As this is the season where every second counts, your absence has been too long Billy. Welcome back!

I don't think so. First of all, elite level union players are very well paid so no longer need to convert to league to make a tanner or two. They can stay where they are.

Secondly, have you ever actually tried becoming a league player after many years of playing union? I have (ok, not at an elite level) but the fitness, commitment and skill levels are miles apart which makes the transition very arduous; again why would a well paid elite level player put themselves through this to publicly fail?

Elite NRL players are paid very well too. The rumours are that Leeds new signing Mitch Garbutt, a 26 year old with only 12 NRL appearances, was on a £130k a year contract at Brisbane.
If we're going to have to pay huge wages for a top NRL player that virtually no-one in England will know who they are, then why not pay a similar amount for someone (who is the right fit and would make a good go of the transition) who non-RL people and, crucially, the London-centric, right-wing, middle class British media will have heard of and might, just might, take notice of?

The fitness isn't miles apart at all. It may be a different "type" of fitness but elite Union players are perfectly fit for their role.
The commitment is no different. It's not the 80's anymore.
The skill levels I do think there's a gap, but then Richard Owen is playing SL, so there's a range of skill levels in SL that I think a Union player could fit into.

Why did Gareth Thomas?
There's plenty of dedicated, committed athletes looking for a challenge in Union. We just need to teach them how to pass, run and tackle.

It'd be interesting to know whether the amount of sky sports subscribers increased or decreased. I know a few people who cancelled their subcription because of the price increase to pay for the PL tv deal.

Before the Bid
rlhttps://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/feb/04/sky-profits-rise-uk-and-germany-pay-tvrl
After the Bid
rlhttps://www.wsj.com/articles/sky-earnings-boosted-by-subscriber-growth-in-u-k-germany-1429608660rl

I reckon they'll lose a few over the summer and then report another bumper harvest once the PL season starts up again....

The figures aren't great but bear in mind that TV ratings across the board are down due to the sheer number of channels these days and the rise of streaming services like Netflix, even the massive TV shows like Eastenders, Strictly and XFactor have lost millions of viewers in recent years.

I do think the standard of refereeing and lack of big name stars is hampering the game though, hopefully the marquee rule helps fits one of those. I also think it's long overdue for SKY to overhaul their coverage, new presenters and new graphics please!

I ditched Sky Sports this year after donkeys years subscribed. The reduced and inferior coverage of SL coupled with a hefty monthly price tag tipped the balance for me. I only subscribed to Sky Sports for the RL so it represents awful value for money for me. A couple of games a week is simply criminal for a full time sports channel. I'm subscribed to Premier for a fraction of the price and get EVERY single game every week from the NRL.

So I get a better product, more games, for less outlay. At the moment, SL is a bit like watching semi-pro after watching NRL so I don't find I'm missing out on much.

It's a sad state of affairs for the game in the UK. It feels like it's fading away slowly. There's little pizzazz in our game at the moment, and Sky's apathy towards us is nailing the coffin lid shut.

I really don't know why anybody pays for any Sports Channels when all are freely available on the internet.

Relax a bit everyone! Although figures probably slightly down,a large number of people tune in for kick off.

Thus in the past programme average for 6pm sat game boosted by the fact programme was just 2hrs. Now thur programme is often 2hrs 45 min, but lots only watch 8 till 9.45, thus hitting the average.

The Aviva Prems average viewing figures on BT rose 40% last year to 119,000 and have risen another 6% this year which currently is beating SL viewing figures. When the RFL took SKYs cash for a long-term deal last time I remember the usual suspects on here saying that BT wouldn't last long etc so it was the right decision. Hmmm. As someone who watches both sports and channels, BT are miles ahead of the game.

Probably as BT Sport 1 + 2 is currently free if you're a BT broadband/line rental customer of which there are over 2 million including me. However as of 1 August that same service will cost another fiver a month to pay for the £900m European soccer rights. Because of this I've cancelled my BT Sport subscription ( & will do the same for Sky Sports) and am left with BT Sport lite.

EditBT Sport Lite only includes BT Sport 1. You'll be able to see the Premier League, SPFL football and Aviva Premiership Rugby on BT Sport 1. But to watch other content like the Champions League, you'll need the BT Sport Pack. '"

Free service v pay TV.

You don't get a very good deal if you mainly subscribe to sky sports for RL. To justify cost of subscription it should have three games a week plus a champ game plus two shows.

In oz fox subscription gets you every nrl game, SL games, under 20's games, nsw and Qland cup games and 7 NRL shows a week!

It doesn't matter if the Aviva Prem is free with broadband or pay tv (BT is a combination of both btw), its ratings have gone up by tens of thousands in two years on a channel that actually puts on a good show. Attendances for the AP have also gone up the last 2 years and is attributed by some fans as down to new BT viewers going to games. When the AP was on SKY it was seen by many fans as if SKY had lost interest in it. Does that ring any bells with anyone?