Just caught the last bit of Martin Kelner on hawksbee and jacobs show on talksport, where he seemed to be implying that sky were either reducing the TV deal substantially or not offering a new one at all. Obviously a bit worrying but as I only caught the very end I wonder if anyone heard the whole thing and can clarify

I didn't hear it because that program is not broadcast here in Kiev. But if your impression was correct then rugby league is in big trouble.

Assuming it is true (and it's TalkSport, so it's a decently proportioned assumption), can anyone really be suprised?

The whole argument for a bigger TV deal seems to be "but we want one", justified by some gerrymandered stats around opening week TV figures and the viewing figures for a Grand Final played during an international football week.

I certainly don't see SL offering anything tangible to Sky that they don't already pay for and in many cases, given how the TV and advertising model has evolved, we're actually offering them less value that we were when the previous deal was hastily signed.

I would think that if we could get London back into Super League, and Toulouse also promoted into Super League, with Toronto being retained there, by 2022, with the prospect of New York and perhaps Ottawa joining in 2023 or 2024, then the RFL would be offering a more interesting and thus valuable schedule to Sky and all other potential broadcasters. A Super League team list that is not so obviously confined to the M62 corridor will appeal to viewers, especially foreign born viewers, in the more cosmopolitan south of England. If my Super League promotion scenario was to happen, then rugby league would have a good chance of getting at least the same if not more money in the next contract.

Unfortunately promotion and relegation precludes my scenario from being a certainty, while obviously a return to licensing could guarantee it.

I've had a catch up listen, and it was just speculation that sky might be giving it up as they will be spending even more on fending off other companies from their golden egg of premier League football. No concrete evidence of anything, though they implied that the negotiations had been difficult. They ended by saying more news on it on Friday. But it does look like it might be bad or at best
underwhelming news at some point

I heard the broadcast, and it sounded very negative in respect of the deal that SL will get with Sky, should there be one.

This will be the first test of many club chief execs / owners "putting their money where their mouth is" when it comes to the TV deal.

There has been no shortage of high profile people pointing at how poor the RFL-negotiated deal (that they voted for) was - I look forward to those same people demonstrating how much better they are in due course.

I think those people are at Super League clubs and have appointed Mr Elstone to do the successful negotiation(s).
The complaint was the haste of agreeing to the current deal without trying any other company,except Sky.
[url=https://www.thedrum.com/news/2014/02/04/wigan-warriors-chairman-asks-why-200m-sky-sports-tv-rights-deal-didn-t-go-out-tenderLenagan[/url
[url=https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/feb/04/marwan-koukash-salford-rfl-skyKoukash[/url

Hopefully they won't get exclusive rights again. Maybe the 3 main fixtures bit have min 1 on free to watch TV. Don't know the viewing figures but more people seemed to watch the union when it was on chanel 5 the other week than of it was on sky

[urlhttps://talksport.com/[/url

Its quite simple for me, SKY stop showing RL then i don't subscribe to them anymore and so will 100’s of thousands of others, i get sky for RL and anything else is a bonus. No RL no sky for me

You think "hundreds of thousands" of Sky subs rely on RL?

Why would New York, Ottawa, and Toronto be of interest to Sky when they don’t sell subscriptions in those countries.

I’ve said for the last 2 years the tv deal would be reduced. It’s not rocket science is it when tv viewing in general for SL is massively down due to the product on show. Why on earth would sky pay the same or more when there are only about 4 teams worth watching?

If the TV deal does reduce. Would a number of clubs go bust? If so who? Given the silent backers behind St Helens we would be safe.

Sadly i don't think RL is in any position of strength to renegotiate with Sky when they know full well the RFL won't have seriously explored other avenues of competition, and at this point in the history of the sport they are utterly dependent on them

Probably 80-120k are purely RL subscribers yes. All my family and several of my friends and neighbours get sky for RL and they would all cancel.
If someone like BT sport signed up super league they would get a huge boost in subscribers, my subscription would go where ever the super went end of.

Of course this may be a plot from sky to get super league to breakaway and go to a closed shop 14 team franchise with London and Toulouse added.

Because some of the hundreds of thousands of Americans, Canadians and French citizens who live in the UK would be more likely to watch.

Plus the average soft core general sports viewer in the UK would find the more internationally oriented competition more significant than the M62 + Catalans only competition.

The figures you quoted are way off the mark. Try about 20-30k. As sky have said in the past, the majority of viewers are actually in the south of England who no doubt don’t have sky for purely rugby league purposes

Sky need to save a couple of million so that they can add another billion or so to their next offer for football. Sky must know that Superleague is both cheap
and popular and good value but it seems that they can fill the hours with any old crap and it still does not matter.
Personally I would happily see Sky go belly up. Usually I buy day passes on NOW TV if there is a match that I cannot get to and sometimes I will buy the odd week. Last summer because of a run of away games I decided to get a month long pass but I failed to read the small print so I did not realise that buying a month pass enrols you onto a rolling contract so beware. They had about £100 before I could cancel. That is the last of my money they will ever have.

Even if that is the case 30k x around £60 a month with sky sports package plus bolt movies and other, would be a loss if around 25 -30 million a year if Sky loose these subscribers due to dropping RL.

I'm still trying to fathom why anyone actually "pays" for SKY/FOX/BT or any of the other stations.

No it’s not. Is about £10m because sky sports is around £30 a month not £60.

They could earn that from showing more rugby union

The NRL has teams in the three largest Australian TV markets of the five that matter. Super League doesn't have teams located in any of the largest British TV markets that matter.

Richard Lewis, who brought Catalans into Super League, threatened to resign if London was dropped from Super League under licensing. After Lewis left the RFL, his dumb successors dropped licensing in favour of promotion and relegation -- a system which prevents the RFL from deciding which teams are part of Super League. The result has been a sport that no longer has a team located in the biggest TV market in the country.

Little wonder that Sky wants to reduce it payment to Super League.

Well I suppose we will see next year if the viewing figures go up with Toronto in SL. Bearing in mind what a small % of the millions in the Uk watch RL think it is a stretch to think uk Canadians and Americans will watch in numbers. Any evidence of this with Catalan. There away support would suggest not.