I agree with that actually.

The Stobart deal is a case in point
I actually have no problem with them receiving no net income from any such deal - if the publicity was worth it, which the Stobart deal certainly wasnt.

I'd like to know if they even approached any blue chip organisations with a similar proposition - no money takes hands, just one organisation with a big cache is branded as "Official Sponsor of SL" - say Land Rover, Apple, Coke etc.

Also WHY dont RL get brewers sponsoring sports any more?

The current domestic tv deal works out at £27m per year, whereas the new union one works out at £38m per year. It's a little larger difference than I first thought as I'd mistakenly thought our deal was for 4 years but it's actually 5 as you say, but it's not a huge difference I don't think, and shows we aren't getting screwed by Sky or are totally incompetent at negotiating these deals which some people would have you believe.

Like I said in my previous post, it's business sponsorship and partnerships where we struggle IMO.

Yep, like you say the publicity is probably worth more than the £1m we'd get for a title sponsor, as long as its with the right company in the right manner.

I suspect BT will get their fingers burned with this deal - haven't RU bounced between Sky and ESPN in the past? Sky are the major players and I would have thought the benefits in terms of exposure and viewing figures (even though obviously less than live terrestrial) of being on Sky would be a clinching factor if they were in anywhere near the same ballpark. Domestic club RU doesn't get the ratings and it's hard to see how this will pay off - but the people running BT might have some misconceptions about the popularity of the sport....

But I'm sure on the business plan they can make it stack up

Let's do the MATH. Union's Premiership: £152m over 4 years (£38m per year). 12 clubs. = a share of £3.16m per club per season. League's Superleague: £95m over 5 years (£19m per year). 14 clubs. = a share of £1.35m per club per season. WOW. SL deal source: www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/ju ... gue-rights I can't find anything quoting £135m?

Let's do the MATH. Union's Premiership: £152m over 4 years (£38m per year). 12 clubs. = a share of £3.16m per club per season. League's Superleague: £95m over 5 years (£19m per year). 14 clubs. = a share of £1.35m per club per season. WOW. SL deal source: www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/ju ... gue-rights I can't find anything quoting £135m?

IMG negotiate the sale of our broadcasting rights, another thing the RFL get the blame for which isnt down to them

Shows what a proper governing body can achieve. Give it 20 years and Premiership Union will absolutely dwarf Super League.

Him, I think your maths is off. The SL deal is £95m over 5 years. £19m per season. Union deal is £152m over 4 years, which is £38m per season. So by my maths they are receiving £19m more per season.

Union's domestic competition sponsorship deal is £20m over 4 years, Super League's is £0m over 0 years.

So that's £24m PER SEASON more money for the Union competition. And that is without throwing in the 5m euros per season for the last 20 years that Union has received for the Heineken Cup or the handouts from the cashcow that is Twickenham.

Who appointed IMG to do it? It's clearly the RFL's fault.

Quote ="Barnabus"Let's do the MATH. Union's Premiership: £152m over 4 years (£38m per year). 12 clubs. = a share of £3.16m per club per season. League's Superleague: £95m over 5 years (£19m per year). 14 clubs. = a share of £1.35m per club per season. WOW. SL deal source: www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/ju ... gue-rights I can't find anything quoting £135m?'" I don’t think it is a like for like comparison. That £90m is for SL only, there are international and challenge cup, highlight packages, overseas rights etc etc that have been sold. Sky for instance paid 2m solely for international rights for this year. Im not sure on the £135m figure but it rings a bell and sounds about right for a total figure for all rights. The £152m figure for RU also seems to include three years of European club RU as well, so not only the Aviva premiership

Quote ="Barnabus"Let's do the MATH. Union's Premiership: £152m over 4 years (£38m per year). 12 clubs. = a share of £3.16m per club per season. League's Superleague: £95m over 5 years (£19m per year). 14 clubs. = a share of £1.35m per club per season. WOW. SL deal source: www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/ju ... gue-rights I can't find anything quoting £135m?'" I don’t think it is a like for like comparison. That £90m is for SL only, there are international and challenge cup, highlight packages, overseas rights etc etc that have been sold. Sky for instance paid 2m solely for international rights for this year. Im not sure on the £135m figure but it rings a bell and sounds about right for a total figure for all rights. The £152m figure for RU also seems to include three years of European club RU as well, so not only the Aviva premiership

Yeah, who would use IMG to sell broadcast rights? nobody even knows who they are in the media industry. You wouldn’t catch the NFL, Australian Open, R&A, IRB et al working with them. Damn Fools.

Yep the £135m figure is in the Watkins Review and includes Challenge Cup but doesnt include internationals. Like Smokey says the new Union deal includes Heineken Cup games after the first year.

