Sky and BT would consider that having more than one premier sport would be a good thing and invest in a few sports rather than just become a football channel.

How it effects RL... How much of the ~£25/month that the Sky Sports package went towards Rugby League last year? How much of that is free to be used for Rugby League now with a massive increase of the football costs? I work full time, have young kids and very little free time for watching sports on TV. I'll go as far to say that the only reason that I pay for Sky Sports is to watch RL. Bundles make Sports and Films attractive, but with plenty of online options for films is it time for me to ditch Sky partially in protest at the way my subscription is being used: www.totalrl.com/ins-outs-super-l ... w-tv-deal/ £200m/8 years = £25m/year www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/31357409 = £1.39bn/year You would think that the strategists at Sky and BT would consider that having more than one premier sport would be a good thing and invest in a few sports rather than just become a football channel.

take a few zero's out of it and its easier to comprehend.

If i've invested just shy of £1400 a year in something, the other thing i invested £2.50 a year in would definitely be a low consideration!

On another note, i imagine Super League makes sky considerably more £ per veiwer than football now, unless a billion people watch each premier league game

The investment in football is utterly mind numbing and as a sport, Sky will always take priority over anything else.
RL will always be very much the poor relation.

Also, do we think that we got the best deal from Sky ?

When my Sky Subscription goes up by 60 % to cover the cost of the new football deal then I will be cancelling my SKY subscription.

What is very interesting is what Peter Scudamore said about attendances.

" We must have full grounds for matches because Advertisers don't want to be associated with empty stadia"

I would be interested to know what SL and the RFL are doing to address that.

It is not an issue for individual clubs but for the game as a whole.

I always thought the Sunday early evening slot was a good one for showing a game - 6-6.30pm kick off. Potential viewers are probably back from any Sunday afternoon games and it follows on from the 2 premier league games shown during the afternoon. I think this slot is much better than Saturday evening.

How is it an issue for anyone but the individual clubs?

The clubs know their local marketplace better than the governing body. They (should) know their target demographics, they (should) know what that market is able to spend, they (should) know the local leisure market, they (should) know the challenges that are unique to them and, most importantly, they (should) know the make-up of both their current and desired customer base.

The onus is on the clubs to define the audience that they want to attract, not the RFL, and to market themselves in a way that delivers the best return for that club. One club may want to attract more families, while another may want to direct its resources into attracting more corporate / high spending audiences.

Yes, the RFL / Super League should provide a framework, but the responsibility falls squarely on the clubs - perhaps the RFL needs to stress this point more forcefully? Personally, I'd like to see a proportion of central funding made 'performance related' based on areas such as crowd growth, gate revenue growth, execution of a successful marketing plan, etc.

Quote ="goobervision"How it effects RL... How much of the ~£25/month that the Sky Sports package went towards Rugby League last year? How much of that is free to be used for Rugby League now with a massive increase of the football costs? I work full time, have young kids and very little free time for watching sports on TV. I'll go as far to say that the only reason that I pay for Sky Sports is to watch RL. Bundles make Sports and Films attractive, but with plenty of online options for films is it time for me to ditch Sky partially in protest at the way my subscription is being used: www.totalrl.com/ins-outs-super-l ... w-tv-deal/ £200m/8 years = £25m/year www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/31357409 = £1.39bn/year You would think that the strategists at Sky and BT would consider that having more than one premier sport would be a good thing and invest in a few sports rather than just become a football channel.'" The only way I can now watch rugby league is with sky because of were I live if it was on any day of the week I would watch it but it also helps that I am retied and I do not use sky sports for any thing else

Quote ="goobervision"How it effects RL... How much of the ~£25/month that the Sky Sports package went towards Rugby League last year? How much of that is free to be used for Rugby League now with a massive increase of the football costs? I work full time, have young kids and very little free time for watching sports on TV. I'll go as far to say that the only reason that I pay for Sky Sports is to watch RL. Bundles make Sports and Films attractive, but with plenty of online options for films is it time for me to ditch Sky partially in protest at the way my subscription is being used: www.totalrl.com/ins-outs-super-l ... w-tv-deal/ £200m/8 years = £25m/year www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/31357409 = £1.39bn/year You would think that the strategists at Sky and BT would consider that having more than one premier sport would be a good thing and invest in a few sports rather than just become a football channel.'" The only way I can now watch rugby league is with sky because of were I live if it was on any day of the week I would watch it but it also helps that I am retied and I do not use sky sports for any thing else

Me too.Already pay through the nose and have only kept it this last year or two because they have given us a few discount offers when about to cancel.these extra billions will no doubt need to be recouped from us subscribers so i will be waving bye bye in 2016 when the inevitable hike happens.

As i have pointed out recently, and in the past. Some Super League clubs need to to do more to get bigger crowds on match days.

There are lots of things the RFL could do.

If it is left to individual clubs they do what is best for them and not the game. That is the real problem the game has actually no strategy for the game as a whole but there are things that the RFL could do.

Better scheduling of fixtures. This would cover everything from when games in France are played to not scheduling games so as not to be in conflict with otherelements of the game ie When amateur games are played etc.
Maximum pricing for away fans to stop them being ripped off.
to work with all the clubs so that ST holders of different clubs can get reduced price entry to other games.
eg as Batley have done
[i Hi all, Batley homes game
For all super league season ticket holder are
Only £5 so starting this sunday against Workington town 3pm kick off you can watch the bulldogs at mount pleasant
[/i.

