Talking about not using facilities years ago we went to Australia and stayed in Penrith they use their ground for everything they have a big restaurant and 1armbandits and golf and a cinema and lots more that’s were they make their money from for the rugby league team

Fax sold 550 tickets for the leigh game plus those who paid on the day.

Your attendance at the shay was not brilliant just like your performance on the pitch

This. I'd love to know how much these "Sky don't pay us enough" types think we're being short-changed by.

Sky knows exactly what RL is worth to them. They know how many subscriptions rely on RL, they know what advertising slots around RL content are worth and it knows how many people watch RL. That knowledge determines what they offer the sport.

And its important that the sport recognises that it needs to do more to add value to Sky if we want more from them. As a sport, we're one of the few in the UK that seems to actively dilute its own TV audience (for the two rounds after Magic Weekend, three games were taking place at the same time as our Friday TV game), we've lost our ability to attract the best box-office talent, and TV ad-tech is also going to hurt this sport - Sky Adsmart will devalue ad slots around RL content, and the sport and the clubs have done little to counter that threat.

We can't see it a Sky under-valuing RL. We have to see it for what it is - RL not adding enough value to Sky.

There's a debatable question in your comment. Value! Who devalued the sport ? The Clubs? Sky? Or the product. Probably accumulation of all. The art is not to return to something that has already failed previously. The change must cater for all in the sport,and must remain permanent.

I wouldn't worry too much about the finances, as the quite obvious plan is for SL to take all the cake, come the end of the TV contract. Yes its the start of the 'Breakaway'...

That just leaves the lower tiers to gain their own broadcasting rights of some form that will match or even better the amount of funding currently received.

When we went to Australia in February for the Hull tour we visited Penrith and it's a phenomenal set up now. There are several restaurants/bars, massive casino and outside area where you buy the meat and then cook it yourself. They were so welcoming and let us have a good look round and we were astounded by the sheer magnitude of it all.

Hull fans complain at the regular new shirts/merchandise that Hull produce (4 shirts so far this season plus related training gear), but they need to realise that merchandise is a massive bulk of club revenue and without it we'd seriously struggle.

Spot on and one of the big issues with all this carry on. Easy to come out and win people over with talk of bigger deals but are they really going to be able to pull it off? I think Sky might have a thing to say about it and I'd back them to get the deal they want more than what Elstone and chums want.

It goes further than that. The 'market' has devalued us as a sport.

It has got cheaper and cheaper to reach the audiences that we reach and on top of that, there are also more leisure distractions than ever before. The response from the sport, and the clubs in particular, has been to short-sell the sport to keep those people.

What the sport should have been doing is spending more time trying to appeal to people who are most prized by advertisers and broadcasters, appealing to the people who advertisers find hard to reach. Instead, we spent more time giving discounts to people who you can reach on Google and Facebook for less than £50 per thousand.

That's a lack of value that we are delivering to Sky. At a time when TV ad value is falling, we're giving them the cheapest audiences to advertise to.

And not only that, we're giving them less and less of that audience, because it seems that almost all of our clubs now want to play on Friday nights - clashing with out prime TV slot. That's a lack of value that we're delivering to Sky.

In short, RL is becoming less and less worthwhile to Sky. Why does anyone think that they should be paying more in those circumstances?

You're right to say that Sky know exactly how much RL is worth to them, as the will with every other sport that they chose to broadcast.
However, are you really trying to say that they will calculate this value and simply hold out the cash for each sport, without negotiation.
Their price will depend on many different criteria and will be affected by their competitors and like most "buyers", they will have a price that they would like to pay and a different price that they would be willing to pay if necessary.

We then come down to the million dollar question.
Do you think that Mr Wood along with his team of administrators have achieved maximum value from Sky for the rights to broadcast our sport ??
Although there is cricket, tennis and golf etc shown through the summer months, I would suggest that RL has been an ideal screen filler for them and for diluting the spectator value of our sport (spreading games over 2 extra days etc) I certainly believe that "we" should have achieved a higher price at the last round of negotiations.
The speed at which the offer was accepted seemed criminal.

