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.

Yep spot on Cronus, IIRC I think their salary cap is around £4.4m. They need a bigger squad due to the more specialised positions plus the necessity for lots of props in case of injury.

So you think SKY,ESPN,CANNAL+,ITV,BBC,BT and any other tv companies that contributes to RFU coffers, hands money over because these clubs have more staff?

Just posted the below on the Union thread in other sports but seems relevant here too. The BT deal looks like good money but the broadcasting reach will be reduced especially in the short term. With attendances going in the wrong direction and decisions being taken that reduce the TV reach, I’m not sure the competition will dwarf Super League any time soon

“Not sure what is happening with the Aviva attendances – the first home game of the season is usually pretty well attended but every team who has played at home so far has attracted less than their average last year and three teams (London Irish, Northampton and Worcester) saw their first home attendance lower than any of their home games last year“

No no-one has said that. But part of the negotiations will be that it's in the tv companies interest to pay a decent amount to fund these players wages. As it leads to a better competition. For instance how happy would Sky or BT be if half the games have uncontested scrums because the clubs can't afford to pay enough props. The same goes for RL, it's not in Sky's interest to drastically reduce the amount they pay for SL as it would lead to a worse comp and less people watching Sky. It's like when Sky make a tv programme, they can pay more and get a better tv show and so more viewers, or pay less and get an inferior tv show with fewer viewers. Of course there's a limit but the principle is the same.

Sports rights arent a deal that you do to get them for the lowest price you possibly can. BT, Sky, BeIn, Canal+, whoever want a poduct, they want a good product and the appreciate that if they cut the price they pay to a certain level, then it impacts on the product they are able to sell.

This thread is quite funny. Incorrect figures and calculations being thrown around, and to top it all off we are working out per player.

RFL spin city here some of you come.

looking at the BT site, you can get a package starting at £25.50 a month, which includes ESPN. Sky Sports is an extra charge of £15 or £20 for both channels. Phone line rental is £15.45

So you can get, broadband, TV (incl. Sky) and phone for approx. £60 - which is similar to the amount I pay on Virgin currently.

Good post bro.

I gave up on BT and went to Sky. My BT was effectively Freeview plus ESPN plus Sky Sports 1 and 2 (I think they don't get them all due to a dispute).

And as much as I enjoy football, I wouldn't be paying BT for the odd game with my own team, and Stoke v Wigan or some such. I suspect fewer people will than they think, too.