I think you might be right, it's sounds as though they are happy with "lazy deals", maybe they should call the empire at Red Hall the "Comfort Zone".

How does the structure lack transparency? It's on the RFL website in the policy review.
No. Only one club has had a rethink. Rather only one club chairman has had a rethink. The schizophrenic one. The rest seem to know exactly what is involved in the Sky deal.
Again, the TV and sponsor deals details are rarely announced by either side in sport, not just rugby league.

You think we should have the major sponsor of Real Madrid as only a partner?
I think you're living on a different planet to the rest of us.

The sport having lots of sponsors/partners is now a negative.
Only in Rugby League...

The Rugby has started at last. These debates will bring no fruit until 3 - 5 years time when one side can say I told you so to the other side and everyone will then pretend they actually agreed with the deals, (or did not agree with the deals).

Until then it's pretty clear that nothing will be settled.

OK, thanks for pointing that out.



You can, they did and it's a whopper.




In your opinion of course. We're all entitled to them, even when they're wrong.

It's good to know I can go away for a few days and the exact same arguments are being used.

In short:

The rfl take medium to high risk decisions then get accused of lack of long term planning, boom or bust mentality, ignoring the needs of traditional clubs, need realistic aims etc etc.

So the rfl start to make low risk decisions, setting achievable goals for the rlwc, agreeing, what is for rugby league no matter how you try and dress it up, the best long term deal we've ever done, and focussing on long term growth - and their accused of setting their sights too low, and not aiming high enough, and risking the growth of the sport for traditional clubs ...

Anyone get the feeling they can't win?

If some people want to believe BT were just politely and respectfully waiting around ready to make a better offer for Super League then so be it.

Realistically if they wanted RL when the current deal ended then they would've put out some feelers and had some hush hush discussions at like a sports do, an awards bash, CC or GF night.

It's all too easy for detractors to say BT MIGHT have come along and offered more, hell I can dream likewise that until she meets me Cheryl Cole MIGHT come along and ask me out.

Like argued above, you sometimes have to take risks. Yes, and sometimes you have to play sensible. If Sky had come with a poor offer then so be it.......risk it. But they didn't, they came with a good offer so don't be silly or greedy. The sport isn't in a position to do so.

And we've spent so long in the shadows of other sports on Sky Sports, now that some are going to BT do we join with and carry on being 'in the shadows' or do we fill the void left by those always previously ahead of us?

We had very good opening day coverage over Sky Sports News for the opening day......do you think we'd have gotten that if Sky hadn't lost some. Like a first teamer getting injured, it's opened up a spot for a youngster or second string to step up and take the spotlight and shine.

Most Rights deals are done at least 18months in advance. The premier league are in year 1 of their rights cycle, they will renegotiate this year. You renegotiate when the iron is hot.