It's a massive deal, a huge increase above anything we could have hoped for, so can everyone stfu please.

Did Brian Barwick tell you to say that?

No your mum did.

@NeilHudgell: Cautious optimism over tv deal. 8 years is a long time. Could have done with more than 2 hours to consider the detail #indecenthaste?

I didn't realise she'd changed your nappy again.

He also said...

@NeilHudgell: wise words from the Wigan owner on the tv deal. A seriously flawed process.

But again the clubs voted for it. To me this just seems like a few chairmen trying to shake the tree.

At the moment we have 1 voting against. That I can respect
1 happy with it but thinks that another chairman is talking sense when he votes for it then critisise it.

I think we can see what would happen if the clubs where back in charge of SL.

WAR!!!!

Those booing always sound louder than those cheering, even if they are smaller in number.

If the clubs ran SL on their own, I could see either a cheaper deal being signed, or no deal at all as the clubs war with each other.

The RFL is far from perfect, but if chairmen are going to be critical, it should be of each other.

......and Eamonn McManus of Saints has described it as "a triumph for the sport" and that the RFL "are to be congratulated on a job very well done."

Sky had no interest in buying an event that was on when they already had full schedules (RLWC).....but they are most certainly interested in filling the hole left in Summer. At 40million a year, they have given themselves a fair few hours FILLED for the next 8 years.....good deal for them and I still say that regardless of the moaning, a good deal for the game in general.
It's the only time it will happen though, because the RFL should be building relationships with other providers now. Come the next deal, individual clubs with decent support (Wigan, Leeds etc) will be looking to clip the ticket themselves. Wigan could sell Wigan TV for 4 quid a week to 10,000 fans and pocket 2 million......there will be a lot more in the way of viable channels to audiences in 8 years time, which I think is what SKY are looking at too.

Why didnt hudge vote no then, same as pollard! 2 chairmam who are quick to criticize but fail to act when given the chance

has he promised a seat at the right hand of the president ELECT of the RFL

The short notice push for a decision, along with the 300K sweetner does sound decidedly dodgy, very RFL like

,however its signed now, the question now is what sort of sport will we have in 5/6 years time when the next deal is dropped on the table, will the extra dosh get wasted on a return to overseas rubbish, or will we see growth both in player,fan,participation,clubs?

Did everyone miss the fact according to Barwick that the clubs voted to have a vote. So there we have it. The clubs had two chances to reject it or give themselves more time.

Exactly.

The chairmen are all (well mostly) very successful business people, its not uncommon to get take it or leave it deals, many of them are used to dealing in much bigger numbers than the sky deal. Also 24 hrs, wuth the experience and experts they are able to call on is plenty time.
The Dr i can understand as he wasnt happy and voted as he saw it.
IL on the otherhand is making himself look silly by agreeing to it, then slating it.

I think the point is that it should never have come to. A vote at this point. The RFL being the governing body should have carried out a more robust tender process in advance and presented a more rounded option or choice.

There were more than a number of chairmen in that meeting who couldn't look beyond the 300k lifeline as it gets them out of a pretty big hole. What it doesn't do is help them in 3 years time when they have another 5 years left on a contract agreed in haste.

If you offer a child a choice of cake and ice cream or healthy food they are going to make themselves I'll on cake.

The deal shouldn't have been on the table in this format at this stage.

That is poor governance. This is why the RFl are here, to protect the game from short sighted decision making.

That is the point of this thread , not arguing about who voted for what.

It was a deal done in haste without due diligence.

I'm not sure how much the doctor expects the sport to be worth in the next couple of years. I get the feeling he's been introduced to the sport, fell in love with it, and somehow feels his seal of approval means that it should be making as much as football. I do wonder what will happen when he realises that's not how it works (similarly just because a players agent tells you he can win the league on his own it doesn't mean it's true - leading to his ... High expectations struggling to be met)

Lenaghan on the other hand is becoming more and more like whelan mark II. The only difference being whelan actually managed to run the sport for a while, where as lenaghan keeps making himself look silly.

