Why should we be restricted to just Sky. You have Premier Sports investing in all areas of RL, BT starting it's sports packages and you have ESPN who have previously bidded for Super League rights. We could find ourselves in a little bidding war which would make the deal that bit sweeter.

I think BT will come to regret taking on RU, I believe they think its a massive coup for them but in the long term will lose them a lot of money. SKY obviously weren't to bothered to let it go due to its relatively poor veiwing figures. With less people subscribing to the BT sports channels the figures will more than likely become even worse.

We all know the problem is the leaders at the rfl. They seem to be grateful to take peanuts and thinks its a good deal. As someone has already eluded too, sky see RL fit enough to fill the Monday night spot; SKY clearly rate the sport of RL and why shouldn't they based on veiwing figures alone? I don't think sky would be to bothered about paying out a few more million to the sport because its a good product. We just need the rfl to go all out at the next tv rights deal and be more ruthless! This is an area Brian barwick should and hopefully will flourish.

I think that the following quotes from an article by Crusaders' CEO Jamie Thomas in yesterday's programme could be of interest:
'..I think the telling point is that the RFL have discussed things with their broadcast partner, who favour Option 3 - and whilst they are adamant they are not slaves to Sky, it is difficult to see them go against the organisation who write the biggest cheque to the Sport each year.........If the structure ends up as some version of Option 3, which it is my personal belief it will given all the noises coming from different areas....'

If that is the case, they should be paying a hefty premium for it and committing to screening games from all 3 tiers.

IF there is huge monetary investment from Sky (like a 50% premium), and IF there is commitment to screen more games and to screen them from all three tiers (2 games from SL1, 1 each from SL 2 and 3 per week) there is a chance that structure could be a success (with a bigger IF that clubs invest that extra money wisely and in a sustainable future rather than just seeing a club like Fev mortgaging the future on paying SL wages with barely amateur facilities).

If its just a sop to Sky and we end up with roughly similar revenue from it, it will be an absolute disaster and should sound the end for the current administration and probably the governance structure we currently have.

Can't see Sky altering their deal, which runs to the end of season 2016.

This new structure wont come to pass until 2015 at the earliest (if it ever does). The new tv rights deal will be signed at the beginning of the 2015 season to start in 2016, so you would hope talks were ongoing, along with the fact that if Sky (as rumoured) have pushed this format, it should have been the first question asked.

I'm also interested to see how RU works out for BT. It's clearly their 'flagship product' so if the uptake isn't what they predict then I think they may struggle.

Who pays the piper calls the tune. If Sky want a 14 team Super League they get it. If they want 12 team Super League they will get it. If they want London to stay in Super League they will get it.
Its the same for any sport all over the world which has a TV contract.

SPOT ON!