Lenegan is completely wrong to be criticising the deal after voting in favour of the said deal. he should have grown some balls at the time of vote and voted NO.

When I first saw the title, I thought this thread might have been created in 2012 or something as it seems that this gentleman is always unhappy about something or other.

Bottom line is BT would have been a disaster. Everyone who tries to follow Rugby Union (now there's funny word play) knows that the coverage levels have really decreased since the move.

So while the money is obviously important, and perhaps could have been pushed higher, the intangible benefits of remaining with SKY are plenty sufficient to make the deal a good one.

Indeed. We are however also guarded against the risks of any decrease in the value of broadcasting rights over an 8 year period.

And the market is going to be far different in 8 years time than in 3. Everyone who thinks bt sport were going to pay 300million+ are based purely on fantasy/guesswork/ hope. 200million sky offered represents a good increase for us, adds stability, and let's us wait and see if bt sport become a major player. If in 8 years they're still around you'd feel more comfortable about them being around for the long haul.

Anyway in 8 years sky are going to have much more competition from on demand tv anyway (which aren't ready to compete on this level yet) so even if bt sport falls away the next renewal is just as likely to be competitive.

The main issue IL has is this:

owever 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

And I completely agree.

What sort of governing body presents an 8 year option for it's 'crown jewels' and demands an answer within 24 hours.

What message does this give in terms of the rl's negotiating position with sky.

I'd say sky considered they were in a pretty dominant position. Do you think this means they were holding something back?

Does anyone think the RL said ' if you want an answer in 24 hours this must be pretty important to you, we can do that but we want 20% more, or do you think they said '' yes sir, be right back sir, straight away sir.

Whether its a good deal or not, we will never know as it appears there was no process of negotiation, just an ultimatum - which just doesn't happen if you're going to get a good deal.

If in 2 years time the deal was less everyone would be moaning saying we should have accepted this deal. We'll see how many subscribers BT have at the end of the first year when broadband customers stop getting it for nothing. I certainly wont be subscribing, I don't watch it now. Far better sticking with sky for now and 200 million is a great deal. If BT prove everyone wrong and are still around in 2021, then that's the time to negotiate a super deal.

BTW ITV digital went tits up because although it was in nearly every house in the country very few people were actually paying for it. Im sure if they were they were in the minority

Ever thought that sky gave them a 24hr take it or leave it deal?

Let's get this straight
Sky made rfl an offer
Rfl take it to SL clubs
SL clubs vote in favour of offer
IL voted in favour of offer

Exactly how are the rfl to blame for anything other than giving SL clubs a choice to accept or not?

IL is a tool.

Apparently the deal for the domestic leagues is worth £163m or thereabouts, with SL clubs getting £1.825m each per season.

Championship clubs will receive payments on a sliding scale based on league position - the 2 SL clubs relegated this year will receive £788k each in 2015, while the top 2 in this year's Championship will receive £550k and £500k respectively in 2015. The rest will receive between £150k and £200k depending on league position. Championship 1 clubs will get £75k each.

The contract also includes £20m for the exclusive rights to the Challenge Cup and all England internationals during the 5 year period, this money to be retained by the RFL.

Finally, there is £17m ring-fenced purely for funding the SL club academies and Sky will pay this in annual installments to each club's Charitable Foundation.

isnt the 2017 WC already owned by the BBC.

If we have given up FTA and restructured our league for this amount, its not looking as promising as it was.

So no business is ever done with deadlines? I'd love to see a world like that. Ultimately the rfl could of had it for weeks/ months, and had their own lawyers going over it to make sure it was tight. That took them up to the deadline, and felt obliged to ask the clubs (which at this point in time the childish responses they've had you have to question why) The sport then doesn't need the teams spending weeks and months throwing the bottle out of the pram because though it's a good deal it doesn't suit their agenda. The way Eamon McManus spoke about it, they've (the chairmen that is) at least knew this deal was on the cards, so why did they need longer - other than to try and get their own way?



Ones who will have to deal with childish "I wants" and "were better" and will hold out to try and cut a deal on completely unrelated matters (like who controls super league - which koukash has whinged about again today) just because they feel like they have them over a barrel and knew they couldn't let the deal slip? As for which other governing bodies, during the us government shutdown, the senate were regularly given less than 6 hours to make a decision. (And is exactly the same as holding out for the sake of a completely unrelated subject (Obama care) inspite if a deal needing to go through)



If you give us an improved deal well be willing to listen? We will use competition that exists in the current environment for future deals? I'm not even sure what this has to do with anything, but everyone is now acting like they're paying less than they should, even with a massive increase.



Would you? I definitely wouldn't. If they were they'd of not renegotiated 3 years early, with more money for the remaining 3 years, for a much improved deal. For evidence of this, see every deal done since the initial super league deal.



For a company who supposedly haven't negotiated the rfl have good a very good deal out of this. Also how do you know they didn't?



So sky just said here have 15 million more per year because of giggles? How generous, it's a miracle they've been around so long with that type of business offer. Again see above about ultimatums or deadlines as they're usually known.

Lenaghan doesn't have a leg to stand on. He accused the rfl of having no commercial ability, and now he looks foolish as there have been good deals done. So he's throwing his toys out the pram to distract from the fact he got it wrong.

Edit: didn't read.

Pardon? Sky have exclusive rights to the Challenge Cup from 2017 to 2021? If so, that's the final nail in the coffin for that event. They will destroy it.

On the topic of internationals, is that from 2018 onwards? Reason I ask is that the BBC hold international (including England) TV rights right up until the next RLWC in 2017.

A few people have pointed out that BT as a company is bigger than BskyB, but thats not how Mr Murdock works. Upset one of his companies and he'll use the others to crush you. News Corp dwarfs BT, it a monster and im happy we've signed a deal with that devil over BT

Not sure about the BBC thing, its a strange one.

I'm reliably informed that from 2016 the only domestic game on FTA will be the Challenge Cup Final due to its protected list status.

SKy already show some CC games don't they?

The ones that the beeb does not want?

They hold the rights to those CC games, yes.

Last season, they chose not to exercise those rights by not televising them on several occasions.

Yes, they currently hold the rights to screen one 4th round game, one 5th round game and 2 QF's. They are secondary rights holders so the BBC get first pick.

It is often opined that [i"the devil is in the detail"[/i.

The more details which get drip-fed from this new TV deal with Sky, the more it appears to stink.

I've just got back from the Salford season media launch. I think it's fair to say that Koukash is on a similar page to Lenagan, but might be getting more column inches.

The very short notice appears to be there as the deal does not stand up to scrutiny. The £300k was the bait to hook clubs in with and the RFL landed them no trouble.
As Lenagan and pals have now found out. Once the deal has been scutinised it doesn't stand up. All told it's nowhere near as good as it seems.
This looks like a scam perpetrated by the RFL to extend their powerbase and nothing whatsoever to do with the good of the game long term.

It turns out that the £300k being paid to each SL club next week is not additional to the contract, but an advance payment against the sum agreed.

Bloody hell. Wrong-footed by Nigel Wood.

It helps having the Hetherington's in your corner

Koukash suggested that there was one club chairman in the room that seemed to know more about the deal than the rest...

That's not what has been suggested by ALL media, and I'd imagine one of the loudmouths would have called it out by now if that were the case.