Following on from a small discussion in another thread, I thought I would make a topic on it regarding Sky subscriptions.

If your team was in Super league and was relegated, would you cancel your Sky subscription?

Similarly, if your team isn't currently in Super league but like to watch regular rugby league with the hope that your team could be promoted, do you already have a Sky subscription?

As long as RL is on Sky Sports I’ll keep subscribing. I watch all SL matches I can and some NRL.

Based on some posts on various threads, the chances of SL survival are slim and as for other clubs even worse.
When Salford v Huddersfield on a cold wet Thursday Night in February in front of a few 1000 is seen as the pinnacle of the game(and many do) then you know it’s future is limited. People will not watch that as seeing as SKY rely on eyes on the box for advertising revenue then the conclusion is SKY will pay absolute minimum or not even bother. It’s not as if there is a queue of broadcasters desperate to get the game.
Reality check time for all sections of the game, especially fans.

Well my team hull kr have been relegated 2 times from super league and I still watched it and wile I am alive and it’s shown I will

My team got relegated last year and I still have it. I look forward to Thur and Fri night games

If Sky lost RL I would cancel

no, i 'm a fan of rugby league, not just warrington wolves.

I'm same as you, take rugby league away from sky no need to subscribe but then if they end up with a league like some of mentioned on here it wouldn't take me long to see my arris and leave the game all together

I have no problem with sky, I even subscribe for rugby league, however, our sport regardless of coronavirus has a problem, sky pays the minimum it can get away with & reluctantly we as a sport have to accept as there is simply no other sponsor with the money to lift the sport beyond its current level. That means we have to be thank full for what we get, in short - no use arguing, we are static, we cannot get a major TV deal double or treble our current deal. Sky know this ! But not all is bad, I think they are continuing to pay existing money payments.
Problem is we remain static, we will have to pay back being right with Sky due to being obligated & so with a possible little increase, we will be static for the next length of a deal, probably 5 yrs + options.
Truth hurts us all but we as a sport have a poor hand of cards in this game of sponsership, we also need to realize, being static & other sports moving onwards & upwards means poor recompense in wages for our players, we are then overall heading backwards !
I love this game & have watched it for more than 50yrs, I will continue to watch but reality can be a bigger pill to swallow !!!

I would keep sky but without RL would cancel the sky sports element . Whilst I watch a lot of sport it is so split up now between different providers the only one I would put my hand in my pocket for is RL.

Yes absolutely definitely. I cancelled Sky sports when Bradford lost the million pound game and I realised there wasn't a mechanism for going back up plus no interest in televising the championship.

Added to that the level of self-interest displayed during what I regard as a SL powergrab means I don't feel positive about the clubs in the top flight to be honest, so I no longer read much about it or would watch their games. Why would I help bump up Sky sports subscriptions so that SL can get a nice TV deal of which they will hand out derisory amounts beyond their own membership.

now you know how the rest of us felt when stupidly the RFL got involved with your stadium

You can either view the RFL buying the Odsal lease as purely altruistic move designed to help one member club, with all the bitterness that engenders. Or, like me you can cynically view it as a very murky deal indeed that objectively had no great benefit to the club but may yet do so to other parties.

The more important question should be, does anyone actually pay Sky, to watch Sky TV.
I only know one person that actually pays Sky, the rest watch from "overseas".

I cancelled my Sky subscription many years ago when they messed me about. Apart from the Rugby League I have not missed it as much as I thought that I would. Life goes on and we change. Sadly Sky seem to have got all that they need out of our sport and now have little time for us. Despite SuperLeague being sold for a pittance Sky now needs to keep us in poverty to fund the ever increasing demands of football so we cannot expect to see any increase in TV revenues any time soon.

So where do you think R.L would be now without Sky over the last 20 odd years ?

The market dictates how much the broadcaster pays.

It's difficult to get more money when no other broadcaster is interested.

Terrestrial broadcasters are facing a huge change as technology allows competition from multiple platforms. It is unlikely that a single platform will provide us with the kind of income that we aspired to in the past. What we need is someone who can read the tea leaves and position us in the new age. Despite benefitting from the early days of digital and multichannel broadcasting we have always given the impression of being stuck in the past and a little old fashioned. It is up to us, as a sport, to make ourselves valuable to advertisers in a way that does not depend on flat caps and whippets. Unfortunately I do not have any answers.

I haven't had a Sky Sports subscription for about ten years.