but you may not need a Sky subscription to access, which is the issue

if i dont need to pay to subscribe to Sky to watch RL, why would i still pay Sky to watch RL?

I think the RFL make some good points in that report. Sky are accused of a monopoly but they took the risks years ago when the rights were cheap. They invested in football and rugby league massively and made them the sports they are today. It's not there fault competitors have over spent and collapsed. First ITV Digital then Setanta. I can't see how Sky can be blamed for the collapse of Setanta. They both clearly over spent on football and it failed massively.

Without Sky our sport would have collapsed completly. We'd have gone back to how it was in the late 70s/early 80s with 4,000 crowds being regular at places like Central Park and Knowsley Road with league games probably only being covered on a regional basis. Without Sky Wigan would have gone under as well in the late 90s and they probably wouldn't have been the only club.

Having said that Sky have always been crafty in giving themselves an edge. For a long time they denied Sky Sports Xtra to Cable viewers and put Football League and Champions League games on that channel so they missed out. I remember a Wigan v Saints derby was aired on that channel in 2002 which left Cable viewers missing out. They only got that channel in the end because Sky's new edge is exclusive HD.

What OFCOM should look it is that the consumer can't just buy Sky Sports from Sky. You have to buy a load of basically repeat channels as well.

The championship would go amateur and most of the SL would be semi pro.
Leeds, Wire, Wigan and Hull would probably be alright off the top of my head but costs would be cut massively.

This has to be stopped.
As soon as sky rights go, our sky in our house go, same for a lot of people i reckon

You will still pay for it, they're not proposing that it will be free to air - Sky will still get the money, but via wholesale rather than direct subscriber.

You don't need to pay to subscribe to Sky to watch RL at the moment, if you live in the right area you can pay to Virgin instead for the same channel - currently Virgin get dicked by Sky in the amount they are charged.

Touche.

This is very true, and could possibly happen with the threat of Sky being forced to wholesale the channels.

One thing is for sure, Sky won't magically change anything unless they feel their under pressure to do something or be legislated against.

I just have a problem with the whole idea of taking from those who have earned their place in the market and giving it to those who haven't. As the RFL point out, all they are trying to do is punish the proactive and creative media company in favour of those that aren't investing and aren't producing anything.

Sky is successful because Sky has the best channels. They were put there by Sky investing money into it. IMO it's unfair to give two bob media companies better access to something for less money just because they haven't got the skills to be there in the first place.

This is the reason I've never been with Virgin. All the best channels have the word Sky in front of them. Sky Sports, Sky Sports News, Sky News, Sky One, Sky Movies. Why should I pay Virgin to watch them, what have they done to earn the money? Balls all. Are OFCOM suggesting the likes of Virgin, BT, ESPN etc don't have the money to compete?

NO , why would losing nothing revenue wise affect the Championships , what exactly do you think we currently get ?

I'm not saying it would be a good thing and unlike Maurice i dont want it to happen , but it wouldn't make a ripple in the finances of non SL clubs

Again the lines are blurring between Content production and Content delivery - the media world has increasingly and will continue to move towards separation of the two, Sky themselves actively want to do this, their strategy is not to keep the content exclusive to their delivery platform, rather to control and squeeze the most out of all the other delivery providers - that's why OFCOM have started to look at it.

As of this, your best year regards to media awareness, you receive 70k a pop if i read correctly.
You've already had to reduce your salary caps, 2 clubs have gone bust with oldham and gateshead to follow, you had a few pro clubs but now they've also gone semi pro due to money problems. no..everythings fine and dandy

but the losing of SKY tv coverage or money would have little effect on any Championship clubs


As for the media awareness , that also is of little to no value at the moment

There is a separate thread with a full and lively discussion of Championship and Championship 1 revenues from the RFL/ broadcasting deal (the Oldham one). Let's not simply repeat that discussion here.

Genuine question. Would SkySports have a larger income if it were distributed on more platforms, but at a lower wholesale cost than now?

