, then a meeting was called within 24hrs. The meeting and discussions went for 2 hours at which point the clubs agreed to take a vote, they took a vote and almost unanimously deceived it was a good deal and would accept it.

How should the rfl have been able to tell sky the short time frame was unacceptable? Are you saying the rfl should have the right to veto taking money offers to the clubs if they feel it is not a good deal for SL? How do you think it would have played out if they had done what your suggesting and sky had said fine we'll pull the offer and speak again in a couple of years?

That's exactly what I was asking, the possible outcomes if the RFL told Sky to wait and looked elsewhere as some seem to think only good would come of it if we played hardball, when it could've ended spectacularly wrong instead. Kind of 'grass will be greener' thinking by some on here.

Freudian slip?

Do you honestly believe they voted to have a vote on something

I believe the rfl asked something along the lines of - do you want to get this sorted now and vote? And the majority answered yes.

Are you saying Barwick lied?

It's pretty plain that when you start throwing logic out there, that some of these arguments disappear.

ie It's terrible the RFL rushed the clubs.

So you are saying the RFL should not put the clubs in the position of knowing there is a deal?

Erm No!

Are you saying the RFL should have played for more time and possibly scuppered the deal before the clubs had a chance to look at it?

Erm No!

Well are you saying the deal is a bad one?

Erm No!

There is no way you can justify that statement. Therein lies the problem, whether or not this is a "good" or "bad" deal is a judgement call.

In my opinion it is a bad deal as it was done in haste without knowing what the alternatives might be.

The question is will the people in the comfy seats at Red Hall sit back and say job well done until 2021 and not bother to promote and market the game.
For me the game needs a breath of fresh air a more dynamic approach a well thought out sporting model.......instead we might get 8 years of Groundhog Day.

There's some real miserable sods on here. I bet you were all writing off the World Cup before hand too.

In the last few months we've had that massively successful WC, a promising new structure put in place, new sponsorship and a huge TV deal signed that's worth £50million more than the Union equivalent.

If someone had predicted that last summer you'd have said it'll never happen and ripped the living **** out of the poster. Now it's happened it's not good enough and the RL aren't going to do this, that or the other.

Only in Rugby League.

Agreed, the glass half empty and anti rfl brigade could turn any good news story into a disaster.

Dos this deal give long term sustainability to the vast majority of SL clubs? Yes
Does this deal inject much needed cash into jnr development? Yes
Does this deal give fans chance to watch more games on TV? Yes
Would SL had major issues across a number of clubs without this mediate increase? Yes


Could we have got a better deal? Unknown
Could we have got a shorter deal? Unknown

I'd have voted yes as well!

It all depends on the blinkered viewpoint, its a good deal for the clubs in the money perspective, but does it really expand the game.
Can we expose the game more with a limited TV audience with SKY TV I,m not sure.
The RFL have a lot to do to raise the profile of the game something they should have done between the World Cup and the new season, we have had months of blank exposure in the national press.
We seem to struggle every year getting big name sponsors and seem content with having lots of partners instead.

It does seem the RFL management process has very little transparency with deals and agreements offered with very little detail.