One of the small drawbacks of a broadcaster funding the game.

No biggie right?

Massive biggie actually. Will sky refund Salford for the loss of corporate revenue etc that the game will produce (Every penny matters for Salford)? It also gives an unfair advantage to wakefield playing on a neutral ground, also the Salford fans and players who will want to play at home for the final game of the season. Something needs to be done, I for one will not renewing by sky subscription should this fixture change happen.

Certainly not - I agree it's a farce but if it weren't for sky then the game would probably be being played at the willows in front of 3k fans. I'd be frothing if it was gonna happen to Wakey but in reality it's just a pitfall of the game being dependant on a broadcaster - a la the premier league.

What point is the switch one team will know the result before kick off of the second game so would it make any difference if it stays on Friday night and is on the red button.

I was actually poking a stick at a hornets nest. But once again, our game isn't big enough to play billy big bollax with Sky. Just doff your cap and say thanks.

Yes but you would assume that they ( SKY ) would check that their designated club had their home stadium available first

That is absolute madness and for the sake of the game has to be changed or the Sale game moved.

Who has priority at the stadium?

At the KC, it's whoever's season started first. Should a City and FC game clash in August-October, we have priority. February-May, they have priority.

Moving it to Leigh when they could have had the game at a different time is shocking planning on Sky's part.

In theory the same system is used. Sale's home fixture was already moved from their usual Friday night slot to work round the pre-existing Salford fixture. It becomes a bit tricky when the new clash comes with 5 days notice and the other game being televised too.

If Leigh had been at home home on the Friday, SKY could have transfered it to the Shay as we play on Thursday.

'"

It's nothing new, Sky have moved fixtures at short notice on the last weekend for years. They put enough money into the game to be able to do that. It's not as if they don't move football fixtures at short notice either!

It's a bit of a mess, and as much as I would like to point the finger at Sale and their megalomaniacal plot to drive Salford from the new stadium, the fault here lies squarely with Sky Sports. With a little more foresight, they could have scheduled the games that were going to have a bearing on the top 8 to be played on the Sunday, and either have a red button option, or a Jeff Stelling style rolling score update on all the matches simultaneously.

There's always more than 5 days notice for a switch in football though.

All games on the last weekend should kick off at the same time anyway, then there is no advantage to any team.

Here in lies the problem.

The Football do it.
Even Rugby Union do it.

Then why can't every game kick off at 3pm on Saturday (to match Catalans tbh). I appreciate stadium problems but these games need to be set in stone when the fixtures are announced in November.

Looks certain to be at Leigh.

While I can accept Sky bankroll the sport and therefore pull the strings, this is hugely damaging for Salford as a club and there are a lot of furious and fed up fans, and it's not like RL can afford to be upsetting and losing fans. I expect there to be more Wakefield than Salford fans at LSV next Saturday.

Not good.

Oh, well that's alright, then. Football fans can get sent from Manchester to Portsmouth on a Tuesday night, but they put money into the game so let them get on with it. And as has already been mentioned, I can't remember a football match being moved for TV at such short notice. People will already have made alternative plans for Saturday, booked time off work and so on.

Sky don't care about match going supporters, only about the TV audience. In football, said audience is big enough and global enough to support it. That's not the same in RL - if we start to lose people through the turnstiles, especially at clubs like Salford where we struggle for support as it is, then the game becomes less profitable, less marketable and starts to die. I'm not against television coverage, but it needs to be balanced with the impact on match going fans as well. Cricket has that good balance, you know when the fixtures are going to be played from the start of the season, but football is on a bit of a whim and moving games 5 days beforehand is just ludicrous, regardless of where the game ends up being played.

Its going to be a small crowd either way.
They didn't know it was going to impact the top 8 until recently
They pay big money

What can you do?

All the games should kick off at same time. How dramatic would that be with three games of top 8 potential. But this sport seems to be killing drama and instead opts for a scenario that could mean that if Rovers and Bradford both loses earlier in the day, Wakefield will play Salford at a neutral venue in a dead duck contest. Awful!

disgrace and a total joke. Boycott needed...on the terrace and on the sofa.

Bad stuff from Sky. I do however think that the people who own the stadium would rather a Sale game there as the crowd will be significantly more and more people equals more money. Plus the game is against the Champions of 2010 so ESPN will have made it the game to watch for Union fans. Season tickets have sold well for Sale and there should be some Sarries fans making the trip too.

Salford fans will feel very aggrieved and rightly so. I do think that advantage does still lie with Salford as it isnt too far away and they will train there many times this week i think. Sky pay the money the clubs need to survive so sometimes they do have to bow to the money man.

It strikes me that complaints directed at Sky, Salford or sale are wide of the mark.

Sky have a contract to show games. Presumably, given the lack of prior public comment, that contract gives them the right to choose which final round games they show after the penultimate round is completed, the games are being shown in their 'usual' slots Friday & Saturday evening. If the clubs/RFL/SLE want to have the right to choose which game(s) are televised they need to negotiate this in advance and accept the financial consequences.

The RFL/SLE, through the entry criteria for the competition, choose to prioritise playing the vast majority of games in higher quality stadia over the guarantee of availability. Indeed the operational rules can be read as anticipating and accepting occurrences such as this one, saying:

[iEach Club must satisfy the Primacy of Tenure requirements either at its Ground or by using an
Alternative Ground which must be registered with the RFL and which must meet the Facility
Standards which apply to the Competitions in which the Clubs plays (save where appropriate
dispensation has been granted by the Board).[/i

Any criticism, should it be warranted, would imho be more accurately directed at licence criteria which incentivise clubs such as Salford, Wigan, Hull and London(maybe Wakefield in the future) to play at grounds they will occasionally be unable to use over 'inferior' grounds whose availability they could guarantee.

The change of date is a bind, but the venue is probably irrelevant to most Wakey fans - personally, I was looking forward to seeing Salford's new stadium, but it's hardly a deal-breaker.

Got to feel for Salford though - surely there's some form of compensation available to them for the loss of revenue?

Approx £1.2m per annum.

I had a feeling someone might say that.

Can a club reasonably expect to take this kind of financial hit though, or will it be a genuine bolt from the blue? I have no idea of the content of the agreement with SLE and the terms it may (or may not) contain in respect of Sky monies, so it's a genuine question.

For me, purely on a moral basis, it seems like a giant and unneccesary kick in the knackers for Salford.