, then a meeting was called within 24hrs. The meeting and discussions went for 2 hours at which point the clubs agreed to take a vote, they took a vote and almost unanimously deceived it was a good deal and would accept it.

How should the rfl have been able to tell sky the short time frame was unacceptable? Are you saying the rfl should have the right to veto taking money offers to the clubs if they feel it is not a good deal for SL? How do you think it would have played out if they had done what your suggesting and sky had said fine we'll pull the offer and speak again in a couple of years?

That's exactly what I was asking, the possible outcomes if the RFL told Sky to wait and looked elsewhere as some seem to think only good would come of it if we played hardball, when it could've ended spectacularly wrong instead. Kind of 'grass will be greener' thinking by some on here.

Freudian slip?

Do you honestly believe they voted to have a vote on something

I believe the rfl asked something along the lines of - do you want to get this sorted now and vote? And the majority answered yes.

Are you saying Barwick lied?

It's pretty plain that when you start throwing logic out there, that some of these arguments disappear.

ie It's terrible the RFL rushed the clubs.

So you are saying the RFL should not put the clubs in the position of knowing there is a deal?

Erm No!

Are you saying the RFL should have played for more time and possibly scuppered the deal before the clubs had a chance to look at it?

Erm No!

Well are you saying the deal is a bad one?

Erm No!

There is no way you can justify that statement. Therein lies the problem, whether or not this is a "good" or "bad" deal is a judgement call.

In my opinion it is a bad deal as it was done in haste without knowing what the alternatives might be.

The question is will the people in the comfy seats at Red Hall sit back and say job well done until 2021 and not bother to promote and market the game.
For me the game needs a breath of fresh air a more dynamic approach a well thought out sporting model.......instead we might get 8 years of Groundhog Day.

There's some real miserable sods on here. I bet you were all writing off the World Cup before hand too.

In the last few months we've had that massively successful WC, a promising new structure put in place, new sponsorship and a huge TV deal signed that's worth £50million more than the Union equivalent.

If someone had predicted that last summer you'd have said it'll never happen and ripped the living **** out of the poster. Now it's happened it's not good enough and the RL aren't going to do this, that or the other.

Only in Rugby League.

Agreed, the glass half empty and anti rfl brigade could turn any good news story into a disaster.

Dos this deal give long term sustainability to the vast majority of SL clubs? Yes
Does this deal inject much needed cash into jnr development? Yes
Does this deal give fans chance to watch more games on TV? Yes
Would SL had major issues across a number of clubs without this mediate increase? Yes


Could we have got a better deal? Unknown
Could we have got a shorter deal? Unknown

I'd have voted yes as well!

It all depends on the blinkered viewpoint, its a good deal for the clubs in the money perspective, but does it really expand the game.
Can we expose the game more with a limited TV audience with SKY TV I,m not sure.
The RFL have a lot to do to raise the profile of the game something they should have done between the World Cup and the new season, we have had months of blank exposure in the national press.
We seem to struggle every year getting big name sponsors and seem content with having lots of partners instead.

It does seem the RFL management process has very little transparency with deals and agreements offered with very little detail.

You're right, should've held out for Premier or BT.

The only way a tv deal can expand the game is by being on free to air TV. Would the BBC, ITV or Channel 4 be prepared to pay anywhere close to £200m for the SL TV rights?

If it's not on free to air then Sky is the best bet at the moment. Bigger audience, bigger platform on which the sport gets seen/reported, and probably more money.

What should the RFL have done to get news stories in the off-season? Especially a pretty bland off-season with no big signings or incidents. We struggle for media exposure during the season, it's hardly a surprise we get little when there's nothing happening.

We've got a title sponsor now. Are you saying we should turn away the other, smaller partners?

As for transparency with deals, compared to whom? Things like TV deals and sponsor deals are rarely announced publicly by either side.

This.

You're deluded.

You can't agree a new tv deal 3 years in advance of the current one ending.

You talk of miserable sods. Let me hit you with this. With the ''promising new structure in place'' and the legacy of the world cup in this country having a lasting positive impact (positive thinking you yourself preach, yes?), RL increases in value. So when the current deal was about to expire, RL has a higher value which means BT start sniffing around so the SKY's bidding process is driven up by 2 factors, a rival bidder and and a higher value product. A higher value deal could have been negotiated, vital to the games future prosperity.

