The coverage on Sky is very poor. There’s very little thought or effort put into it and clearly the coverage isn’t critiqued or reviewed within Sky because...well...Terry O’Connor.

The BBC coverage blows Sky out of the water.

Sky’s coverage of Catalans games are amateurish and worse than FreeSports coverage of Toronto.

There is little to no advertising or pushing of RL on Sky’s channels or its entire platform.

Regardless of how much or little they pay for the rights, the coverage should (and could easily) be better.

why? the product is amateur, look at the officials and the declining crowds, the RFL are getting exactly what they deserve, Sky pay more for Fishing programmes because more people watch them. Nobody is jumping over hurdles to advertise during RL games because it's a dour borefest coached by ex forwards.

So, no actual facts here, just an opinion, to which you are entitled.

Can you provide proof that little thought or effort goes into it? What are you expecting to see?

For Terry O'Connor in RL there are countless piundits across skys sports coverage who are either not great at presenting or are there to deliberately state controvertial issues. Part of the issue, IMO is not the quality of ToC its how he comes across. Unfortunately the broad northern accent is not commonly heard on TV. John Wells comes over well as his accent is softer and less "to the point".

There is plenty of advertising of future sky games, so that is an incorrect statement. I am guessing here, but if you only watch RL on Sky, then no doubt you will miss the adverts for RL which occur when they are showing Tennis / Football / Cricket etc.

Can't have a dig at Sky for the Catalans games, that coverage is provided by Canal+.

But the question remines, what are you expecting to see, what, in your opinion would make it better?

One improvement all sports broadcasters could make is to avoid showing the coach on the bench / in the stands or the face of someone in the crowd, whent the game is still in progress!!!!

London, Newcastle, Sydney, Melbourne are definitely bigger than scabby Leeds.

I have done a quick search and cannot find any data to say how much Sky pay for fishing, could you please provide a link as I would be interested to know if its more then £90m they agreed to pay RL over 5 years.

big


Haha
...the old "big club" nonsense!!!

Its a subjective and not relevant thing which some like to pontificate.

Third biggest city???? Depends on whether you going on metropolitan areas or city boundies. Many a list of populations for Leeds include places like Rothwell, Pudsey, Garforth, Morley etc.
The Leeds Urban Sub Division had a population of 474,632 in 2011, the metropolitan district has a popution of around 715k.

Still, what does it matter the size of the city you play in. Afterall, if that was the key criteria to sporting success, then all football premier league champions would hail from London, rather than some north west back water.

Headlingley has been in need for a few quid spending on it for a long time. The frequent reductions in capacity of the old southstand, the uncomfortable seats with little leg room in the Northstand and no covered standing for visiting fans made it a relic of a place. Fair play, the south and north stands are being done. Do you think for one minute that decision was made by GH or the rhinos?

If the potential for Leeds is huge, I have some disappointing news for you. They had 10 years plus of unpresedently success. If they didnt harness that success to draw out the potential then, they are not going to do it with a declining team.

What a puzzling comment. Who on earth else would make the decision?
The only other party involved was Yorkshire who Leeds had been patiently waiting to stop being a financial basketcase for years so the north stand could be done. The South Stand project, which Leeds are mostly paying for out of their own cash reserves, was slightly contingent on what got agreed for the other side.

Like Hanley, Edwards and Gregory did perhaps.

No in the days before Super League RL had the second largest support next to soccer.
Sky treat RL appallingly. They do noting to promote it, unlike they do with cricket, soccer and every other sport they show.

Don't see how anyone could argue otherwise that Sky don't give a damn about the game.

But the Manchester Metropolitan district is smaller than Leeds. Manchester doesn't include Salford or Trafford. That's hardly Leeds's fault. It all depends on what you mean by... London is the largest city in the country, but just a minute, the City of London is one of the smallest. Again whichever measure you choose, the fact remains that the only other cities with a SL side are Hull and Salford. And Salford are hardly inspirational. Indeed does anyone really know where Salford is? Is it Eccles, Irlam? Cadishead? Pendlebury? Walkden?

I would have thought the land owner would have had a decent say in proceedings.

Very much doubt it will come out of cash and they are not borrowing to have the work done