Agree with that,
I think any club coming out of SL will go bang very quickly unless it gets some serious financial assistance as all its revenue drops significantly.
As it stands Crusaders must be the favourite due to the massive amount of problems they have had since day one but to put them down would end that club immediately so the RFL will need to think very carefully what it does.

It actually makes you realise just how well run Leigh have been to survive all these years outside of SL (with its instant access to finances and high profile exposure to new support that being in SL brings), we have been the best most consistant club in the lower league since SL began which is a credit to those that have run this club with all the financial restraints that brings over such a long period.

Not dictating, just telling us what they are willing to pay depending on the leagues composition. If Sky thinks a Superleague with expansion teams is more beneficial to them than a Superleague with no expansion teams, they are obviously going to offer to pay more for a Superleague with expansion teams. It's not breaking a law, if your bartering with someone and you say "I'll pay 10 pounds for this, but I don't think this other product is as valuable so I'm only willing to give you a fiver for it" the other person couldn't claim you were putting a gun to their head and forcing them to sell their products at an unfair price.

Co they are Dan. They know damn well that SL cannot exist without their funding. Putting a gun to their head is exactly what they are doing because if the RFL said no and decided not to have the increased money they would suffer. The quality of the competition would not be lessend by not having expansion teams and thats what should be dictating the price, the quality of the game.

Remind me again, what is the reason for any club putting in a licence/franchise application. The make up of SL is now almost totally decided by SKY.

Would a TV broadcaster pay more/less/same for the FA Cup if say Man U was out of it for whatever reason?

I don't think Man U missing from the FA cup would make a jot of difference. However Sky have apparently made it clear that they won't pay as much if certain teams are not in SL. So what do the RFL/SL do? Tell the SL clubs they will be getting less money over the next three years than the last three years when the majority of them posted losses anyway?

Comparing football to rugby league financially is nonsensical, the loss of a million or two in football is a drop in the ocean compared to the loss of a million in rugby league. Remember the loss of a million quid from Sky is a loss of 2%, to football that be about 0.0002%

Utd decide they no longer want to go in FA Cup, then surely the competition is devalued. Broadcasters will certainly not pay more - does this mean broadcasters are running the game of football too? I have been to games 11:30am KO on Sunday because of TV broadcasters. For all their money they put into the game they should have a input.
Anyway I think the original link has been rubbished anyway.

...in your opinion

If Utd decided that they did not want to enter the FA Cup they would have the book thrown at them by the FA. What we are talking about is the competition not being lessend by not having the expansion teams in it. Which in my opinion would not happen. We would still have a good if not better competition without them. After 2012 the expansion sides will have had enough time and help to get themselves established. If they can't do it after that and are still being given special help then the Championship clubs should walk away from the RFL and start up another code with strict rules about inter code player movements. If they think they can do without us let them.

You are quite correct , if Man utd were not in the FA cup it would be severely devalued , Man City on the other hand

Aren't we forgetting that Man Utd weren't in the FA Cup in 2000/2001 and it made bugger all difference to the TV money?

i was wondering how long it would take for that to appear.

I deliberately picked Utd because they did choose themselves to come out of the FA Cup for a season - backed by the FA a few years ago. So if they permanently came out of FA Cup and then TV broadcasters came around to negotiating a new deal they would hardly offer more without them in it.
As for the competition being better without expansion teams in it, then you maybe right on that one for us. But you can have best competition in the world, entertainment galore but if its representative of only small area (regional) then the interest in that sport/competition would be smaller nationwide and would command less in any TV deal, and less in sponsors etc etc.
.

Maybe that could work both ways though and Sky would insist on having different teams in the league once in a while rather than the same 14 forevermore?

Like in Aus? What people want to see is a competitive competition where any team can beat anyone on their day, and also any team could have argument for that they have chance to win SL at the start of a given season.

tbh this thread is about TV broacasters running the game by paying less if certain clubs are not in the competition.

Different culture altogether and simply can't be compared as far as I'm concerned. The Aussies don't sing much at games either and all stand on a big hill instead of in a stand, shall we do that as well?

Sky, we are going to cut your TV monies by 100 million if you don't have Real Madrid and Barcelona in the premiership.......I know, thats silly but its the same principle

I agree about the different cultures. I remember a Aussie coach commentating on the radio for Wakey v Cas decider, and he couldn't understand why fans where on the pitch celebrating finishing so poorly in the league. Its difficult for them to grasp when they are used to their comp. Just like its difficult to grasp for fans here for something new.

I used my example because it actually happened before. That hasn't and won't happen, but they are already in a comp that has been created for TV in the silly name "Champions League" (which includes clubs that finish in top 4). Thats TV and money for you.

you should have sent him a txt message telling him to stop being a dumb ass ,they've just avoided relegation.

Does it affect us ?

So what would happen in OZ if the last match of the season was between the bottom two in the NRL ?

Do they both applaud their ' rubbish ' teams off the pitch

Or do they just not bother turning up , for what is a ' nothing ' game ?

If you follow the thread, in a way it is. Because without expansion clubs we would be back in the mix in a regional sport with less money coming into the game and the downward spiral begins.

I was agreeing with matt, that there is differences in culture.
But on a side note we are a country to be fair that makes hero's out of loser's and accepts finishing 2nd as a achievement. Aussie culture is about winning.
Its also traditional for last game of season to turn up to give your approval (or not) to the players at the end of the game. Should we have not bothered turning up against Salford in the last game in 2005?
Also there is no such thing as a nothing competitive game in rugby.

Whilst I agree about no such thing as a non competative RL game I think that is from the players point of view.

There is no denying fans turn up for a match which could be important from a possible promotion situation and similarly a relegation decider which may explain our higher than average attendance in our last game of the season in the season we were technically relegated. On the same day Batley who had to win at Fev to stay up took practically their average home attendance for their match there.