this is the latest talk.
It also coincides with what was said on the very entertaining RL on RadioYorkshire 2 hour program last week.
They were talking about how the NRL are going to let you pay a subscription and stream all games.
They were saying that the two recent streamed games from the RFL were also seen as a dummy run for them.
I have just cancelled Sky Sports again as I can't stand watching those cheating round ball players - I can't call them sportsmen!
It got me thinking that if the RFL did offer a reasonably priced subscription so I could watch many games live or catch-up then I might be tempted with that and forget about Sky Sports.

The problem is will losing Sky hit the game - unless we get a better deal elsewhere - possibly showing the championship games.

Does this news tie in nicely with the introduction of Toronto, New York and the other meaning the chance of a bigger and better international deal or a combination of deals?
Is this why licencing is coming back possibly to get these new international clubs in by then?
The problem is that it will be the RFL doing this new deal which doesn't bode well.

If all games are available could it hit ST sales as people may sit at home and watch them?

Whatever happens, the RFL need a much better deal than they have now as clubs are struggling.

It sounds like a big decision is looming for the RFL and clubs in the next few years.

Personally i just can't see how the sport survives without SKY.

I don't think it does in it's current state. Which is why the RFL bend over backwards to Sky's every whim.

If they were to ever move down the streaming route, they need to sort their systems out first. I paid to stream the England/Samoa game earlier this year and it wasn't very good quality. I also then watched the free stream of the world cup warm up game for the first half, eventually switching it off as I'd barely seen any of the action. From comments from people I follow on Twitter, I managed longer than a lot of people and there were a lot with similar issues (not everyone I should add). People will only pay for something if the quality befits the product, which also ties in to the argument of a couple of members on here about Bulls 2018 Season Tickets I believe.

I wouldn't pay for sky again, however I would pay for quality live coverage of all the Super League games...
They might just be onto something, its a very innovative idea that requires big balls to implement as it could be the best thing to happen to RL Since the dawn of SL in 96 or the end of the game as we know it..

The point is where does the money come from if Sky decide they don't want it? Fan subscriptions won't cover it at all.

One possible bonus of streaming games live is the return of a traditional sunday 3pm kick off, that may encorage more fans at the ground

I'm sure someone somewhere has done the maths.
How much is the sky contract worth? I think they signed a five year deal with Sky, let's say it's worth £100m.
So that's £20m a year that goes towards the central funding for clubs.

Let's say the RFL charge £100 for a season pass letting you stream all games.
That would mean they would need 200,000 subscribers in order to match the Sky monies. You would then have all of the costs of actually setting up the interface and the technical side of it all.

Obviously the more they charge then the easier it becomes to match the Sky money this way, but how much would people be willing to pay?

If I ever had a dream that the RFL had got 200K subscribers to pay them £100 a season, I would be straight off to my GP for some strong meds. I don't pay that for my full media package inc phone broadband and Virgin which includes all Sky Sports and Premier. I quite like the other sports available on Sky so would probably not want to cancel the Sports, and there is no chance in hell that I'd be paying £100 or anything remotely like on top of my subs for some crappy streaming nonsense.

That's just my personal view, but on a wider issue, if we end up left with live streaming then that's the game in its death throes, certainly in its present form. There is precious little money in the game as it is, but that would reduce the income I'd guess by a minimum of 90%. It may fly in Aus, although I am unconvinced, but you can't really compare the case of the two at all, as they have a hot ticket to sell and will sell it at whatever price suits, we sadly do not. We even take free posters on a few wagons as our main national "sponsorship".

They paid £90m in 2011 IIRC but I think that deal was amended in 2014 to run until 2021. Does it definitely end soon?

If FA's £100 per year were to be correct I'd certainly go for that, tbh.

It works out at around £9.50 per month or 2 quid per week. It's infinitely cheaper than Sky and RL is the only thing I have a major interest in anyway. Maybe it's a bit too cheap to make profit on? It would need to be a big take up to cover what they currently receive from the Sky contract though.

You pay less than £100 for twelve months of phone/broadband/tv including sky sports and premier?
Sorry FA but I'm calling bullsh*t on that.

This suggestion is that they stream every single SL game in a season. For that I would say £100 is actually modest.

Page 2 on Netflix Sports, beneath a backwater downhill mountain bike event but above the documentary about a wrestler from a promotion WWE hasn't yet bought the media rights to.

FA.
Can you please point me to the deal you are on.
I have cancelled sports but still pay about £60 a month for phone line, internet and family package. This works out at about £700 per year. I then paid £99 for Premier which I my not bother with next year as Free sports show the NRL a day later.
Someones figures don't make sense.

The deal as I remember reading, was £210m from 2017 to 2022. SL teams shared 78% 0f the central distribution cash. Sky were given the TV rights to all/any SL and Championship fixtures. Which was why Premier sports pulled out of the deal to televise the championship.
In 2015/16 season all SL clubs were given a sweetner payment of £300k I understand?

£210 million? I don't think it was that much. The previous contract was definitely worth £90m, I found an article about that one.
I would be amazed if we jumped from a £90m contract to a £210m one. £210m for five years seems insane, that's over £40m a season!