He has done wonders for Wigan as a club but I think some of his views on the game as a whole are wide of the mark. Voting for something and then criticising it? Even as a Wigan fan he comes across as a bit of an idiot sometimes.

BT Sport isn't a separate business so can't be liquidated on its own, ITV Digital was. In this instance it's more of a risk going with Sky in term of turnover/size of business etc.

The ITV Digital thing is a case study in how not to do things. Getting parent company guarantees is standard contracting practice and the Football League still don't know why they never did. I doubt even the RFL would be stupid enough to make the same mistake - actually let me think about that one.

In terms of most RL owners I doubt it. After all he's a successful self-made multi-millionaire who has completely transformed Wigan from top to bottom into a profitable multi-trophy winning club.

Marwan Koukash is apparently a big fan also i believe his good friends with Mcmanus

40 million a year is ridicuosly cheap over 8 years. Other sports will be so much more, trying to bridge the gap with other business sport will probably mean we go backwards in terms of stature.
The RFL should have tested the water by tendering out, instead of becoming the "poundstretchers" of british sport............they reap what they sow.

BT are 3 times bigger than BSkyB, If anyone goes bust or scales down it will be BSkyB.

Having said that IL signed the new deal off, so he is as culpable as Barwick.

I still say it is a good deal.
It offers the game an 8 year pathway where EVERYONE knows what they are getting and when. It enables chairmen who bankroll clubs in the middle 8 section to make calculated gambles on spending to break into the top 8, it ensures that the tail of the top 8 are fully aware of what happens if they drop down and delivers an increase in revenues across the entire game.
The only downside I can see is that it will increase the dependency on TV money for the majority of clubs. Let's hope now that the RFL don't have to waste time micro-managing their tenants, they can instead assist clubs in their business and strategic plans and in attracting "other" revenue streams (fans, commercials, sponsors etc..)

Apparently he couldn't vote no because some of the others were going to vote yes, he felt "under pressure" to go with the majority instead of his own view.

Bless

to be told 24 hours before such an important decision is completely stupid. But he should of been strong enough to say no.

Lets face it those saying it's a bad deal have no idea what BT would have offered, if anything.

Had it gone to tender in 2 years and we got less than what SKY have offered they would have been calling the RFL for not taking the money early.

It's like Deal or no deal. You can take what the banker offers or roll the dice.

Not seen it for ages but got home early from work today and the lad gave up £8000, for a toss up between £10 and £50,000.

He got the £10. For him it's not great as he could have moved on, but it's a gamble worth taking.

For RL getting the poorer deal could mean the death nell for many clubs.

You can't treat business like a gameshow. You have to take the best deal on offer not hope there is something in an unopened box.

Now if BT where making inquiries around the £300 million mark then you could call it a bad deal.

"IF"....the most important word in the RL Fans vocabulary

If me nan had balls she'd be me granddad

Bottom line is its a decent increase and should give everybody a bit of stability, now its just down to what the clubs and the administration do with that money and stability

Quote ="Starbug"Bottom line is its a decent increase and should give everybody a bit of stability, now its just down to what the clubs and the administration do with that money and stability'" Throw it all away again chasing a dream? Or call ryan mcgoldrick a marquee signing and pay him all the extra money ... www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/f ... ee-players? One of the two...

Quote ="Starbug"Bottom line is its a decent increase and should give everybody a bit of stability, now its just down to what the clubs and the administration do with that money and stability'" Throw it all away again chasing a dream? Or call ryan mcgoldrick a marquee signing and pay him all the extra money ... www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/f ... ee-players? One of the two...

And Sky have 10million TV subscribers, all playing for sports content, BT have about 2million TV subscribers, the majority get it for free.

Sky's sports content makes them money, BTs costs them money, it is a loss leader for broadband at the moment.

It's not about a battle for TV supremacy. BT simply don't have platform to deliver it, nor the infrastructure, nor personnel, nor real motive to compete with Sky, it's about BT protecting their mature retail markets, there is a point where it simply doesn't make sense for BT to fight that battle, it doesn't make sense for BT to use profit making parts of the business to subsidise a heavily loss making TV business

Perhaps the bribe of a one-off £300K windfall was conditional upon actually voting yes to the Sky deal? Must be difficult to turn that down under time-constrained pressure, even on a matter of principle.

