We'll be even less popular with Eddie and Stevo

[doc]

Sky and the RFL may have shot themselves in the foot with this. As the bulk of SL clubs revenue, like the Premier League, comes from TV rights it is this that pays the players. With increasing competition for the players services, the lack of cash and hence low pay, will drive top players towards the RU/NRL. If this occurs the quality of the product shown by Sky will drop and possibly their customer base. The RFL should tell Sky that the SL clubs need a minimum £3 million pa each to compete with RU/NRL plus they (RFL) require further cash to help develop the grass roots game to maintain the flow of players to the top level.

[Wigan_forever1985]

Sky and the RFL may have shot themselves in the foot with this. As the bulk of SL clubs revenue, like the Premier League, comes from TV rights it is this that pays the players. With increasing competition for the players services, the lack of cash and hence low pay, will drive top players towards the RU/NRL. If this occurs the quality of the product shown by Sky will drop and possibly their customer base. The RFL should tell Sky that the SL clubs need a minimum £3 million pa each to compete with RU/NRL plus they (RFL) require further cash to help develop the grass roots game to maintain the flow of players to the top level.

The salary cap makes that point invalid no matter how much sky gave us they can only pay the players in accordance with the cap

[Kaii]

Sky and the RFL may have shot themselves in the foot with this. As the bulk of SL clubs revenue, like the Premier League, comes from TV rights it is this that pays the players. With increasing competition for the players services, the lack of cash and hence low pay, will drive top players towards the RU/NRL. If this occurs the quality of the product shown by Sky will drop and possibly their customer base. The RFL should tell Sky that the SL clubs need a minimum £3 million pa each to compete with RU/NRL plus they (RFL) require further cash to help develop the grass roots game to maintain the flow of players to the top level.

The salary cap makes that point invalid no matter how much sky gave us they can only pay the players in accordance with the cap

Salford have been getting aound the cap by employing players wives to work in the canteen and get 80k or what ever the extra is

[josie andrews]

Sky and the RFL may have shot themselves in the foot with this. As the bulk of SL clubs revenue, like the Premier League, comes from TV rights it is this that pays the players. With increasing competition for the players services, the lack of cash and hence low pay, will drive top players towards the RU/NRL. If this occurs the quality of the product shown by Sky will drop and possibly their customer base. The RFL should tell Sky that the SL clubs need a minimum £3 million pa each to compete with RU/NRL plus they (RFL) require further cash to help develop the grass roots game to maintain the flow of players to the top level.

The salary cap makes that point invalid no matter how much sky gave us they can only pay the players in accordance with the cap

Salford have been getting aound the cap by employing players wives to work in the canteen and get 80k or what ever the extra is

It's been like that at all clubs

[Wigan_forever1985]

Sky and the RFL may have shot themselves in the foot with this. As the bulk of SL clubs revenue, like the Premier League, comes from TV rights it is this that pays the players. With increasing competition for the players services, the lack of cash and hence low pay, will drive top players towards the RU/NRL. If this occurs the quality of the product shown by Sky will drop and possibly their customer base. The RFL should tell Sky that the SL clubs need a minimum £3 million pa each to compete with RU/NRL plus they (RFL) require further cash to help develop the grass roots game to maintain the flow of players to the top level.

The salary cap makes that point invalid no matter how much sky gave us they can only pay the players in accordance with the cap

Salford have been getting aound the cap by employing players wives to work in the canteen and get 80k or what ever the extra is

Whether or not that is true is a matter of conjecture, however the fact remains that officially you can only pay the players what the salary cap allows you to do so.

As a side note could the salary cap in turn be partially held responsible for our lack of bargaining power?, even if we were popular and in demand sport would a broadcaster effectively "cap" their spend on the sport knowing that clubs cant ask for more money to support player wages as its all in black and white what they get.

Effectively any additional money from SKY or any other broadcaster would be just lining the pockets of the RFL

[DaveO]

To be honest i think IL is way out of line, Sky for all the faults of the broadcasting team of eddie and stevo, sky themselves how ploughed a healthy amount of money into our game and do their bit IMO to promote us including roping in stars from other sports to advertise our game such as bradley wiggins in the past and mark webber this year.

I cant see anyone else giving us that much time, BT are much more interested in football and yawnion

I think IL is bang on with this one. To tie the sport up for 8 years on a deal like this is selling it for peanuts.

It still leaves us way behind the money available to NRL clubs.

If the RFL had the brains to do as the Premier League did and conduct a blind auction for the sport with the deal to commence at the end of the current one, had Sky won it they would have continued to promote the game as they do today. They may even invest even more effort in it had they had to invest more cash themselves.