I don't think the competition authorities are saying that SkySports is intrinsically too profitable. Therefore the reduction in wholesale charges to Virgin would be marginal. It's possible they would end up having substantially more customers for the channels via TopupTV/BT and other internet providers and actually have more revenue.

The question for RL and other minority sports, is whether this will create an even bigger SportsTV Leviathan that will not have to compete so keenly on price when purchasing sports rights. If SkySports are to be forced to wholesale to other platforms, then the authorities should insist that Skysports be broken up. This would ensure that there is competition in the sports rights market.

SkySports' current cozy deal with ESPN is already a sign that SkySports is delighted to have pretend opposition channels. But when Setanta was threatening its core business, it used its effective monopoly power to put the competition out of business. People who say that Setanta weren't good enough to compete with SkySports don't understand that as the market is currently operating, nobody can compete with SkySports. SkySports can take almost any loss until the opposition is bankrupt. Hence even ESPN, who are owned by the mega corporation Disney, don't dare risk a competitive fight with SkySports.

It's true that SkySports saw a gap in the market when it was set up in 1990. They deserved to make a profit for the risk they took, but they've had a good run. It's not much different from the breakup of Rockerfeller's Standard Oil, or AT+T. At a certain point, when a commercial company gains sufficient market power to effectively monopolise the market, it has to be broken up. The RFL /RFU/ECB etc are obviously fearful of change, but it may prove to be in their interests in the longer term.

Wrong.... again

Wigan weren't the only club who could afford to go 100% full time? The other clubs could afford it but chose not to? Or are you saying Wigan did it, but couldn't afford it?

You make it sound like Sky discovered the simpsons and other content of Sky1, Sky movies, etc.
Personally I find Sky channels really poor, too much mindless cr-p and overly long add breaks.

From a viewership Pov, how many RL fans subscribe to Sky Sports only for RL, how many would subscribe to Sky Sports only for RL IF it was cheaper. If Sky backed out of RL and match coverage was available online for £15/month I'd buy it. I'm not spending £30 to watch my team play at most once a month and I sure as h-ll won't subsidise wendyball, boxing or motorsports. The only Sky Sports subscriber I know will cancell his subscription as of the end of the 4 nations and will re-sub at the start of next season.

I have to agree with that.

I subscribe to virgin cable and quite like it - I don't need to pay extra for movie channels that show endless repeats cos they have a huge bank of pay per view.

BBC 24 is better than sky news and as soon as the internationals are over I will cancel my sports subscription.

Many sky channels are too american and have too many adverts.

Wigan weren't full time when many said they were. Leeds had just as many pro players. If Wigan were full time why were some of their players still working on building sites, fixing water pipes and cleaning windows.
A lazy post based on pub conversation.

I don't know why people are worrying. Cameron and the Tories are already deeply in hock to Murdoch. The chances of their new government doing anything which SKY wouldn't like are about as likely as my chances of playing for England on Saturday.

Can you fill in at centre

you may not be paying directly - but somebody will be (and subsequently, you will be paying for it indirectly).

I have a Virgin Media subscription to watch RL on SKY, the OFCOM proposal just seems to extend this to all broadcasters.

I would pay for Championship only no SL how does that work?

It won't - if you think Sky don't give a monkeys about semi-pro rugby league see how other mainstream broadcasters (most of whom have drastically reduced their live sports coverage) feel about it.

Did you read the statement?
Sky produce it as part of the exclusivity package with SL and barely break even. They wouldnt run it if it wasnt for the SL deal

But, Skys business model is dependant on getting people to pay for channels

whether they use football, RL or cricket to entice them in.

Most of their sports customers will get Sky for one or two particular sports, but when they subscribe to Sky, they need to subscribe to a basic package, and then pay for the premium channels,

if you no longer need to pay for the basic package to get the premium channels, then the value of the premium channels to Sky, and as such the amount they are willing to invest in them, drops