Love how people refer to the RFL standing up against Sky. Like they are aware of the conditions of the binding contract between the RFL and Sky. Feel free to post extracts from it so we can all see where the RFL can show some backbone. You're talking about an absolutely immense organisation that towers over little old Rugby League and they only care about value for money to X amount of viewers. They don't and never will give a t0$$ if Barry from Widnes has to travel to Hull on a busy M62 on a Thursday night and he might not make it.
Lets go just go along with it for a moment and presume the RFL can/do "Show some backbone", we back the RFL on taking on Sky. Tanish the Rugby League relationship with Sky and watch the sport wilt. Ah its okay the mighty premier sport will save us, or we can board the BT dream, they seem to throw the cash about a bit....

Some people are so unaware of how the world goes round its frightening.

Are you a Season pass holder? Do you have school age children that you also take with you?

No kids. I was a season pass holder at Leeds but I'm now just a member supporter (basically, I have a card that I just add individual games to, but I still qualify for priority purchase benefits for final tickets). The way the pricing at Headingley works, a season ticket works out at around 2 games free -I'll miss more than that through holidays, business travel and various other commitments.

Thursdays / Fridays aren't an issue for me (certainly for home games) but I totally get why they're an issue for some people. My point is that if you want the sport to be a well-run, professional form of entertainment that can attract a certain calibre of talent, you need the finances to do that. TV is one way to secure that finance.

And for you, know doubt, having games on TV on a Thursday is pretty good. However, you fall into the category of a season pass holder who now just watches on TV, therefore leading to a decline of sales through at the actual club. I realise you probably still do get to quite a few games.

So, apart from supporters who watch on TV when they would normally attend, are Thursday games bringing in new support or continue to lead to a decline in gate tickets?

If there is no benefit to the sport and in fact it detracts from viewing/attending, the RFL has to understand that allowing this to continue affects the entire fixture list meaning that even when not on TV, it causes clubs not to be able to play their matches on the preferred day. Rovers only have 4 home games on a Sunday but only appear on sky at home 4 times (none on the sunday). That means 3 games not on the preferred day and not on Sky just because of the knock on effects of the Thursday games. Ticket sales on those days will probably be lower and no sky compensation.

I wouldn't say "pretty good". I can make it work, but it's hardly my preferred KO time.



Not sure how you've come to that conclusion. I've probably attended 11 of Leeds' 14 home league games, the CC quarter final, semi final and final, Grand Final and I'll be attending Friday's game with NZ. As a supporter, I've put a lot of money into my club. I fail to see, however, how this is relevant to Sky Sports' TV scheduling?



You need to ask BARB, your club, Sky and the RFL that question. If your club's gates are declining on Thursdays, how hard are they working to attract a new audience on those days? Surely there are plenty of people around East Hull looking for something to do on Thursday nights? Why isn't HKR getting them through the door?



But the issue isn't one of Thursday vs AN Other day, it's more likely an issue of TV coverage vs no TV coverage (or the current level of coverage vs a lower level of coverage).

As part of the deal, Sky is allowed to have an influence on when certain fixtures are played. That arrangement applies in broadcasting contracts with any sport, including Premier League football, and it would exist whether we have a broadcasting contract with the BBC (who insisted that a CC semi final being played in Warrington should be played on a Friday night), BT Sport, Premier Sport (who insisted Championship games should be on Thursday nights), Made in Leeds or any other broadcaster.

So far in this thread, nobody has suggested a way in which we can guarantee more sociable KO times without reducing income into the sport or compromising the sports audience reach. That (in very simple terms) leaves us with the option of either sticking with the status quo (and acknowledging the drawbacks that come with Thursday KOs), finding a new way to get £146m to the Super League clubs over the next five years, or largely forgetting the idea of being a full-time professional sport.

Which one is it?

Apologies if I insulted, didn'tmean to. I did also state that you orobably did get to a few games though.

You also didn't include my last comment. Three of pur games are also disrupted in order to accomodate other Thursday games, but those other three are still not at our regular slot and not on TV either so supporters are hit and gain no advantage and the club is also likely to suffer at the turnstiles.

As a Rhino's supporter it is easy to state 'why not get better support' but 80% of other clubs also have the same support issues (if not worse) than our own.

I have nothing against Sky per se but allowing Thursday games to continue will continue to erode attendances. Sky will continue to get money, but the income of the clubs will decrease. Sky will likely reduce their funding next time if ontetest in the sport reduces because they will not ve able to sell advertising around it as easily.

The RFL (or fictional ESL) need to face up to Sky a little otherwise clubs are likely to fold in the future leaving only 4 clubs in SL like Leeds and Wigan. Sky will then definately ditch RL because a 4 club league is pretty boring.

Oh and remember, Leeds were rubbish once. It could happen again... (although admittedly this is doubtful).