this is the latest talk.
It also coincides with what was said on the very entertaining RL on RadioYorkshire 2 hour program last week.
They were talking about how the NRL are going to let you pay a subscription and stream all games.
They were saying that the two recent streamed games from the RFL were also seen as a dummy run for them.
I have just cancelled Sky Sports again as I can't stand watching those cheating round ball players - I can't call them sportsmen!
It got me thinking that if the RFL did offer a reasonably priced subscription so I could watch many games live or catch-up then I might be tempted with that and forget about Sky Sports.

The problem is will losing Sky hit the game - unless we get a better deal elsewhere - possibly showing the championship games.

Does this news tie in nicely with the introduction of Toronto, New York and the other meaning the chance of a bigger and better international deal or a combination of deals?
Is this why licencing is coming back possibly to get these new international clubs in by then?
The problem is that it will be the RFL doing this new deal which doesn't bode well.

If all games are available could it hit ST sales as people may sit at home and watch them?

Whatever happens, the RFL need a much better deal than they have now as clubs are struggling.

It sounds like a big decision is looming for the RFL and clubs in the next few years.

Personally i just can't see how the sport survives without SKY.

I don't think it does in it's current state. Which is why the RFL bend over backwards to Sky's every whim.

If they were to ever move down the streaming route, they need to sort their systems out first. I paid to stream the England/Samoa game earlier this year and it wasn't very good quality. I also then watched the free stream of the world cup warm up game for the first half, eventually switching it off as I'd barely seen any of the action. From comments from people I follow on Twitter, I managed longer than a lot of people and there were a lot with similar issues (not everyone I should add). People will only pay for something if the quality befits the product, which also ties in to the argument of a couple of members on here about Bulls 2018 Season Tickets I believe.

I wouldn't pay for sky again, however I would pay for quality live coverage of all the Super League games...
They might just be onto something, its a very innovative idea that requires big balls to implement as it could be the best thing to happen to RL Since the dawn of SL in 96 or the end of the game as we know it..

The point is where does the money come from if Sky decide they don't want it? Fan subscriptions won't cover it at all.

One possible bonus of streaming games live is the return of a traditional sunday 3pm kick off, that may encorage more fans at the ground

I'm sure someone somewhere has done the maths.
How much is the sky contract worth? I think they signed a five year deal with Sky, let's say it's worth £100m.
So that's £20m a year that goes towards the central funding for clubs.

Let's say the RFL charge £100 for a season pass letting you stream all games.
That would mean they would need 200,000 subscribers in order to match the Sky monies. You would then have all of the costs of actually setting up the interface and the technical side of it all.

Obviously the more they charge then the easier it becomes to match the Sky money this way, but how much would people be willing to pay?

If I ever had a dream that the RFL had got 200K subscribers to pay them £100 a season, I would be straight off to my GP for some strong meds. I don't pay that for my full media package inc phone broadband and Virgin which includes all Sky Sports and Premier. I quite like the other sports available on Sky so would probably not want to cancel the Sports, and there is no chance in hell that I'd be paying £100 or anything remotely like on top of my subs for some crappy streaming nonsense.

That's just my personal view, but on a wider issue, if we end up left with live streaming then that's the game in its death throes, certainly in its present form. There is precious little money in the game as it is, but that would reduce the income I'd guess by a minimum of 90%. It may fly in Aus, although I am unconvinced, but you can't really compare the case of the two at all, as they have a hot ticket to sell and will sell it at whatever price suits, we sadly do not. We even take free posters on a few wagons as our main national "sponsorship".

They paid £90m in 2011 IIRC but I think that deal was amended in 2014 to run until 2021. Does it definitely end soon?

If FA's £100 per year were to be correct I'd certainly go for that, tbh.

It works out at around £9.50 per month or 2 quid per week. It's infinitely cheaper than Sky and RL is the only thing I have a major interest in anyway. Maybe it's a bit too cheap to make profit on? It would need to be a big take up to cover what they currently receive from the Sky contract though.

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.