This is rubbish though - the rights weren't up for renewal for a couple of years. The RFL probably wouldn't have been looking at this for at least another 12 months - rightly, as that is how these things work. Then Sky come in with an early, big offer. Take it or leave it. What are the RFL critics suggesting they do?

Their options, having had an out-of-sequence offer from Sky were:

1. Tell Sky thanks for their time-limited offer but no thanks.
2. Tell Sky thanks and yes we accept the offer.
3. Call a meeting of the SL clubs to let them decide on the next move.

Which of these do we think Lenegan would have approved of least? He would have criticised anything the RFL did, including what was patently the correct decision in passing the offer on to the SL clubs to make their call. The scenario wasn't ideal because Sky gave them a tight deadline and a take it or leave it deal, outside the normal renegotiation calendar. Not ideal - but that was what was on offer. Has Lenegan come up with a next move that is different to what the RFL actually did?

You're right they didn't have to vote on it. BUT THE SL CHAIRMEN VOTED TO HAVE A VOTE ON IT.

So two chances for Ian Lenaghan to get himself some lap dogs and he failed. As for Koucash....who's he?

I really think some people can't understand written English.

The RFL did not push this. They put an offer to the SL clubs.

The choice was entirely theirs. Some now seem to be suggesting the RFL should have acted in loco parentis and told SKY that they will not put such an offer to the clubs.

It's beyond stupid that those being critical of the RFL, are arguing they should never have put the deal to the clubs. The timing is down to the clubs deciding to vote and SKY giving a take it or leave it deal.


Think of it like an estate agent.

The RFL is the estate agent. SKY are offering to buy the house. What people are proposing is that the estate agent refuse to put that time limited offer to me.

I know RFL bashing is the in thing but at least take a valid stance.

Thing is, even if they'd have had longer to go through things and more days to vote......the end result would still be the same by the sounds of it. More yes votes than no. Also the length of deal issue that seems to be a stick to hit the RFL, well we aren't the only sport apparently as Sky have bragged about this week...... www1.skysports.com/rugby-union/n ... ent-sports

Thing is, even if they'd have had longer to go through things and more days to vote......the end result would still be the same by the sounds of it. More yes votes than no. Also the length of deal issue that seems to be a stick to hit the RFL, well we aren't the only sport apparently as Sky have bragged about this week...... www1.skysports.com/rugby-union/n ... ent-sports

If it is SKY that just dropped this on the RFL, then I dont see what other options they had, to refuse would have been very risky, its now up to the clubs themselves to strengthen their position to be able to exert more control next time

Problem is all these 'deals' are being judged and seen in isolation. I would *hope* that part of te point of this is that an 8 year tv deal will for SL better marketing power for attracting bigger, better and longer term corporate sponsors. Not only does it send out a stability message for the game (after a year where the long term existence of RL has been questioned), it also helps the RFL when going after sponsors for long term deals.

The deal, itself, is good I think. The way it was pushed through appears to have been terrible though.

You think giving the clubs the right to decide is terrible or the fact sky made an offer with some stipulation of duration of the offer is terrible?

The time period.

The RFL should have had enough bargaining power to say 'give us a week, or even 48hrs' to Sky, they could have done it under DNA with Sky and the clubs. The RFL were in a position where they could threaten to put out to tender if they weren't given that extra time - Sky a) knew that decision needed to be ratified by the clubs so would understand the request and b) would bot be keen to see it go out to tender. Really poor management of the deal by the RFL at a time when they're being criticised for this very thing.

If BT were interested I'm sure they would've made sly inquires towards the RFL even with so long left.

Plus IF BT offer more money, do they show as many games? They have less channels to put their content on.

If forced to put to tender at this point and we end up going to BT, what happens to the quality and quantity of Sky's coverage for the next 3 years? Do we get harmed by Sky sticking two fingers up in the last year knowing we're going elsewhere, if they weren't trying too hard to show the sport as well as possible previously then one can only guess what it would be like when we were heading elsewhere. With it being the first 2 years of this new structure that is not what we need.