Really?
BSkyB have 10,500,000 TV Customers. You are assuming they are ALL subscribers to the sports packages, which they are not......the best guesses of media watchers is that SKY sports has a few million.....given Soccerball is the #1 draw card for Sky Sports, yet 2,000,000 is the top end of the viewers they get for the premiership, I'd say 4.5 million tops is the number.
BT Sport have 2,000,000 people on their books now...they got 1.3 million for a recent game.....they bossed the on-line sign up market in the last Quarter of 2013......their strategy is working.

Personally, I see the future of sports broadcasting as being on-line and that places BT in a strong position. superdooper TV's that do everything, in every home, will be the norm within 24 months. I currently surf the net at home on my TV and watch a lot of content from the web (ooh er Missus). If BT can control the largest number of customers accessing the web, then that makes them more powerful than any TV company. IMO that is.

I've recently ditched Sky and I'm now firmly in the BT camp. The unlimited broadband, phone line, anytime calls, BT Sport for just £27.75 per month was the clincher for me. Also getting Premier Sports for all the NRL, Origin, Tests dirt cheap deal for the equivalent of £2 a month for the next 6 months, and that's still less than £30 per month in total.

Sky want double the amount I'm paying each month for all the above (broadband, phone line, anytime calls, BT Sport, Premier Sports) and that's just for access to their sports channels so I can watch Super League? Pffft. I don't think so.

Can always find an online stream of any SL game (or any other sporting event) if you know where to look, so yes... BT by plenty.

And that's missing the problem, what's good for consumers is bad for investors (who ultimately are the ones who decide the longevity of a company whose publicly listed like both bt and sky.)

If you look at bts core business, (which plays a large part of the reasons why it's figures are bigger than bskyb's) it's an incredibly mature industry, the landline is dying a slow but sure death, which whilst that decline hasn't hit it's terminal velocity yet, is on the definite horizon (due to people like me who live on their mobiles and have no need for a landline) a lot of this in recent years had been made up for with growth in business function, but the innovation and acces to VoIP now means the fall of the bt core business will hit hard. This is undeniable, and precisely why they are shifting into other business areas. It's a sensible move, given, as I said terminal decline has not yet hit.

Unfortunately the business they are now focussing on, is a heavily saturated market (hence the deals you mention, they need to win customers, and quick) they probably won't have too much costs refocusing as it's a similar industry, but how much penetration they can actually achieve is the real question. Ultimately they won't be able to afford to keep giving bt sport as part of a sweetener (there's already talk of introducing sign up fees) - and there are obvious questions over how much is too much for the champions league.

Sky sports on the other hand, and the old dogs in the game, it's not like it's the first time they've lost out to sports events (itv sport anyone?) and by the looks of it are playing the long game. (Which is fine for rl, it will take until 2020 to know whether bt sport has any longevity anyway) and whilst there's no particular good news on the horizon as far as I'm aware, there's no particular bad news either. I imagine the price will drop, should bt sport continue to be able to afford to bid on lots of sports (though I said the same about apple so what do I know) but it seems to take on every competitor with an arrogant swagger, and ultimately win out through attrition. I've yet to see anything to suggest different.

The rfl can't afford risk after the structure debacle. For the risk averse trader, I know what horse I'd be backing. At least until bt sport matures.

(Note this is a fundamental analysis I haven't seen either of the long term charts)

Lenegan is right. Time he did set up a rebel league. RFL are a disgrace. Some people here need an eye test to support the RFL's ludicrous decisions! No foresight at all!

Perhaps it was. But then I would expect him to man up and live with that decision instead of whining a week later like a little girl who didn't get the pony they'd hoped for Xmas.

His main principle it seems is to bitch and whine about the RFL & SL bullying poor Ian.

Yes you are right it is time he shut up and got on with it the deal is done now if he did not like it he should have done something at the time not say yes and then change is mind

Actually no I don’t, that was poor phrasing by me. What I meant was Sky have 10millions subscribers, those that get sports content are all paying for it.

