Don't deny the clubs voted for it, however I think Lenaghans point was that they all voted for it because the RFL were caught completely flat footed, and Sky ran circles around them. Precisely because Sky had just lost rights, they should of been vulnerable, and if the RFL were a step ahead, they could have had offers from the other parties that Sky just lost to already lined up before Sky phoned. Which means Sky couldnt use the now or never and the clubs could have voted without Jeopardy. Elstones job is precisely to stop the clubs being caught flat footed again. Even Turkeys can vote for Christmas when the alternate is worse.

I don't disagree that we as a sport are in a tough spot, others have already said were generally a Type D demographic and that struggles for revenue. Precisely because of that though, the new forms of television, the subscription based one (Netflix, amazon, apple etc) should be the Rugby Leagues best friend. Amazon have proven their desire buying one of the Football packages, which is an absolute loss maker for them - we should have been putting ourselves forwards as guniea pigs for these companies two contracts ago imo. Then the value of advertising matters little. Value is in the strength of the perceived market, not the product itself.

This is partially mitigated in other sports by the sheer quantity available (if you look hard enough you can always find a football match to watch). It would be interesting to see what would happen if all games were available to stream on one of the above platforms and remained on demand for a week following - I know I would probably end up watching most. Retention value in sport has always been one of the biggest blockers for streaming services getting involved. Were a low risk way of optimising the model.

All of this is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things - but there are fairly simple ways that the sport can strengthen itself, so even if Elstone is making it sound "negotiate harder" there will be plans and ideas underlying it.

In terms of the TV deal, as a sport that desperately needs to grow its audience, my view is we need to move away from an 'exclusive' deal with any subscription based orgsnisation and insist on an element of terrestrial free to air coverage. A mix of 2 games on sky and 1 on FTA each week would be ideal.
This will no doubt reduce the value of our TV deal in the short term, but the national coverage that FTA could generate would IMO have a huge impact on the long term value. There is very little live sport on terrestrial nowadays - we'd certainly get the casual sports viewers, the trick then is drawing them in as more than just casual.
What is for sure is that if we started attracting large FTA audiences, the follow up deal would be worth significantly more.

If you accept cutting the tv revenue, then you will in turn cut the quality of the product further, hence making it not worthy of terrestrial viewing. Whilst I don’t disagree with the sentiment of your suggestion, the quality on offer needs improving massively first, or the opportunity will have been lost.

It may be baying for blood but I can't wait to see Hetherington's dramatic u-turn if Leeds end up in the m8s and have this ongoing injury crisis.

FWIW I can't believe how dire Leeds look right now. And don't get comfy if you end up in the m8s. We walked it undefeated in the first ever m8s. On paper we had a stronger team the following year but injuries (and the Kelly issue) conspired against us when we got relegated.

No need to worry though, if you do end up like that, as I stated, Hetherington will make a dramatic u-turn and SL will suddenly go to 14 teams as well and save you. There is no way the RFL will let their favourite team get relegated.

It seems to me that the TV rights to SL have been skillfully mismanaged by the RL authorities for years. We appear to be happy to dance to Sky's tune, contract after contract. I would love to know how much effort goes into exploring alternative options. But one thing is certain, if we don't have viable options else where, then our ability to get Sky to pay more is non existant. If that is the case, then RL will continue to go backwards. Some creativity and courage are required form those that promote and market RL, but I won't hold my breath!

Chicken and egg....

The game has no money to improve the quality.

And it would have less if we jumped to your suggestion of cutting tv revenue, and hence an unattractive product.

More BS from an inbred

Short term pain for long term again is my view. The drop off in revenue wouldn't be that dramatic, and some National FTA coverage should allow the club's to attract better sponsors to plug the gap further. The club's need to be doing much more than they are currently to earn more money on top of TV cash - they need to improve in this area, and FTA would give them a platform.

I'm no media expert, but it appears the main 2 TV deal possibilities are Sky & BT. A warning to the RFL & SL - after years of competing, which has the effect of inflating the price, Sky & BT are now being much more collaborative in order to deflate those costs. The deal we would have got 2 years ago by playing the 2 off is now likely to be much less lucrative (even assuming: 1. both are interested, 2. the product remains as attractive as it was).

you mean an opinion from someone who sees GH & the RFL for what they are?

Only if you're blind.

or not a Whino?

GH has held back RL for a decade, to keep precious Leeds as the RFL team of choice, now the wheels are off you are in free fall, embrace it.

Of course. The only club in this sport that is a success both on the field and commercially is the one that is holding the sport back. Not, for example, the three that put out SOS statements this week.

Hetherington has done more for the expansion and sustainability of Rugby League in this country than anyone I can think of. His track record of accomplishment speaks for itself.

He's keen for the RFL to remain in charge partly because he had to sort out the mess last time the SL clubs went rogue without any consideration of a game wide strategy or any interest in doing the unglamorous bits of investment and administration the governing body needs money to do.