Yes, you are.

I've just realised it!

You're Gary Hetherington

No, Sky arent. 'Level of competitiveness' is one of those things that doesnt actually exist in real-life, Just on these boards. Rights Contracts arent written on the basis of vague and unprovable nonsense like 'level of competitiveness'. Sky's contract with SL(europe) has criteria in it that will be along the lines of they will purchase x number of games, they want x number of teams in the league, they want the rights to show x, y, and z, they want the games to be played in slots a,b,c and the season to last between x and y.

These criteria are real definable things. IMG will not allow a clause in the contract where sky can break it on the basis that it isnt at the right 'level of competitiveness', and the SL(europe) wouldnt sign one.

People seem to have this idea that every couple of years Barney Francis and Nigel Wood sit down and have a chat about what Sky want from us. Then he scurrys away and does, and Sky are sat there overseeing the decisions we are making an checking everything. This isnt the case. They really arent in cahoots planning things together.

Sky have what they want, we have what we want, Sky have how much money they want to pay, we have how much money we want to get paid. We go to them with a tender, they come back with their offer. We cross the i's and dot the t's and it is done.

Only an idiot would suggest that spending money marketing championship clubs to their local populace would make huge strides in the growth of SL, only an even bigger idiot would suggest that spending money marketing championship clubs to their local populace would make bigger strides in the growth of SL than just spending that money marketing SL clubs to their local populace.

yeah, cos giving money to private businesses who can't afford to be at the level they want to be it is obviously the open minded thing to do. Sod the kids playing our game, a couple of hundred people want to watch their pit village play at a higher level, and that of course is the most important thing.

Nowhere have I suggested a ' breaking of contract ' but the potential of offering less in the future

So you suggest increasing marketing in South Wales, North Wales, Gatehead, London, Hemel, Oxford or Gloucester is not going to help the growth of RL?

Now you are just backtracking. We can just accept that Sky wont be part of that decision making process and wont have criteria which includes nonsense like 'level of competitiveness'.

In that case there could be an argument to layer SKY payments depending on financial performance with the best getting least and the worst getting most , but that would be absurd , wouldnt it

21 pages in and Smokey still banging on about Championship clubs. This is all being led by weak SuperLeague clubs and will be voted in by SL chairmen.

What a prick.

As many have suggested ( based on I think US Basketball? ) a nice way to put extra funds into the amateur game is through a tax on salary cap overspend.

Why are people assuming any extra money the champ clubs will get is going to come from the sky deal?

Because, its the only money they get

I might have miss heard this at some point, but dont the rfl give sl clubs 100k each towards youth devolopement?if thats the case then those monies will stop now and that money could be being used to strengthen the rest of the pro game

It would seem pretty backward. Giving the most money to the clubs who need it least. Would seem a surefire recipe for the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.

Seems a bit of an afterthought. Bit hard to budget and shouldnt really have our amateur funding dependent on the excess of some in SL/