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.

I think sky will draw conclusions from how many sky customers have bought premier, how many will keep it when they realise they can watch evry nrl game and how many also ditch sky sports.

Thats the evidence they will make regarding rl

I think sky will draw conclusions from how many sky customers have bought premier, how many will keep it when they realise they can watch evry nrl game and how many also ditch sky sports.

Thats the evidence they will make regarding rl

No

I would be surprised that Premier Sports only had 6,500 subscribers before July. Yet were able to function as a tv channel buying rights.

You are one of those who I referred to as being in the know and therefore you are fully aware that RLWC is on at the moment and that Premier TV have been showing games on their media player, SKY TV and FOC on Virgin.....you are in the minority in the UK.


Or Sky will look at the number of their users who subscribe to the Premier coverage (reportedly 6,500 in July) and say to themselves that 19 million a year is about right.


BBC viewing figures are brilliant and I freely accept I was 25% out on my predictions for attendances.....BT sport has 500,000 subscribers and BARB report their audiences...even if they are 12,000 (see last reported week).....just because "we" are watching premier, it doesn't mean the country is.

Doubtful, as they very quickly found something else to spend their cash on by the time IMG went back with a discounted offer...it's only a mistake if you look at it from a RL fans point of view.
But decided not to negotiate.....looking at their turn over and that of the RLIF, I'd say they know what they are doing.
We will never know. They would have based their assumptions on previous international viewing figures.....and they have bee getting 500k for the other lot in the afternoons.....

Premier TV cover sports that they can pick up cheap....handball, greyhound racing, NASCAR, NHL Hockey and the NRL......19,000,000 a year would require 160,000 subscribers at a tenner a month.......and advertisers don't generally buy stand alone slots, they buy packages, so ad revenue would be minimal.


BT Sports declare 500k subscribers and BARB report their figures, even those as low as 12,000.....if Premier TV were getting record numbers of viewers they would have said as much.

A mate of mine recently bought a new fleet of courier vans...they are all bright yellow. Before he did this, I didn't notice yellow courier vans, but now they are friggin' everywhere......RL Fans will notice and enjoy the level of RL coverage on Premier TV because they know it's there....your average UK sports fan is none the wider.

Premier TV have the rights to greyhounds, bowls, ice hockey, handball and the NRL.....none of which would have cost a lot of money.......Sky prop the RFL up with 19 million a year....that is out of premier TV's league.......they chased SKY once before as Setanta......remember how that panned out for them?

Where do you have the figures about subscriber from?

I first appeared on the digital SPY forum back in July.....as regards BARB figures, these are in the public domain.....

i think barry hearn will be in front of the Que with darts asking for more money before the RFL even react.

A quick comparison of the respective ratings for SL and the Darts would point to him having a case

I will wait to see the figures next year and compare, IN MY OPINION darts on sky is a novelty.

novelty it may be, but it still drew a pretty decent level of eyeballs to SKY.....240K for the final as opposed to 271k for the SL Grand Final.

I think after a few years of the same scenario the neutrals wont bother watching darts. I like darts but it gets boring to watch unless i have nothing else to do.

But i would say sky don't capitalize on rugby league as much as they should not sure what much else darts could do but then again i am not promoter.

RL needs to cultivate other broadcasters than Sky. Despite frustrations over some coverage/commentry teams etc, Sky has been a very valuable allay to SL, however the Sky Broadcast platform has limited lifespan, it may take 10 years but satelite broadcasting will be superceded by internet, which may very well mean the end for Sky's all inclusive packages.

That is all guesswork but as a sport RL must be in a position to respond to the broadcast changes that are coming in the next 5-10 years

Darts fills up a lot of time over the year and has a loyal audience. It's been on Sky since day one, that's no novelty.

Oh to have a Barry Hearn type negotiator at Red Hall

It would certainly be interesting to see what he did with the sport. Darts is a fairly easy game to sell, and hard to change, and he's done that well. His efforts with snooker seem to have alienated a lot of the traditionalists, rightly or wrongly, but the sport is thriving on the whole.

Id love to see him consulted, to gauge his ideas if nothing else.

Its a pity he isn't interested in setting up the Leyton Broncos.

a real pity.

I'd agree the sport needs a Barry Hearn to an extent, but this is a sport that hates change, and Hearn from, as you mention both darts and snooker, needed some slight, some major changes, to be in the position it is in. I think the parochial nature of our sport wouldn't allow a Hearn to succeed, sadly.

Hearn not only wants change, he wants power.

Total and absolute control over the sport as an entireity and who does what, where and when.

Easy enough to do when you're dealing with an individual sport like darts or snooker (albeit there has been dissent within both games) but absolutely impossible when you're dealing with a sport like football or one of the rugby codes where the clubs are businesses.

Nothing novelty about darts. It gets good ratings, has a huge fan base and with a man such as Barry Hearn at the helm, it's thriving.

Needless to day, I can't stand Hearn. As Andy G says, it's not about the money with him, it's the power. He wants 100% control. Plus he always has his favourites in each sport he runs; Taylor in darts, O'Sullivan in snooker.

Main sports item on BBC and ITV, not a word on sky