Also the RL broadcasting deal is split into 16ths.
Each SL club gets a share, the RFL gets a share and the remaining share is given to the Championships.
So:
£135m over 5 years = £27m per year
£27m divide by 16 = £1.69m

So each SL club gets £1.69m, the RFL gets £1.69m and the Championships get £1.69m. Plus IIRC any title sponsor and international broadcasting revenue will be split the same way.

The more I see the more I am thinking BT is going to go the way of ITV Digital and its digital broadcasting rights for the soccer...

The watkins review says the gross income is £24 million not £27million which might not sound a lot of difference but when more than half the clubs are teetering on the edge....
There are also numorous other costs that must be payed for out of this income so i dont think clubs have as much to spend on themselves as you think

FiveLive are reporting that a one off subscription to BT Vision is required then all the matches will be available on Sky, VirginMedia and possibly Freeview.

I thought SL clubs got a 1million pound annual grant?

So, what? I give them twenty quid today, and can watch their RU coverage forever?

SACK-- IMG then.

The Watkins Review suggests that the broadcast fees for SL only are around £21m per year. It says....

[iThe RFL pays for all centrally provided services for the entire sport: the Community Game, the Championships and Super League. The cost of these central services in 2012 is estimated to be £2.8m, therefore the 1/16th share received from the SLE contract represents 47 per cent toward these costs.[/i

Extrapolating that, 47% of £2.8m equates to £1.32m which represents a 1/16th share. Therefore, £1.32m x 16 = £21.1m total (this of course suggests that each SL club receives £1.32m per year from the contract)

Additionally, SL keeps all other revenue for distribution to its members....

[iSLE retains all revenues net of direct costs from its Play-off—s, its title sponsorship and other commercial income generated by its competition[/i

Other income such as the Challenge Cup and Internationals goes to the RFL to fund its administration costs. If the RFL make a profit then the annual profits are distributed in the ratio 60% to SL, 30% to Championships, 10% to Community Game. So, for example, if the RFL make a £1m profit then each SL club gets a further £70k each, the Championships clubs get £14k each and the remaining £100k goes into the Community game funding. The Watkins Review advocates a move to split the profits equally rather than in the above ratio.

Union deal could end up like the ITV Digital fiasco though, with a broadcaster 'desparate' for live sport prepared to pay over the odds for a product that relatively few may want to subscribe to.

BT are a ridiculously large company, they dwarf ITV digital. They aren’t going to go pop.

BT are investing in sport right now for two reasons, to take Broadband business from sky, and get a head start in tv via broadband. They will probably be bargaining on losing a couple of hundred million in the first few years, they wont be doing this without a long term 15+ year commitment to it. Its not just about selling TV, its selling phone and broadband too.

I didn't suggest they'd go pop, but worth noting that BT Vision current subscriber level is just 728,000 and that club rugby isn't really that great at attracting TV viewers.

Fifteen minutes and it'll certainly feel like you've been doing just that.

I don’t disagree, I think RU moving to a platform with 728k customers, compared to the access we have to over 10m is brilliant for us. But I think there is a big difference between BT and other challengers for Sky in that BT aren’t in it purely to sell that channel, they have a larger offering, they also have bigger backing, and , which is quite important, they don’t have the infrastructure issues ITV digital had because they will supply through their broadband.

The only mention of £24m I can see is when it mentions SLE gross income, if you take the 2 shares for the RFL and Championships out then it'll add up.

But as Derwent rightly points out the RFL retain the CC income and so the share will be lower. According to the Distribution of Broadcast Revenues chart in the Watkins Review it looks like that the SL brings in roughly £22m, the Challenge Cup roughly £2-3m, and Origin around £2m. Which gets up to the £27m per year that the entire deal brings in. I've no idea what happens to the Origin money, I've not seen it mentioned anywhere but I'm assuming it goes to the RFL. But that £22m ties in with Derwents maths so SL clubs, the RFL and the Championships get roughly around £1.3/4m from the TV deal. The SL clubs then get shares from any money left over in SLE after prize money, costs etc have been deducted from other income like title sponsor etc and a share in RFL profits along with the Championship clubs.

I'd agree with Derwent that the shares in those profits should be equal. And I'd like to see the Championships receive 2 shares of the tv money, one for each league, split 60/40 in favour of the Championship clubs instead of just one.

I would expect RU clubs to get more. They have far more players for a start. 15 on the pitch and 8 replacements. Their first team squads seem to number around 50 players, whereas RL squads number around 35ish.

Then multiply that across Academy teams, youth development teams, etc and you've got far more expense based on players numbers alone, and then add in the additional physios, conditioners, etc those player numbers require. Then in addition, each team will probably have a head coach and coaches for the forwards and backs (VERY different specialist roles), and probably a kicking coach.

A very basic observation but still a not inconsiderable additional cost over a RL club.