You pay less than £100 for twelve months of phone/broadband/tv including sky sports and premier?
Sorry FA but I'm calling bullsh*t on that.

This suggestion is that they stream every single SL game in a season. For that I would say £100 is actually modest.

Page 2 on Netflix Sports, beneath a backwater downhill mountain bike event but above the documentary about a wrestler from a promotion WWE hasn't yet bought the media rights to.

FA.
Can you please point me to the deal you are on.
I have cancelled sports but still pay about £60 a month for phone line, internet and family package. This works out at about £700 per year. I then paid £99 for Premier which I my not bother with next year as Free sports show the NRL a day later.
Someones figures don't make sense.

The deal as I remember reading, was £210m from 2017 to 2022. SL teams shared 78% 0f the central distribution cash. Sky were given the TV rights to all/any SL and Championship fixtures. Which was why Premier sports pulled out of the deal to televise the championship.
In 2015/16 season all SL clubs were given a sweetner payment of £300k I understand?

£210 million? I don't think it was that much. The previous contract was definitely worth £90m, I found an article about that one.
I would be amazed if we jumped from a £90m contract to a £210m one. £210m for five years seems insane, that's over £40m a season!

The amount being paid for club and international matches will be £182,200,000 in total.

Of that total, £146,760,000, or 80 per cent, will go to Super League clubs.

£14,576,000 or 8 per cent, will go to the twelve Championship clubs in the second tier.

£1,822,000, or one per cent, will go to the Championship One clubs.

£20,042,000, or 11 per cent, will be paid for Challenge Cup and internationals coverage.

When the Super League clubs signed the new five-year contract with BSkyB in 2015, they were enticed by a £300,000 sweetener.

Quote ="MicktheGled"The amount being paid for club and international matches will be £182,200,000 in total. Of that total, £146,760,000, or 80 per cent, will go to Super League clubs. £14,576,000 or 8 per cent, will go to the twelve Championship clubs in the second tier. £1,822,000, or one per cent, will go to the Championship One clubs. £20,042,000, or 11 per cent, will be paid for Challenge Cup and internationals coverage. When the Super League clubs signed the new five-year contract with BSkyB in 2015, they were enticed by a £300,000 sweetener.'" Nice copy and paste from the Sadler article. www.totalrl.com/ins-outs-super-l ... w-tv-deal/

Quote ="MicktheGled"The amount being paid for club and international matches will be £182,200,000 in total. Of that total, £146,760,000, or 80 per cent, will go to Super League clubs. £14,576,000 or 8 per cent, will go to the twelve Championship clubs in the second tier. £1,822,000, or one per cent, will go to the Championship One clubs. £20,042,000, or 11 per cent, will be paid for Challenge Cup and internationals coverage. When the Super League clubs signed the new five-year contract with BSkyB in 2015, they were enticed by a £300,000 sweetener.'" Nice copy and paste from the Sadler article. www.totalrl.com/ins-outs-super-l ... w-tv-deal/

Quote ="redeverready"Nice copy and paste from the Sadler article. www.totalrl.com/ins-outs-super-l ... w-tv-deal/'" Much obliged m'lud, so the figure was £200m ! What's £10m between friends eh? We know people who can make that amount disappear anyway!

Quote ="redeverready"Nice copy and paste from the Sadler article. www.totalrl.com/ins-outs-super-l ... w-tv-deal/'" Much obliged m'lud, so the figure was £200m ! What's £10m between friends eh? We know people who can make that amount disappear anyway!

No, the qestion is, how much do you pay for the rugby league. Or put another way, how much cheaper would your subs be if you didn't have the ability to watch the Rl on Sky Sports, or Premier. (Ignoring the freebie version of Premier which muddied the waters a bit mid season, doubt they will continue to allow free what is a paid for service but we shall see)

With Sky you can now pick and choose individual elements of Sports channels- you don't have to have them all. Whether anyone who does this will fall foul though of the old channel game switching of the past, also remains to be seen.

I'm with Virgin at the moment, but with them, you aren't able to split the Sky Sports in teh way you could with Sky itself - it's all or nothing. But of course you then do get it all, including NFL and F1, which I also watch, so the question is, how much of your additional subs are you actually paying to watch RL. Not that easy to work out.

But I do negotiate a good deal. Last season, for example, I got the Premier Sports added for 37p extra a month but that's just cos every company obviously wants me as a customer and I'm such a great bloke. But my numbers may not be the bull you think




Harrumph. "Streaming" smacks of poor quality, dodgy feeds, and low-to-zero production values. You're right, it's not a high sum if that is what it was, but personally I'm spoiled wit HD RL on Sky, in a proper program, with HD cameras all over the place, top class replays, etc etc. Do you imagine you'll get a similar standard of service via streaming? Who will be providing the footage, for a start?

