I cancelled Sky Sports and signed up to Premier and the young lady on the phone said I was one of many who had done the same. Maybe this is feeding back but I hope it re-inforces the value of our game long term.

I don't think anyone is suggesting they 'advertise' the rlwc. But a sports news channel and now the bulletin on rolling news are simply hiding the fact there is a world cup happening at the moment. Watching now there is ice hockey, NBA and NFL reported.

Simple answer

YES, THEY ARE, and it is childish and pathetic, something the BBC have been accused of many times in the past

Didn't the parliamentary group help push Virgin into taking on Premier Sports? Hopefully the next step, if we can build sufficient momentum, is to get the RLWC onto that list too.

Totally agree with you on this one, I'm a Rugby League fan who pays SKY around £80 a month in subscriptions and I expect their Sports News channel to report on major sporting events whether they have the broadcast rights to it or not.

I feel pretty let down by their attitude toward Rugby League at present, it's a sport they now seem to take for granted. The increase in production values has not kept pace with other sports , they show little interest in refreshing their main commentary team despite almost universal dissatisfaction with Eddie & Stevo, there's little in terms of promotion compared with other sports, their magazine/leaflet advertising rarely includes images of Rugby League and we are under represented in their SKY Sports montage clips.

I don't think anyone on here is saying they should tell you where you can watch the games, just that they should report on what's happening. The impression is that Sky's news values are being distorted by their commercial interests. The Beeb report on what's going on elsewhere in the RLWC. Sky seem to be deliberately ignoring it.

Their dogged stubborness in keep eddie and stevo is sickening. They need to go.

Of course they are. Sky sports news is less of a news channel and more of an infomercial for their main four sports channels

1. I'm focussing on the sports news sections on Sky News. They are deliberately ignoring the RLWC. Somebody in that organisation has taken this decision and I'd like to know who it is. (They are happily reporting news of, for example, the track cycling world cup - even though that is actually being covered by BBC2).

2. I'm sure their sports presenters realise this and some of them will feel their journalistic professionalism impugned.

3. I hope Sky News doesn't expect to win any more industry awards unless this approach is corrected fast.

Quote ="Bovrick"Didn't the parliamentary group help push Virgin into taking on Premier Sports? Hopefully the next step, if we can build sufficient momentum, is to get the RLWC onto that list too.'" Not sure but just googled the list and found this en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ofcom_Co ... ted_Events I know its wikipedia but linked to ofcom site. Says only RUWC final is protected so be a long shot to get the whole tournament protected

Quote ="Bovrick"Didn't the parliamentary group help push Virgin into taking on Premier Sports? Hopefully the next step, if we can build sufficient momentum, is to get the RLWC onto that list too.'" Not sure but just googled the list and found this en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ofcom_Co ... ted_Events I know its wikipedia but linked to ofcom site. Says only RUWC final is protected so be a long shot to get the whole tournament protected

This is more serious than I thought. To hear that editorial decisions on the sports channel are determined by commercial considerations is worrying enough but here you're saying it percolates into the main news channel. Isn't it a condition of their licence that they report fairly? Doesn't it reflect badly on the professionalism of the main channel as a whole? Do they have a regulator? Has it any teeth?



How do we find out?

Quote ="Brid B&W"Not sure but just googled the list and found this en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ofcom_Co ... ted_Events I know its wikipedia but linked to ofcom site. Says only RUWC final is protected so be a long shot to get the whole tournament protected'" I believe, but don't quote me as being sure, that the IRB dictate a certain amount of where/when/by whom when it comes to their RWC. No doubt that Uncle Rupert could outbid ITV for the rights, but it's whether the IRB want the audience potential limited. Didn't they get 6,000,000 or something on ITV for Wales's Sunday morning Semi-final in 2011? I know they got 17,000,000 in France for the Final and that was on FTA. IMG were sold the rights and none of us know if there were any demands/requests around FTA coverage in certain countries....the important thing for RLWC organisers was the money and that's why Premiere got the job. Best we can hope for is if the BBC see the benefits this time around, get decent figures for their "am" games in 2017 and bid again for the rights moving ahead. We got 120k here in NZ at 8am for the Kiwis game this weekend just gone.......given Kiwis like to lie-in on Saturday/Sunday mornings, that's not too shabby

Quote ="Brid B&W"Not sure but just googled the list and found this en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ofcom_Co ... ted_Events I know its wikipedia but linked to ofcom site. Says only RUWC final is protected so be a long shot to get the whole tournament protected'" I believe, but don't quote me as being sure, that the IRB dictate a certain amount of where/when/by whom when it comes to their RWC. No doubt that Uncle Rupert could outbid ITV for the rights, but it's whether the IRB want the audience potential limited. Didn't they get 6,000,000 or something on ITV for Wales's Sunday morning Semi-final in 2011? I know they got 17,000,000 in France for the Final and that was on FTA. IMG were sold the rights and none of us know if there were any demands/requests around FTA coverage in certain countries....the important thing for RLWC organisers was the money and that's why Premiere got the job. Best we can hope for is if the BBC see the benefits this time around, get decent figures for their "am" games in 2017 and bid again for the rights moving ahead. We got 120k here in NZ at 8am for the Kiwis game this weekend just gone.......given Kiwis like to lie-in on Saturday/Sunday mornings, that's not too shabby

Isn't it understandable that a commercial organisation may decide not to promote something that would help its competitors? Ch 9 here also downplays the World Cup, as do all the News Ltd papers as far as I can tell.

