But he'll be even better if he's not in the country.

Fantastic news on the BBC coverage...but unless Premier Sports have offered a massive amount, then I think cutting SKY out could be a mistake.

When SKY don't have the rights to an event or a sport, they usually completely ignore it, and this means you miss valuable exposure to non-RL fans on SKY News and SKY Sports news. F1 for example didn't exist if you watched SKY a few years ago, until they won the rights and now it's offered extensive coverage and promotion.

According to reports, nobody cut Sky out. They withdrew from negotiations. So their interest wasn't there in the first place.

Other forums on other sports have discussed Sky having to make cut backs to pay for the new football deal. Whether that's true or not, speedway has had cuts, the Premier League Snooker has gone and other little bits will go too.

If they walked away from Super League, I'd be worried, but nothing suggests they will. They need a summer long event that isn't cricket, and we fit the bill.

If all this was true, why do broadcasters pay the earth to watch the England soccer team get repeatedly mauled in every world cup they enter? At least we managed to win our last world cup more recently than England soccer.

IMO Sky just want us on the cheap. In previous deals with them the internationals have come packaged with Superleague. That is now not the case and they simply aren't prepared to give us what our game is worth. They may regret their obstinacy should the BBC and Premier Sports make a killing in viewing figures.

Personally I don't care that Sky backed out. The most important broadcaster in all of this is the BBC because they offer access to our game to everyone. I've lost count of the rugby league supporters I have heard about and met who first came to the game by watching the Challenge Cup final. That is just one match. Imagine what impact six good rugby league matches could have!

I think people worrying about Sky Sports news not covering the world cup are being a little pessimistic – it’s our world cup and the one time of the year that we ‘should’ get some decent media coverage

The single and most important part of this deal is that the high profile England games are on free to air tv. I have passionate dislike for the BBC and think SKY have been great for our game but given a choice I would have the England games and semi’s/final on the BBC rather than all the games live on SKY. The world cup is a massive opportunity to showcase the sport (even better if England are successful) and to take most advantage of that opportunity it has to reach as many people as possible and that means the BBC

(plus I have just signed up to Premier Sports for the NRL so I’m all right, but that’s just a happy coincidence!!)

Because England football games draw huge ratings which means advertising revenue.

What a pity the BBC aren't showing the non-England semi-final. That is likely to be Australia vs France/Samoa/Italy/Fiji. Though Australia should win it comfortably the point is that it would whet the appetite for the final since then the BBC viewers would probably be seeing both final opponents for the first time.

Incidentally, though I would like to see England in the final, I wonder how many people will watch the final if England isn't in it. i.e. Australia vs New Zealand.

My only other regrets are:
(1) There is such a long time gap between the England vs Australia game and the quarter final. I hope that some BBC viewers of the first game, who are not regular rugby league fans, will be interested enough, even excited perhaps, to go watch some of the pool games on Premier Sports.

(2) The BBC didn't take the Wales vs Italy game. It will be a good game with Anthony Minichiello, Mark Minichiello, Craig Gower, Aiden Guerra, Anthony Lafranchi, Vic Mauro and Cameron Ciraldo probably playing for Italy.

I will be amazed if we have access by the time of the World Cup. Either way, it's still a tiny channel that means pretty much nobody apart from RL fans will see the tournament.

I'm not too bothered about matches like Cook Islands vs USA being exclusive on Premier Sports but 9 games is way too many, especially if that includes knockout matches and even a semi-final (which I'm struggling to comprehend if so). Hopefully they can get another broadcaster on board for the important games not involving England or the tournament is going to be a flop. It's nonsense after all the promotion and build-up that they would hide this tournament away on a channel where nobody will see it, the only saving grace would be an hour-long nightly highlights show on the BBC in a prime-time slot.

I think saying it's a flop is a bit OTT. I do agree it is a shame that most of the tournament will be hidden away on a tiny channel, but i would rather England be on the BBC and the rest of the games on the"tiny channel" rather than SKY having full rights, the "big games/England games" are what are going to showcase our event.