Then there is the question of watching the broadcasts. With Sky/Virgin you just set your series link and watch what you want when you want. Not so easy with streamed content.

Personally, I think that the trade-off between a stream worth watching and a cheap cost to viewer can't work, as the production costs of broadcasting every single game live to any level of reasonable quality will just be stupid, and I just don't see anywhere near enough subscribers to make such an idea remotely viable.

But my main objection to it is it continues the marginalisation of the sport, which is in danger of becoming an irrelevance to broadcasters and sponsors. What would a national company pay to buy advertising on a streamed feed, to a few tens of thousands of cheapskates, if anything at all?

Pretty much have to agree 100% with that FA

Aren’t the Bulls are meant to be looking at streaming games next season via subscription with Mr Gledhill commentary? Wondering how much per game and what the quality will be. Has someone who can’t travel far it could be an option if cheap enough, can always turn the volume down too

Think that's the plan. Think Mick is a decent commentator too. Better than the bloke at BCB who can't get the player names right.

Mick's commentary has always been brilliant. I'd sign up if he were commentating.

If the games are still shown on BulsTV as well as live then yes, I'll gladly sign up for that. I go to far more 'live' games than I miss though, so streaming isn't something I'd be over bothered about.

If I could have a trial of the streaming first, I may be interested. After the god awful quality of the RFL's streaming of England games though, I wouldn't be willing to sign up properly until I'd seen the product.

This mornings RFL stream of the Women's Rugby League World Cup opener was disappointing.

It was farcical at start. Repeating adverts for Concerts,missed about 25 mins of first half before they got it sorted. However after that it was ok, decent commentators,replays of incidents.Better than Sky commentary IMO.

Not surprising in the slightest, but that also likely shows that it's not just sheer weight of traffic that caused the issues with the previous England men's games. With the greatest respect to the Ladies, I doubt they had anywhere near the same numbers watching that game, especially on a weekday morning when most of us are at work.

The technology is only worth paying for if it works. Something the RFL's last attempts at streaming seem to have forgotten.

The problems the RFL had this morning were with the servers in Australia, so a degree of sympathy.

Technology is a funny thing. First you have the race to the top such as a few years back, everyone had to have a banging full spec hi-fi to listen to their music, or lately the latest Ultra Mega UHD OLED VOLED ZOLED 6 metre TV.

But the people abandon listening to music properly in favour of tinny earphones, awful radio reception and speakers and streaming; and choose to watch films on a mobile phone.

If you could stream a match so that it was in HD and generally of comparable quality to the latest HD at least, then it may be a way forward, but the present shakiness and poor quality of most streaming is unattractive to me.

Premier are pretty good in that regard. HD streaming of live matches with absolutely no stuttering or issues whatsoever.

It never ceases to amaze me that youngsters today will happily listen to music on a phone which sounds very like the small hand held, tinny AM radio on which I listened to Radio Caroline back in the 1960s. Technology - it's wonderful, isn't it.

Bongser too loathes having young 'uns choice of music aired tinnily to him on public transport (though they, of course, have the basic human right of being able to trample on the former human rights of others - perhaps a good, old fashioned thick ear might improve their musical tastes) but in fairness, Bulliac, with a decent set of new-fangled ear-plugs (or whatever modern parlance deems them) Bongser often hears many musical details that he missed in his youth. One should resist throwing the bathwater out with the babies.

I've no gripe with the music, per se, their ears their choice - it's the medium, not the message for me. On the rare occasions I'm trapped with it, it's no problem to be honest and my only thought is the fact that the delivery doesn't seem to have improved over the last 50 years. As you say, earphones are fine, but over half a century you'd have expected speaker technology to have improved at a similar rate to others. Indeed, speaking as someone who used to play in bands 'back in the day', I can say that larger speakers have definitely improved, and improved considerably, which makes it all the more mystifying why the phones are not even a jot better than my Radio Caroline receiving AM radio in the sixties.

Fair point, B. Could understand it as mobile 'phones reduced and reduced in size from the primordial brick, but now that that trend is being reversed to some extent, you'd expect bigger screens, better cameras etc to be accompanied by bigger, better speakers. Then again, a lot of music/video that comes from 'phones is streamed and therefore limited by the quality of that stream. And (never begin a sentence with "And", Bongser), hey presto, the good thread "End of Sky & RL" is suddenly back on topic.

All the best for next season lads, (and the January shenanigans therebefore).