Sky have recorded sports viewing figures of more than 4m, they never have released their total sports subs numbers and its a pretty closesly guarded secret, but i think it would wrong to think they have ever got near to having 100% of thier sports subs base watching a specific event. I would be surprised if it got much if anything above 75% if that so an educated guess would be closer to 6-7m.

How much realistically is 200k broadband subs worth? especially when Sky still added 110k without giving free sports channels. BT are already trying to sell their product wholesale to Sky so that it can be included in packages and BT can recover some costs. They do that and they massively undermine their own plan.

As i said, expect SKy to go big on the next set of PL rights between £1.3b to £1.8b a season, take all the top PL content and leave BT sports as ESPN with much bigger costs.

If I was Lenegan, I would be more concerned by the fact that his own commercial team can only get a 1 year deal with a small housing company to be the main club sponsor, whilst his rival clubs are signing deals with national and international brands.

With having the international exposure of the WCC (and probably travelling on Emirates next week), it should have been fairly easy to sign up a major international sponsor.

Here's what he said in full....


I believe it is a dreadful commercial decision to be agreeing in 2014, with 3 years still to go on the super leagues current deal, a new deal for super league tv rights for the 5 future years 2017-2021 at only 30% increase and without going out to tender and allowing BT sport to compete.

There are other very welcome elements for championship and championship 1 tv rights and for the community foundations, but the deal for Super League tv rights is only increased by 30% for the future 5 years 2017-2021 compared with the current remaining 3 years deal 2014-2016.

Publically available figures show the football league achieved a 37% increase for an extention from their 3 years to 5 years (not 8 years!). They made available extra TV games where super league has offered a complete restructure of the competition.

Super league should have achieved considerably more than that from committing the next 8 years, or should have extended for 2 years only, leaving us then able to renegotiate leading upto 2016 for 2017-2021 in what appears to be an increasingly competitive market in favour of sellers.

To make it absolutely clear, Sky is a great broadcaster for rugby league and I would hope they would have won any tender because of what they do for Rugby League. They have been wonderful partners for the game over many years and none of my comments are aimed at them. As another club owner hinted they have achieved a great tv deal for their shareholders.

However for the RFL to recommend the selling forward of super league for 8 years with the clubs only given 24 hours notice of the meeting, a limited amount of time to discuss the details and to be forced into an immediate take it or lose it vote, is a complete failure of corporate governance by the RFL and a condemnation of the way Super League is managed by them.

Such a key decision should have been discussed in detail over a reasonable period of time with support from an independent tv expert as all other negotiating rights holders do.

Whilst I understand fully the financially desperate position of some clubs and well understand them voting for any deal which on the short term helps their difficult circumstances, it is the responsibility of the governing body of the super league to make sure the right decisions are taken in the interest of super league and the game as a whole.

Unfortunately these two entities are largely the same people (the dreaded duality seen only in rugby league with the chairman and chief executive of both bodies being the same individuals). Also in my opinion, the chief executive in particular is too closely involved in driving his own personal view of the restructuring of the super league competition rather than the inclusive and open-minded approach which a CEO should lead with.

Decisions taken in haste have a habit of being repented over a long period. I, for one regret immensely that, under the pressure of time and a stated desire for some unanimity, I voted Wigan in favour of accepting the deal because it was clear financially challenged clubs would support it.

I awakened the next day and regretted immensely my voting which - given time to consider properly - would have been strongly against this particular deal since I believe super league could have achieved a different and more structurally sensible deal with sky preferably.

I also resent being coerced into taking an immediate position on something so vital for the future of our game. We are now shut out of any increases in the value of broadcasting rights over an 8 year period. BT sport are very serious competitors and they are in it for the long term yet Super League did not even go out to tender to give them an opportunity to bid for rights. To go with another 5 year contract, 3 years hence from now, without giving others the chance to bid is surely crazy commercially.

I am not suggesting that this tv rights decision should be challenged or reversed since the clubs (including Wigan) voted democratically for it.

However I hope that clubs, fans and players will recognise that the process followed by the governing body throughout this whole process - whilst resulting in welcome and much needed money for SL and championship clubs- has been seriously flawed and should result in a major review of the management structure of Super League and the dual involvement of the RFL