Assumptions are 100k purely for RL, ie what they could lose in subs, they then attract revenue from adverts. If they covered 60 games per annum then that would allow £250k per game costs plus advertising revenue.

Sky would get a decent return from 100k folk purchasing the package primarily for RL, even before the value it brings to the next 100k folk who watch RL on Sky etc

Last week SSN said that 50% of Sky RL viewers live in the south of England. I imagine the majority of these are casual viewers, and whilst they enjoy watching the greatest game of all I don't think many would be willing to pay an extra subscription to Premier Sports on top of their pre-existing sky bill. Moving to a small station would kill RL, for starters they wouldn't be able to offer the same money as sky, and being on SS1 is so valuable in terms of getting the sport out there.

This is of course wild speculation with no foundation to it, but I wonder whether in the next year or so Premier Sports would be interested in showing one game of SL a week along side sky and the French Operator? Their Championship coverage has been a relative success, and I am sure adding Super League to their portfolio would encourage more RL fans to subscribe.

I agree

Explain how ' relatively ' successful it has been , and the reasons for your opinion of it ?

From what I can gather, the Championship is the only thing they do themselves, as opposed to buy off other broadcasters and it is clearly done on a low budget, for example the gazebo they were stood under last night, contrast this to sky who have a wealth of experience, cameras, stats, portable studio etc- hence my use of '[irelatively[/i'.

Despite this I can't fault their coverage, plenty of analysis and post match reaction, which was lacking in Sky's coverage of the Championship, five minutes before KO and a quick interview with the man of the match after the game. They have also been rather innovative, audio from inside the dressing room, interviews with coaches at HT and of course wiring up the video ref for the audience to hear, something which I can see Sky introducing themselves soon enough.

Hope I have answered your question

So because you like the production quality, you term that as successful? , I'd suggest the viewing figures and extra revenue from advertising for both PS and the clubs themselves would be the measure of its success

Well that goes without saying. But that has been achieved thanks partly to the reasons I have mentioned. Don't quite see what you are trying to get at!

Probably that you are making stuff up without any evidence whatsoever. For all we know Premier Sports could be losing money on a weekly basis and wasting cash showing dire semi professional Rugby League.

NRL aint that bad.

No, it doesnt go without saying, just because you like the show doesnt mean its a success, it is on a pay per view channel that nobody watches , I dont have access to it because it isnt on Virgin media, and I wouldnt pay for it anyway for 1 game per week, when Leigh are probably on it every 3/4 weeks

Playing midweek costs Championship clubs money, they dont get anything from the deal, it isnt worth a carrot

I watch it. I also watch the 5 NRL games they have every weekend. I'll watch the RL9's Finals night too. I also advertise on their channel, along with a fair few other RL companies that do so thanks to their coverage.

For £70 a year subscription and a great advertising deal, I'm not complaining.

Same here, I would much rather see a pay-per-view RL.

Seeing as you have invested in some sort of advertising deal with the channel, you must have a pretty good idea of viewing figures. Care to share?

I'm surprised sky doesn't show more SL games. It rates well and they have paid for the content anyway.

Ps the future is the Internet tv anyway. Before too long satellite tv will be dead and I can see a time that subscription to specialist channels via Internet based media will be the norm. A dedicated RL channel showing SL, cc, frenchrl, nrl, soo, tests etc is the future and could well end up being an international channel run by the Arlc & SL. Cost it right and it could get 1/2 million subscribers world wide.

I'd love to see a service, like the Livesport NRL one I use, for RL in Europe - though the NRL one does piggyback on all the media slots that already exist in television down there. I'm not sure it would be cost effective up here yet, though SLTV does do a good job at the moment.

EDIT: And hopefully the US and other expanding areas in time too.

A friend of mine works for Sky and he says the revenue Sky receive for advertising during SL games is pretty low compared to that of other sports which is probably reflected in the TV deal we get. Although viewing figures are good, companies arent that fussed about having their product advertised as its not the correct "demographics". He says companies are actually trying to outbid each other to have their product shown during rugby union ad breaks.

Maybe national and international companies still see us fans as not having 2 bob to rub together!

Which is where the Stobart sponsorship thinking comes in, it is an attempt to subconciously create millions of new watchers of SL on SKY in more affluent parts of the country, therefore increasing the value of the advertising revenue and ultimatly the money SKY will pay for SL

And yes I am being serious, wether it will work? , I dont know but its probably still better than 55 grand for each club to blow on another aussie/kiwi

Those SL viewers down south must all be living in east london housing estates! You'd think both sky and rfl would conduct market research to quash this myth about disposable income as it would financially benefit both.

That contradicts what the actual cost is to advertise on SL as opposed to the RU Premiership.

If our footy wonderboys manage to dispose of the ' eyeties ' on sunday Fax verses Fev ( essentially Fax,s biggest potential attendance of the year ) will be up against England verses Germany in the Euro Championship semi ( providing the Krauts beat the Greeks of course ) , that should help Faxs finances

this is what I don't get, whilst there are a lot of young lads who play the game down here, a large proportion of the demographic watching/paying for SP in the south are us older lot with disposible incomes/steady jobs (not that that is a dig at anyone btw)
I totally understand sponsors wanting to get onto the RU bandwagon, sometimes perception of product placing is greater than the actuality, certainly the disparity in income between the sports is massive yet the following of supporters from a purely numerical POV isn't that different.. It does all boil down to the pee poor marketing of the sport in the last 30-40 years, it's a gap that we will never ever be able to make up sadly

If we had all 2,500 trucks then I think it would help.

100 trucks is just not enough.

I drive between Wigan and Coventry alot, I often see 10+ trucks on my way, I still havn't seen a super league one. However, if they were all covered in 'super league' and 'skysports'.... I probably would have seen those trucks around 100 times since the deal was done, and so would most other drivers who do motorway driving. The whole country would know about it. The concept is spot on, the negotiation and execution is the worst I have seen from the RFL in terms of marketing.

Seriously how on earth did we end up with just 100? The negotiator must have been on the booze the night before.

The thing with is Sky is that they are loaded. With all their channels arcoss the world. Ok so the PL money is massive but dont forget they cut back on cash for other sports like the football league and scottish football. Although SL money was increased. I wouldnt worry about it too much its now a sellers market in the pay tv world if you have good rating product which League is.

There aren't many particuarly entertaining SL games on which don't involve the big teams playing each other such as Wigan, Warrington, Saints, Leeds etc.

I enjoyed the Bradford v Cas a couple of Mondays ago