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

i dont know the full details of teh OFCOM proposals....will third party broadcasters be able to pick and choose which sports they show, or will it be like Virgin where they just get the SKY Sports channels, warts and all.

If Sky have to do it, I would guess that it will probably be the latter. As they will be wholesaling it, they will pitch it so's other channels can't make a bean unless they charge more, potentially a lot more, than the Sky uplift (from the Sky basic package).

regardless, it still means that even if you need to subscribe to sky sports as a whole you still dont need to pay the original £17.50 for an entertainment pack

if you get the basic package plus sky sports it costs £35.50

even if Virgin charge £18 for Sky Sports and pass that on direct to sky, Sky are still losing out on the original £17.50 you needed to pay to simply get the basic package

therefore for every customer who chooses to go through virgin rather than Sky for Sky sports, Sky lose out on £17.50 and the value of using Sky Sports to attract customers to sky is basically halved

I doubt if that would be the case, the only thing that would be majorly hit is prize money for winning trophies and only a few clubs do that anway. the super league on the other hand would be in real trouble.

As would every other pro sport in the world.

Soccer clubs would collapse faster than Lehman Brothers, as they did after the ITVDigital debacle.

Dont forget, whatever effects us, effects soccer 100x more due to the sheer scale of numbers involved with them (more clubs, more money, more games)

It might even mean that RL remains constantly bouyant since terrestrial broadcasters arent overly interested Sky Sports could maintain it as an exclusive.

I know I only used to get cable/sky for the the SL games, then cancel the whole lot after the season ended, dont even do that these days, so the cheaper "RL only" option or even "Sky Sports" only option would tempt me back, meaning they get their £18 they would never have seen again.

When the Shadow Minister of C (K?)ulture talks about tearing up the BBC Charter and doesn't promptly get a kicking from Conservative Central Office (they call it a clarification), then it's reasonable to assume that this is under consideration. Better be nice to Sky, if the Conservatives win the next election they may end up being all we've got!

alternatively, they are increasing their market size, by making it available without all the rest of the rubbish.

if, for example, you can subscribe to a website that is offering SKY Sports only without all the other channels for around £20 a month only (i.e. you dont have to pay for the rest of the Virgin Media package) - more people will take that option and SKY will increase their revenues tby having more viewers, (able to charge more for advertsing, etc).

Just because they have previously gone for a high cost, low volume strategy doesnt mean that it is the best way to go in the future. And it doesnt mean that the RFL are reliant solely on income from SKY. More people paying less increases the "market" that is able to watch RL on a regular basis and should (in theory) increae attendances and sponsor revenue.

The way it is and the way the game has been handled we need Sky's money. Anyone saying differently is a bag of frogs.

My parents', grandparents' and sister's households drop Sky Sports as soon as the rugby starts and get it back again for February. They've been doing the same for a while now and they aren't alone.

but Sky will have looked at this model and decided it isnt the way to go,

if you want to think we will just hit lucky and an OFCOM decision which isnt made to increase the revenue of Sky, will anyway then fine.

But im pretty sure some very good people at Sky have already done the figures, and already made the decision

Bitter and twisted Leigh fans you have gotta love em