Had BT won the deal why on earth would they not promote it?

In any case, it is as much if not more the RFL's job to promote it. What Sky (or BT) would do is promote Sky and BT by telling everyone they had RL on board alongside their other sports. They don't really promote the game for the good of the game do they?

As to is it is more or less business as usual. Not a great deal of extra money (the clubs get an extra £600K in 2016 - wow).

There was absolutely no danger Sky would walk away and its clear what has happened is the cash strapped club have jumped at the £300k on offer now and so voted in their own self interest.

In any case if you disagree with all of that you must agree the way the RFL went about this giving the SL club chairmen a matter of hours to discuss and vote on a deal for the next 8 years of the sport is unprofessional, has all the signs of rail-roading it through and looks like a shoddy political deal.

IL needs to try and work out how to get rid of Nigel Wood and reduce the influence of Hethrington. Until he does this sort of damp squib of a deal will be heralded as great by those in Red hall with their heads firmly stuck in the sand.

[DaveO]

Sky and the RFL may have shot themselves in the foot with this. As the bulk of SL clubs revenue, like the Premier League, comes from TV rights it is this that pays the players. With increasing competition for the players services, the lack of cash and hence low pay, will drive top players towards the RU/NRL. If this occurs the quality of the product shown by Sky will drop and possibly their customer base. The RFL should tell Sky that the SL clubs need a minimum £3 million pa each to compete with RU/NRL plus they (RFL) require further cash to help develop the grass roots game to maintain the flow of players to the top level.

The salary cap makes that point invalid no matter how much sky gave us they can only pay the players in accordance with the cap

So you think the salary cap is set in stone and would not increase where the sport able to secure a deal such as the one suggested by Doc?

The Doc is spot on. Obviously if things panned out as he suggests, the salary cap would increase.

Wood has already said that is a matter for the clubs come 2016 when they will get £1.8m as opposed to £1.2m today.

[Wigan_forever1985]

I think IL is bang on with this one. To tie the sport up for 8 years on a deal like this is selling it for peanuts.

Again I must stress where are people getting this "peanuts" comment from. I have seen nothing to suggest that BT would be remotely interested in our sport. BT did a lot of research the years upto becoming a broadcaster of sport and they made their gameplan simple. Football and Rugby Union and they invested vast quantities of money to get rights to them, Rugby League was obviously not on that list as there was no noise before about it or has been ever since.

It still leaves us way behind the money available to NRL clubs.

Comparing us to the NRL is like comparing American Football here to in America - its not the same, never will be and pointless to even draw a comparison. Rugby League is pretty much the national sport of Australia, so of course they are going to have loads of money chucked at it, in the same way football does here.

If the RFL had the brains to do as the Premier League did and conduct a blind auction for the sport with the deal to commence at the end of the current one, had Sky won it they would have continued to promote the game as they do today. They may even invest even more effort in it had they had to invest more cash themselves.

Had BT won the deal why on earth would they not promote it?

Again you're comparing chalk and cheese, the premier league can afford to do things like this as every broadcaster in sports is in desperate desire for the rights to any matches they can get their hands on. Barclays pay £120m to put their name next to the premier league, I doubt first utility spent that much in fact I struggle to find anything to say how much they have put in the pot but references to a "unique" arrangement, which in the past we could only get eddie stobart to put a few posters on their trucks and got no money.

In any case, it is as much if not more the RFL's job to promote it. What Sky (or BT) would do is promote Sky and BT by telling everyone they had RL on board alongside their other sports. They don't really promote the game for the good of the game do they?

Totally agree here which is why I said in my post that the RFL should use the stability of this deal to put together a plan to make us a more desirable sport so we can start asking for more money

As to is it is more or less business as usual. Not a great deal of extra money (the clubs get an extra £600K in 2016 - wow).

There was absolutely no danger Sky would walk away and its clear what has happened is the cash strapped club have jumped at the £300k on offer now and so voted in their own self interest.

But does this not just highlight how weak our bargaining point is?. When half our clubs are at risk of going bust despite a system put in place to supposedly stop it, why would sky or anyone else chuck more money at our comp? like you say they aren't doing it for the good of the game, so why invest in a sport which cant even manage itself at the top flight level.

In any case if you disagree with all of that you must agree the way the RFL went about this giving the SL club chairmen a matter of hours to discuss and vote on a deal for the next 8 years of the sport is unprofessional, has all the signs of rail-roading it through and looks like a shoddy political deal.