I am with you and that NZ figure isn't bad but my point was all the football world cup is protected but only the final in the RUWC. We have a long way to go to get protected status.

Only place sky feel it is in the pockets I have also cancelled sky sports and when asked said lack of rugby, qualifying it after listening to th RU list as RL

It is. But if they want to run a news channel it has to be impartial or it's not allowed to broadcast. It's why Fox News weren't allowed to setup a UK news channel.

You can tell the way Sky News is heading as they have just handed Kay Burley a new 5 year contract.

*shudder*

Bmx, angling, boxing, Spanish football and pool on today. No rugby league world cup

In reply to the op, Sky may well be making a statement but, it seems that they have also made an error in judgement over the 2013RLWC.
Between them, The RFL, Premier and the Beeb have done an excellent job and the World Cup looks like exceeding even the most optimistic forecasts.
All we need now is for England to win the main prize...........ok, that's too optimistic.
Also, Vossy has been a revelation, lively, enthusiastic and knowledgeable, certainly the pick of all the commentators in RL over the last 10 years.

doubtful.
The RLWC will deliver record crowds, but other than those of us "in the know", the competition has done little in the way of media domination. BARB figures for the BBC are great with 2.2 million peaks figures, but regardless of how many viewers Premier being Free on Virgin opened up, it is actual viewing figures that are the Key. 150K averages for SL on Sky across 54 regular season games and play-offs/GF costs SKY 19,000,000 a year + outside broadcast costs etc....I suspect Sky know what they would pay and what they would fill with if they didn't get the rights. 316k a game would have cost SKY 7 million for 22 non England games whilst driving eyeballs to the BBC for the 6 exclusive England games.

SKY have RL by the throat for 3 more years....by the time negotiations start in 2 years, the landscape will be clearer with BT, Premier and the internet all possibly interested in the rights.....what is needed is strong leadership with a clear vision as to what is expected. I would say 1 FTA game a week should be key...even if its on the digital wilderness of FTA TV or exclusively on-line.

Please feel free to keep quiet on your 'in the know' info.

PLEASE!

my post was relevant to the topic. I didn't claim to "know" anything or be "in the know", I simply based my opinion on the available information.

If you re-read my post, you will see the reference of "us in the know" was meant in the context of those of us who are supporters of the game and therefore are aware that the tournament is available on Virgin platform FOC as well as on paid subscription on Premier Player and on the Sky Platform.....it is highly unlikely that random sports fans will have discovered RL through Premier TV because it is free for 30 days........it has been available on SKY for a long time and had only 6,500 subscribers as of July this year before it lost Conference footie to BT Sport.

I'll respectfully request you read and attempt to comprehend what you are commenting on before trying to jump on any bandwagon......and I repeat, a quick glance at the on-line editions of the national media in the UK and their respective sports pages will point you in the direction of a reality check.

I have been away for a coupleof weeks on a RLWC odyssey at many sold out or almost sold out stadia. Prior to that I remember your in the know numerous posts on how bad the attendances would be at the Cup games. Now you have been proven to not be not in the know in that area you have switched to the TV coverage aspect in a similalry negative manner.

Whilst it is early days, maybe the loss of the soccer contract to BT and the record crowds and viewing figures for the cup will make Sky realise that they 1. Need to replace their lost soccer coverage and 2. Realise what a gem they have in RL and improve their coverage and cash offerings at the next contract discussions,

I don't have the same in depth knowledge as you, Gutters but, the viewing figures alone make the World Cup a success, not to mention the actual attendances + the quality of many of the games.
Bearing in mind that Sky is all about having something to put on our screens, IMO they have definitely made a boo boo.
They could have secured the rights to this for not a lot of cash.
Maybe they are happy with their schedules for the 6 weeks of the World Cup but, there is no doubt that with the obvious exception of football, this comp could have given them a decent return.
Not to mention the fact that, on the whole, most fans have been pretty impressed with the Premier coverage and there is surely a risk of some Sky customers having had their eyes opened to one of their competitors.

I'll say this over and over again. It was far more important to get the big games on free to air TV than how many people are able to view USA vs. Cook Islands for example.

Yes, the non-BBC fixtures may have got larger audiences on Sky Sports, but it's really not that important if that meant no games on the BBC.