Not if PS are refused entrance to the ground pal.

maybe Toronto and Catalans are allowed to arrange their own TV deals because they arent members of the RFL. AFA~IK their only guests. Toronto receive no central funding (SKY TV money, not sure if this is also true for catalans). So as they dont benefit from the SKY deal their allowed to negotiate their own TV deal?. Presumably they will have done some deal direct with SKY as the rights holder (maybe for highlights) or they would be objecting. In Catalans case they allowed sky to re-broadcast any catalans home games from the BEIN tv feed savin SKY the associated outside broadcast costs of sending cameras to France. Dont think any SL teams objected to this. Bit more difficult in championship as sky choose not to televise any other matches.

Sorry FA your argument just doesnt stack up.

For one off events, perhaps demand will exceed supply in terms of available tickets and with our own "events" we (RL) are happy to broadcast major finals and The Magic Weekend etc.
However, if there is no loss in revenue for clubs when the are featured on Sky, why does each home club in SL draw a payment from the "TV pot" when their home games are featured on Sky, this would appear to be some form of compensation, which clearly wouldn't be necessary if said club was gaining extra advertising revenue etc.
I appreciate that Sky tend to use their own "advertising boards" and that Premier probably wouldn't but, the point still stands.

In terms of the TV deal, I believe it comes down to the markets or languages of the respective broadcasters. S4C were able to broadcast Crusaders games (despite Sky holding some championship rights) because they were broadcast in the Welsh language. Sky doesn't market itself in France or broadcast in the French language, so we have a seperate arrangement with a French broadcaster (although I believe that agreement is negotiated alongside the RFL / SLE) and Toronto have a broadcast agreement with Game TV, simulcast with Premier Sports.

It may be that Championship clubs may have an issue with Premier Sports, but they don't (IMO) have an argument against any Canadian broadcaster. The game being broadcast in Canada has no bearing on clubs in the UK.

If it's a contract directly between PS and TW, then each UK (plus Toulouse?) club can either refuse admission to the PS crew, or (preferably) charge them for the privilege of using the stadium facilities. It's not an issue for TW home games, but unless there's been some sort of central deal been done via the RFL, then PS will have no rights to enter stadia outside Canada.

The club draws a payment as they are providing some bloody good top class entertainment on the day for a mass audience out of which arrangement the broadcaster is presumed to be making money under its own commercial judgments, and naturally the club and the players shouldn't have to do so for nothing! It's not compensation at all, it's a share of the pot negotiated by ESL/RFL precisely to be split between the clubs in the manner agreed.

Anything on top of that the clubs draw from marketing etc is the result of their own efforts and business acumen and again is rightfully their own. Whether there may or may not be some loss in revenue in ticket sales is no doubt something the clubs considered when discussing the deal, but then they would have a good idea which fixtures would be televised. I wonder how many the Bulls lost off the gate when we got 23,000 plus in that televised game against Leeds? Or Wigan / Saints derbies?

In the big games, like the Bulle/Leeds or Wigan/Saints games that you mention, I agree, there is zero loss in ticket revenue.
However, the flip side of that coin, may be Salford v Wakefield on a Thursday night, at short notice (i think it was about 5 days) and there is no doubt whatsoever that the gat would take a hit, along with so many of the re-arranged games towards the end of the season and to the average punter, the payment (from the TV pot) will go some way to compensate the home club for loss of revenue.
Some games feature on Sky because they are "important" fixtures but, many are juts screen filler and these are the games when many fans watch from the comfort of their local, rather than making the effort to attend.
On a related note, why do you think Mr Carter (Wakefield Chairman) complained so bitterly about only being on Sky twice in the 2016 season, having "lost" 60k into the TV pot, Trinity were only "paid out" twice.

Has no one noticed that for the past 20+ years Sky & those paying for the game do as they like? The governing body is run/owned by the clubs & they have agreed it. As a point of interest just above this reply as I type is an advert for premier sports saying every NRL game free, what's that all about if they have lost the TV rights?

I think maybe club chairmen of a more parasitic leaning might have to decide whether they're going to complain more about being on TV too much, or about not being on TV enough.

At the moment, the argument mainly appears to be "We don't get enough of our own fans, so we demand other clubs fill our stadiums with travelling fans, and we can't sell any interest to a TV company, so we demand that those who can bung us some of the cash they've generated through selling interest in them."

They'll buy the rights, including access, from Sky to whom the clubs have sold them.

If the club have sold the rights to sky, then another broadcasting company can't just buy them without discussing those agreements with the club. The agreement is with sky not PS.

If a clubs commercial dept don't know a game is to be televised , how do you expect them make money out of it ?

Maybe the sponsors contracts only include the actual broadcasters the club had contracts with , SKY and BBC

Sick of hearing about Barry Hearn , it's bloody Darts , the cost involved would be much less than an OB at a football stadium , and let's face it , it's a glorified stag do , dress up , get ed , nobody even watches the screens , they just drink and then cheer when a 180 is announced , take away the ale and there'd be 10 people there

Luv it.

Darts, horse racing and cricket would barely exist if it weren't for alcohol and betting.

Not much booze flowing at the Betfred World Snooker Championship, yet the prize money is very generous........with the winner receiving £400k and runner up receiving £180k.