IL needs to try and work out how to get rid of Nigel Wood and reduce the influence of Hethrington. Until he does this sort of damp squib of a deal will be heralded as great by those in Red hall with their heads firmly stuck in the sand.

I disagree with some of your points yes but I agree that the RFL needs a massive overhaul.

The problem is too many fans are looking at this from a rugby league fans point of view "our product is worth so much more" etc "peanuts" deal. Im sure ice hockey fans would feel that their sport is worth a hell of a lot more and that we are mega rich in comparison.

I go back to my main point its only "worth" what you can get for it. I have a Chrysler Crossfire, and I think its a lovely car for weekends I look at the spec it has and the performance and I think its worth more than a diesel fiesta. However due to the fact not everyone wants my car and a lot of people want a diesel fiesta it isn't.

You could say that we haven't tested the waters maybe but if BT wanted us trust me we would of been snapped up for their launch and sky would of gladly handed us on a silver platter in favour of keeping more premier league games.

Also think about the bigger picture, say we did go to BT, most rugby league fans are fans of other sports so your then asking for the ones who have sky (vast majority of those who subscribe to a TV package I would bet) to then choose to either not watch rugby league or switch providers and not watch sky anymore, that will just lead to smaller viewing figures and an even smaller pull on sponsors;

BT Sport 500k-1mil subscribers
Sky Sports 8 mil

Im not saying that the sky is a great deal, or that it captures the worth of our sport but a dose of realism is needed when considering it

[BriH]

Good points made by DaveO and Wigan_1895.

When it comes down to it, Sky have RL over a barrel ever since Super League started.
The majority of Clubs will grab any cash lifeline that is thrown at them.
My biggest worry has always been, "What happens if Sky pulled the plug and we were left high and dry?".
I think this is the fear that carries the day when it comes to voting unfortunately.

[DaveO]

I think IL is bang on with this one. To tie the sport up for 8 years on a deal like this is selling it for peanuts.

Again I must stress where are people getting this "peanuts" comment from. I have seen nothing to suggest that BT would be remotely interested in our sport. BT did a lot of research the years upto becoming a broadcaster of sport and they made their gameplan simple. Football and Rugby Union and they invested vast quantities of money to get rights to them, Rugby League was obviously not on that list as there was no noise before about it or has been ever since.

It is peanuts because come 2016 it adds a mere £600K to 12 Sl clubs revenue and this amount does not increase for the duration of the contract. This is not enough to address the issue of a player drain. As to BT the fact you have not seen BT express any interest in the sport tells us absolutely nothing. And you suggesting they are only interested in Soccer and RU is based on what exactly?

It is certainly not obvious it wasn't on their list but the point is the RFL didn't even give them a chance to decide to bid. It's clear now they simply negotiated a new deal with Sky who had no competition. This is crazy.

Comparing us to the NRL is like comparing American Football here to in America - its not the same, never will be and pointless to even draw a comparison. Rugby League is pretty much the national sport of Australia, so of course they are going to have loads of money chucked at it, in the same way football does here.

No it isn't. Apart form the fact RL down under isn't the premier sport in states such as Victoria, WA and SA the entire population of the country is only 22 million (2012 figure). The 2007 figure for the population of the North of England was 14.5m and that discounts any interest in the UK from the remaining 50m or so people which is obviously not the case.

The fact a sport with an audience taken from a population of 22m is deemed worth what it is, tells you there is plenty of scope to market the game here to a wider audience.

They got something like 3.2m viewers on the free to air Channel 9 broadcast of their Grand Final. England's World Cup game on the BBC (so also free to air) against Fiji got 2.2m.

Meanwhile England V Argentina in RU also on the BBC got 571k and the Premier League game on Sky 871K.

The notion we are getting enough for the interest we generate (or potential interest) as a sport is just not born out by the demographics or the viewing figures.

If the RFL had the brains to do as the Premier League did and conduct a blind auction for the sport with the deal to commence at the end of the current one, had Sky won it they would have continued to promote the game as they do today. They may even invest even more effort in it had they had to invest more cash themselves.

Had BT won the deal why on earth would they not promote it?

Again you're comparing chalk and cheese, the premier league can afford to do things like this as every broadcaster in sports is in desperate desire for the rights to any matches they can get their hands on. Barclays pay £120m to put their name next to the premier league, I doubt first utility spent that much in fact I struggle to find anything to say how much they have put in the pot but references to a "unique" arrangement, which in the past we could only get eddie stobart to put a few posters on their trucks and got no money.

