No mention of cash tho ?

www.saintsrlfc.com/news/page/3757

www.saintsrlfc.com/news/page/3757

Chris Irvine has suggested on Twitter that the deal is thought to be worth in excess of £200m, where the existing deal was worth around £125m. Obviously a massive improvement, but worth remembering that the money will now need to spread across two divisions.

If that's true I'd be very happy indeed - the split doesn't bother me as much, given the details of how it will be split means at worst the top teams will be getting equal to what they do now, but that figure would see an increase for all.

And that My friends is Why Twitter is a joke.........

1996-1998 (3 years) £52m (£17.3m a year)
1999-2003 (5 years) £57.8m (£11.56m a year)
2004 to 2008 (5 years) £45m (£9m a year)
2009 to 2011 (3 years) £53m (£17.6m a year)
2012 to 2016 (5 years) £90m+ (£18m+ a year)

and Chris Irvine thinks all of a sudden SKY are going to pay £40 million quid a year when So far their average spend has been £14 million.........

Do you know that a rival was allowed to bid for this?

They won't have, because the rights to super league weren't up til 2016 - though bt had expressed an interest which had led to the rfl starting "immediate renegotiations" which I imagine will have led to this

My "slip under the radar" comment is perfectly justifyable. Sky make the announcement on their website, along with 5 other sports. At the time of the announcement, there was no mention of how much it is worth to SL and in the face of a massive hike in NRL TV rights, you would have hoped the RFL would have made more of this. Even if it is an increase, there are now 24 teams to support in one way or another, not just 12/14. I am all for the new league format, think it will be exciting for fans and TV audiences, but unless there is some confirmation that SL rights were sold to the highest bidder, we will never truly know how much the competition is worth.

Quote: the flying biscuit "And that My friends is Why Twitter is a joke......... 1996-1998 (3 years) £52m (£17.3m a year) 1999-2003 (5 years) £57.8m (£11.56m a year) 2004 to 2008 (5 years) £45m (£9m a year) 2009 to 2011 (3 years) £53m (£17.6m a year) 2012 to 2016 (5 years) £90m+ (£18m+ a year) and Chris Irvine thinks all of a sudden SKY are going to pay £40 million quid a year when So far their average spend has been £14 million......... It seems it's true. www.sportinglife.com/rugby-leagu ... per-league So that's quite an improvement isn't it?

Quote: the flying biscuit "And that My friends is Why Twitter is a joke......... 1996-1998 (3 years) £52m (£17.3m a year) 1999-2003 (5 years) £57.8m (£11.56m a year) 2004 to 2008 (5 years) £45m (£9m a year) 2009 to 2011 (3 years) £53m (£17.6m a year) 2012 to 2016 (5 years) £90m+ (£18m+ a year) and Chris Irvine thinks all of a sudden SKY are going to pay £40 million quid a year when So far their average spend has been £14 million......... It seems it's true. www.sportinglife.com/rugby-leagu ... per-league So that's quite an improvement isn't it?

I posted on the VT.

Are they not currently offering SL2 clubs £600000 max.

They could offer this to all SL2 clubs not just the top ones and it would still only cost £7.2 per year.

It could all be made up. But I doubt it. As has been stated on the VT, there is good reason for both the RFL and SKY not to say the exact figure as it does not help either of them. But a rough estimate leaking the news is a way around it.

Let's look at the options, I don't believe anybody outside of those involved in the restructure debate knew a deal was to be done so soon, so it's not like it's a figure that's done the rounds through Chinese whispers, that a journo has been lazy and picked up on.

Ergo the figure has had to of come from somewhere, either Chris Irvine made it up (unlikely, because no matter how much you don't like him, he needs to keep some sort of credibility to keep his job) it's a top end figure (though I can't see what sky would hold out for, subscriptions added? Seems a bit late in the game for that) it's some rounded figure (though it wouldn't say in excess of) or actually the case.

As has been said, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if this is what won over McManus to support the new structure