The RFL HAD to get the England games on terrestial TV, unfortunately looks as though SKy won't interested in broadcasting the rest so prem sports got it.

BBC is great news......Premier Sports on the other hand smacks of SKY not being prepared to "gamble" on the numbers of viewers they will get for the so called "smaller" games.....and to be fair, basic economics says that they are probably right to have passed.
Still, it gives the BBC an opportunity to grab a decent amount of audience share at a time when SKY TV are normally at thei strongest, with wendyball in full flight and the other lot entertaining their southern cousins over the month of November. I wonder if any of the financials will ever become common knowledge, because I doubt Premier Sports will have paid a lot....nowhere near the 60million ITV paid for the rights to the RWC's 2011 and 2015.

Up to the RFL now to ensure that all the games are well attended......nothing worse than half empty stadiums on FTA TV...

totally agree, the 2000 World Cup started on the BBC with John Inverdale sat smugly in a studio in some Irish backwater with 300 people and a couple of dogs in the stadium.

Can you post the minutes seeing as you were obviously in the meeting.

I think a small positive on the lesser games is that it may come across better in a highlights package to the uninitiated as a highlights package than a live game. Lets face there are going to be a few games which are a procession, there always is. I would hope that a well produced highlights package shows a couple of games in a better light. That all games will at least have a highlights package is a good thing.

The bbc also have the option of a further 13 games, I hope they go for them, I think having 19 games over 6 weeks live on the bbc, even if some of them are only on bb3 or whatever, would be great. I also hope they show the Italy wales games which kicks off the tournament and the 2nd semi-final.

Also, just so people are aware, Sky did bid for the tournament, they did want it. Their bid was rejected.

How do you know that information?

word on the street innit



I don’t know if it has been reported anywhere. Ill have a look for you though

The three non-BBC quarter finals and the non-BBC semi-fiinal will not be "lesser games."

They may not be "lesser games" but dependant on who is in them they could well be very one sided and so not likely to create much enthusiasm, particularly the semi final not involving England. If the draw throws up an interesting tie like Wales v Ireland/Scotland or Fiji v PNG that is likely to be close and/or entertaining then I would expect said ties to be taken up by the BBC (as part of the optional extra ties they have). Watching Australia or NZ hand out an 80 point hammering to amateur/ part time players would not make good tv or a good impression to the curious non RL fans watching.

The other thing they should do is work with the BBC to get RL stars on other BBC shows in the weeks leading up to the World Cup. Get the players on the One Show, the endless shows about Cooking, buying houses, buying antiques and the rest of the tat the BBC shows during the day...just one mention of 'I'm an RL player and I'm playing for England in the world cup next month' gets us exposure to millions of non-RL fans and should help viewing figures if not ticket sales. Its in the BBC's interest to promote the World Cup this way too.

They might still be on the BBC yet.

Superb idea!
Why even wait till the few weeks beforehand? Get them on now! Send our best looking lads out to the One Show, saturday Kitchen et al.
Strike whilst the irons hot!

absolutely. Look at whats his face on 'Take me out'. The only one to ever have no lights out. Thats a league player for you, use em.

Jordan James. I think he was the last one on in the series though, probably had some girls leave their lights on for a free holiday as it was their last chance

SL: has one of the best sports channel viewing figures which gets SKY interested because of advertising revenue it can attract

WC: SKY have the real viewing figures from previous events and there just aren't enough big games (add to that England don't do well) to attract advertisers and therefore Sky aren't prepared to pay big money

Overall it may be good for the game as 'free' certainly removes one barrier to getting the audience. Also good for the BBC as, lets face it, they are fast running out of major sports to cover.

Not sure how much the BBC/premier sports will have paid to broadcast games, but it seems the RFL have got £750,000 from the Welsh for playing the opener in Cardiff, great work These are the funds being used to pay part of Andy Powell's wage. www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyl ... ds-newsxml

Not sure how much the BBC/premier sports will have paid to broadcast games, but it seems the RFL have got £750,000 from the Welsh for playing the opener in Cardiff, great work These are the funds being used to pay part of Andy Powell's wage. www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyl ... ds-newsxml