No one is suggesting we would gain as much as Premier League soccer if we put the broadcasting rights out to tender. What is being said is when this is done the revenue generated is higher because broadcasters compete for the rights. Sky over-bid for soccer (it was all over the papers afterwards) and BT have paid a fortune for a game in RU that isn't that popular on TV to secure it from Sky. IL is saying if we put RL out to tender we could generate a higher income and also that tying ourselves to the level income agreed for this length of time is wrong.

I agree with him. I see no reason at all why the likes of BT would not be interested in bidding and the presence of just one competitor would force the price up.

In any case, it is as much if not more the RFL's job to promote it. What Sky (or BT) would do is promote Sky and BT by telling everyone they had RL on board alongside their other sports. They don't really promote the game for the good of the game do they?

Totally agree here which is why I said in my post that the RFL should use the stability of this deal to put together a plan to make us a more desirable sport so we can start asking for more money

Why don't you think the viewing figures from the World Cup have proved we already are in this position?

As to is it is more or less business as usual. Not a great deal of extra money (the clubs get an extra £600K in 2016 - wow).

There was absolutely no danger Sky would walk away and its clear what has happened is the cash strapped club have jumped at the £300k on offer now and so voted in their own self interest.

But does this not just highlight how weak our bargaining point is?. When half our clubs are at risk of going bust despite a system put in place to supposedly stop it, why would sky or anyone else chuck more money at our comp? like you say they aren't doing it for the good of the game, so why invest in a sport which cant even manage itself at the top flight level.

So why are have they agreed to any new deal at all? If it is such a basket case why offer any increase? The sport clearly has value to them regardless of various clubs troubles so that clearly has nothing to do with it.

No, it highlights how self interest has resulted in a poor deal for the sport for the next 8 years. The clubs were presented with £300K now and jumped at it. I am sure they would have been happier still with even more than that had the RFL got the sense to put the broadcasting rights out to tender but no, we have let the interest of clubs who have failed to up their game dictate what we get across the board. It is symptomatic of what is wring with how the game is run.

I disagree with some of your points yes but I agree that the RFL needs a massive overhaul.

The problem is too many fans are looking at this from a rugby league fans point of view "our product is worth so much more" etc "peanuts" deal. Im sure ice hockey fans would feel that their sport is worth a hell of a lot more and that we are mega rich in comparison.

I think it is the opposite. You are actually under valuing the game. 2.2m viewers for England v Fiji (hardly a top fixture in the WC) v 571K for England v Argentina says a lot.

I go back to my main point its only "worth" what you can get for it. I have a Chrysler Crossfire, and I think its a lovely car for weekends I look at the spec it has and the performance and I think its worth more than a diesel fiesta. However due to the fact not everyone wants my car and a lot of people want a diesel fiesta it isn't.

Well you could sell your Crossfire in the local paper and get a pittance for it or you might try selling it in a specialist publication where you might attract more interested buyers for at a higher price. In other words you can get more value for your car if you know how to sell it. The RFL do no know how to the sell the sport.

You could say that we haven't tested the waters maybe but if BT wanted us trust me we would of been snapped up for their launch and sky would of gladly handed us on a silver platter in favour of keeping more premier league games.

I don't understand what you are saying here. BT have not been given the opportunity because the RFL, two years away from the end of the current deal, went to Sky and to Sky alone. BT can't bid on something that isn't available.

What the Premier League deal has to do with it I don't know. That deal has been done and Sky paid a fortune for what they got despite BT taking a chunk of games.

Also think about the bigger picture, say we did go to BT, most rugby league fans are fans of other sports so your then asking for the ones who have sky (vast majority of those who subscribe to a TV package I would bet) to then choose to either not watch rugby league or switch providers and not watch sky anymore, that will just lead to smaller viewing figures and an even smaller pull on sponsors;

That is the whole point of a competitive TV market.

Do you think RU care about Sky viewers? And in any case since BT Sport is free with BT broadband I'd say the chance to reduce your subscription is pretty good and then of course those who don't have Sky might just switch broadband supplier to BT for the free RL coverage.

This is after all, why BT are doing it.

BT Sport 500k-1mil subscribers
Sky Sports 8 mil

This has not stopped BT paying what they have for both soccer and RU.

Im not saying that the sky is a great deal, or that it captures the worth of our sport but a dose of realism is needed when considering it

I think you need to understand where IL is coming from.

It is:

Sport in general is worth big money as far as TV rights go.
The RFL should always put the broadcasting rights out to tender.
Tying up the sport for this length of time to a fixed amount per year of £40m is a bad idea and does undervalue the sport.
The RFL have behaved poorly in how this was presented to the clubs for voting.

I can't see how you can disagree with this.