Wood hasn't been doing the negotiations. IIRC the last negotiations were done by IMG - and they are no idiots. And let's not forget that the clubs voted in favour of this deal.

What I am saying is that between the last TV deal and now, the strength of the sport has weakened - and I suspect Sky knows that as well as anyone. Why should Sky pay more, just because we want them to?

As I said, there is greater value to any broadcaster to show games on 4/5 days/ week compared to 2/3 days per week.
However ,this didnt appear to be reflected in the last deal.
I guess the next deal will reflect any advantage of having a Canadian side and an additional French side in the comp.(assuming that they make it into SL, should be interesting.

Also in Penrith their is nothing else to do or their was not back in 1992 when we went so if you wanted entertainment that’s were you went even if you do not like rugby league

There's two side to this though. Sky offered more last time around because they wanted a fast decision. If we'd messed them about and not hit the deadline which led to a stock market announcement covering a whole lot of sports renewals they would most probably have reduced their offer.

unfortunately it may have taken over 20 years for people to realize maybe chairman Mo was right all along and the original model for super league was what we should have done gone for it and stuck to it. by now it may have been club union on its knees not the other way round. really can see another breakaway coming. the areas and teams that were proposed to merge well have any of them on there own actually had any success. out of the two Hull clubs Fc had to be bailed out by selling all the good work in the north east down the river and they have done not much moor than held there own since. none of the Manchester or adjacent areas sides have done anything except struggle,(do Oldham even play in Oldham anymore despite being an original super league side) warrington are going fine but widnes have suffered massively in the super league era. not sure i agreed entirely with how the first super league was proposed and compromises and common sense was needed, but we ended up with a massive cop out and more than half the original sides are gone.

original super league sides
London out
Bradford out
Paris SG gone
workington out
Oldham on life support for years
Halifax out but a vibrant championship club
Sheffield forced merger gone to save Huddersfield in sham merger.

that leaves Leeds saints Wigan warrington Castleford left from original super league.

geographical spread of super league got smaller appeal getting smaller.
BOLD CHANGES NEED MAKING.

Yes....100+ years of heritage may get trodden on, but if we continue to allow small clubs with small minded owners and no ambition other than survival to run the business, then we will never prosper. We've let the tail wag the dog for too long......

By comparison West Hartlepool (2), Orrell, Bristol (4), Bedford, Rotherham(2), Harlequins, Leeds (3), Northampton, Worcester(2), Newcastle, London Welsh(2), London Irish (2) have all been left to be relegated in Union and rebuild on their own whilst their sport has got on with the business of making itself stronger.......three of the teams above are winners of the bloody thing but they were left to fend for themselves in the 2nd tier......clubs like Orrell and Bedford were on a footing with Leicester before open professionalism......but rather than let Orrell and Badford steer the game, they were cut adrift.....

....Mergers, licensing and central contracts for elite players with any team wishing to join the SL needing to be able to show a valid business plan to get to profit/self sustainability inside 5 years......cull the needy and hangers on, take games on the road to big cities and create some media razzmatazz. 14 team Superleague 13 Home games to generate £2 million.....10,000 fans at £16 a ticket and you're in.

Clubs need to merge or die. Clubs like Catleford, Wakefield and Featherstone need to come together, play in a new state of the art stadium and fill it with 20,000 fans week in, week out....sure, we might lose 20% of current fans, disgruntled and indignant at "their loss' but that still leaves 12,000 fans of the game that will support the new club......all the history of all three clubs can hang in the clubrooms and never be forgotten, but if we don't take action NOW, then we'll still discussing 2 new stadiums being build a 9 Iron apart from each other that neither club will ever fill in another 10 years......and that potential 12,000 fanbase will have shrunk to nearer 6,000....we are hemorrhaging cash and fans and we need drastic action.

I suggest that figure would be nearer 60% of current fans.

Who would the London fans support ?
Who would London merge with ?