Why not an agreement that all Championship club ST holders get reduced price entry to SL games. ( subject to pricing and availability etc)

better advertising of the game as a whole
etc.

these are solutions that the game as a whole needs to look into.
They should use their marketing expertise to work with individual clubs.

Rather predictably, the issue of discounted tickets rears its head whenever ideas of marketing the game are discussed. As a sport, do we really want a marketing strategy that is based around dishing out cheap tickets? Do we really want to be going to blue-chip sponsors with a sales pitch that says "Hey, these people love their passion so much, that they're only willing to pay £15 for a play-off semi-final (but only if their kid gets a free ticket as well). We're sure that they'll love your premium product just as much!"?

Are away fans really "ripped off" like you suggest they are? Does RL really compare that badly to other sports, or even other leisure activities? I don't think it does. If the RFL takes the decision to cap ticket prices, where is the incentive for clubs to invest in better facilities?

Is scheduling of games really that big of an issue? Aside from the demands of Sky (which the game can do little about) and arrangements with ground sharing (an issue for the clubs), individual clubs are free to nominate their own preferred match day and kick-off time. It's why Leeds usually play on Friday nights and why Castleford usually kick-off 30 minutes later than the other Sunday games. Why is that an issue for the clubs? Because the clubs know their local market better than the RFL. If a club knows that a lot of its fans are also supporters of a local football club, that is probably going to influence the decision in nominating their preferred match day.

Dishing out free or massively discounted tickets is not a marketing plan (or at least, a sustainable one). Bradford Bulls are evidence of that. A marketing plan involves understanding your target markets, creating a valuable proposition for them and encouraging them to pay a fair price for your product instead of the one on offer next door. That's a responsibility of each and every club.

Yep, much like those Monday night games in SL only kicked in during the football off season the same will apply here with football and Friday nights, those 10 games will probably be during October-January.

Totally disagree.

Attendances are the responsibility of the club. It's like saying OFCOM are responsible for getting more people to buy BT phone lines.

The clubs are individual businesses and their bread and butter is the fan.

It's not the RFL job to get me to go to a Saints match, that's Saints job.
And it's certainly not Saints and other clubs job, via the RFL to get people to attend say Salford or Wigan's matches.

The SL sets up the deal with SKY.
The SL clubs get the vast majority of cash from SKY.
They have it all on a plate, the least they can do is take some responsibility for selling their own product.

Agree. The only thing I'd say lay at the RFL's door (at least partially) is attendances for the big event games like the Cup final, Grand final etc. As Bramley says the clubs know their market better than the RFL.

I still think there are a couple of things that could be done at RFL level though. I think a Heritage round (or something along those lines, if not a heritage round maybe designate 1 round every other week to be a heritage one for each club, so for instance Round 1 would be Saints, Round 3 would be Wigan etc and do it in conjunction with Sky who would televise that club's home game and could put together a programme or at least pre-match stuff about the history of that club) is a must. It's a great opportunity for us to remind people of our history and sell some more merchandise, every time a club produces a decent retro shirt they sell in large quantities.
I also think a portion of the TV money could be set aside for each club to heavily market one particular game in the season, in all the leagues.

Other than that then it's up to the clubs to do more to get people in, and it doesn't just mean lowering ticket prices. For instance Leeds ticket prices have risen and the team has finished lower in the league yet attendances have risen slightly over the last few years (or at least stayed the same) and that's at least in part to 2/3 years work at engaging amateur clubs, youngsters, schools and other groups in Leeds.
I always get a bit depressed when I hear some fans proudly talking about their club's "community work" and it seemed to amount to sending a couple of players to a local amateur club a couple of times a year. I think many clubs are doing the absolute bare minimum in terms of engaging their community (I think Leeds could do more too).

I hope they bring back Saturday games. The Thursday night SL matches are a joke.

You mean, let me understand this cause, ya know maybe it's me, I'm a little fu=#FFFFFF[size=5.[/sizecked up maybe, but it's a joke how, I mean a joke like they are clowns, they amuse you? What do you mean joke, joke how? I don't get this. Is premiership soccer on a Monday a joke? Is Champions League on a Wednesday a joke? What's the "joke" about Thursdays? I think we should be told.

The issue of free/cheap tickets and their sustainability (and I agree it's no long-term policy) makes me wonder; are league fans unwilling to shell out for their product, then? Indeed, are league fans poorer (on average) than football fans? Possibly. Certainly it's much cheaper to follow a SL club and go to every game than it is to do the same with Man Utd, etc. Assuming you could source tickets in the first place.

I think we have a good product, and for 20 quid or so, you are seeing high-level sport. But I must admit I do scratch my head when I see the pitiful crowds even some successful clubs (Fartown, looking at you) attract.

Get the fu*k outta here, Ferocious Aardvark.

The RFL are targeting 10 full houses this season, they must be planning on working with the SL clubs in order to achieve their own target be it additional funding to pay for a substantial marketing campaign or some other strategy (and yes I know it is the club's responsibility to try and make sure all their matches are sold out).