If BT sport goes tits up, we still get a better deal due to higher value product. Will it go up? We have to think it will and aim to make it happen. Otherwise what the f*ck are we doing? We'd be ''miserable sods''.

To be successful in life, sometimes you need to take calculated risks, and this was one the RFL needed to take and would have payed off big style in 3 years.

It's a massive blunder and this isn't being said years down the line with hindsight.

I'm not really saying turn away partners, the definition of partners suggest a naming right with little value. Some of our main sponsors seem to be "secondary" eg Foxy Bingo as opposed to Bwin, Big Soup as opposed to Heinz.
Maybe the RFL have a mindset lets have lots of partners because we don't have the ambition or market strength to go after blue chip companies for sponsorship.

The latest Structure and Sky Deal seems to lack transparency, hence the clubs rethinking after the deals are done. Last season we had the fiasco of the Rhino Ball, this was purely a commercial decision by the RFL, they didn't bother to trial with club and players under adverse conditions.

Maybe this new deal shows how screwed the game is behind closed doors.

Surely if it was believed the game would grow in stature over the coming years they wouldn't have taken that deal so early knowing they'd be able to negotiate better further down the line?

I think you might be right, it's sounds as though they are happy with "lazy deals", maybe they should call the empire at Red Hall the "Comfort Zone".

How does the structure lack transparency? It's on the RFL website in the policy review.
No. Only one club has had a rethink. Rather only one club chairman has had a rethink. The schizophrenic one. The rest seem to know exactly what is involved in the Sky deal.
Again, the TV and sponsor deals details are rarely announced by either side in sport, not just rugby league.

You think we should have the major sponsor of Real Madrid as only a partner?
I think you're living on a different planet to the rest of us.

The sport having lots of sponsors/partners is now a negative.
Only in Rugby League...

The Rugby has started at last. These debates will bring no fruit until 3 - 5 years time when one side can say I told you so to the other side and everyone will then pretend they actually agreed with the deals, (or did not agree with the deals).

Until then it's pretty clear that nothing will be settled.

OK, thanks for pointing that out.



You can, they did and it's a whopper.




In your opinion of course. We're all entitled to them, even when they're wrong.

It's good to know I can go away for a few days and the exact same arguments are being used.

In short:

The rfl take medium to high risk decisions then get accused of lack of long term planning, boom or bust mentality, ignoring the needs of traditional clubs, need realistic aims etc etc.

So the rfl start to make low risk decisions, setting achievable goals for the rlwc, agreeing, what is for rugby league no matter how you try and dress it up, the best long term deal we've ever done, and focussing on long term growth - and their accused of setting their sights too low, and not aiming high enough, and risking the growth of the sport for traditional clubs ...

Anyone get the feeling they can't win?

If some people want to believe BT were just politely and respectfully waiting around ready to make a better offer for Super League then so be it.

Realistically if they wanted RL when the current deal ended then they would've put out some feelers and had some hush hush discussions at like a sports do, an awards bash, CC or GF night.

It's all too easy for detractors to say BT MIGHT have come along and offered more, hell I can dream likewise that until she meets me Cheryl Cole MIGHT come along and ask me out.

Like argued above, you sometimes have to take risks. Yes, and sometimes you have to play sensible. If Sky had come with a poor offer then so be it.......risk it. But they didn't, they came with a good offer so don't be silly or greedy. The sport isn't in a position to do so.

And we've spent so long in the shadows of other sports on Sky Sports, now that some are going to BT do we join with and carry on being 'in the shadows' or do we fill the void left by those always previously ahead of us?

We had very good opening day coverage over Sky Sports News for the opening day......do you think we'd have gotten that if Sky hadn't lost some. Like a first teamer getting injured, it's opened up a spot for a youngster or second string to step up and take the spotlight and shine.

Most Rights deals are done at least 18months in advance. The premier league are in year 1 of their rights cycle, they will renegotiate this year. You renegotiate when the iron is hot.