Well they had a go with Union (dont know if they still cover that) and BT would suit me just fine

I hope not, as it'll probably mean we'll end up having to pay out for Sky to watch NRL games, and BT for SL (and maybe Championship) games, as they are separate TV deals.

If SL moves to Bt sport then so does my subscription money and so will tens or even 100 thousand plus Subscribers BT maybe realise the worth of selling new subscriptions to RL fans. We will see how it pans out.

The way Sky has treated the sport the past 15 years or so is shambolic. If BT can better their offer then take it I say and stuff Sky.

I think it's more the way that SL Chairmen have sold out the game for TV money is shambolic, and despite thay income the game is in a very sorry state, domestically and internationally.

The games always in a sorry state.

Let sky pay £10m less and show 2 games a week and then let BT pay a few million to show 1 SL game and 1 Championship game a week. Job done.

The Sky deal gives them full rights. You can't sell individual games to other broadcasters.

They also hold the rights to the lower 2 divisions.

Essentially, Sky are blocking any other broadcaster from accessing the game.

The sooner they are gone the better.

Not when the deal runs out

Sky won't pay £30m without keeping all the cards, as they already have.

A multi-broadcaster deal would be great, but Sky don't do those.

The value of the TV product is falling, think now would be a good time to get creative.

Negotiate a value for the broadcast of the league on TV, then negotiate for additional money for other aspects of the game. One idea would be to ringfence a separate (not for pro clubs) amount of money from the company that wins the TV rights for youth development, pay for local development officers to go into schools and help regional leagues bring kids into the game. Then partner with them for online content/TV shows showing how *TV company* and the RFL help kids get fit, build community spirit etc. All good karma/PR for the sport and the TV company. Think how sky sponsorship of a cycling team helped expand interest in pro cycling, and combine it with the pieces that have come out of the "rugby league community" coming together for the pandemic, and individual players affected by serious injury/disease.

Unfortunately I reckon the Super League will negotiate for itself, get a worse deal, and then try and cut off the rest of the game from the money it gets.

Multiple broadcasters are not interested in SL.

I can't argue with any youth development point, but don't forget most SL clubs already have TV money "ring fenced" for their development foundations. They already employ development officers. Of course these people are employed by the clubs themselves [i"to go into schools and help regional leagues bring kids into the game". [/i

It's easy to think that the SL clubs just take kids off the local Amateur clubs as that was how it was but the foundations now work with the local amateurs. Your idea is such a good one that it is actually already being done and I think a problem is the "[icharitable foundation"[/i moniker is misleading. Most club web sites will highlight what their foundations do in the community to promote RL youngsters.

[i"I reckon the Super League will negotiate for itself, get a worse deal, and then try and cut off the rest of the game from the money it gets."[/i

Your right again, but even if the RFL negotiated the deal we would still get less money. It appears neither SKY nor Superleague felt that awarding ££Millions to the Championships to focus the excitement on a competition containing the bottom four SL clubs ever worked - hence the thing was scrapped before the contract even ended.

It's pretty much common knowledge now - certainly because Lenegan said in in the press - we may be looking at £150M next deal a drop of £50 Million. The SL clubs are likely to take all that money for themselves......

One major reason being to keep their development foundations and their academies going.....

I don't buy it, if the money was ringfenced then every team would have an academy. Every Super league club should have a full, self funded academy each, and we should try and fund more academies in areas where Super league doesn't ahve teams.

Not sure mate, it seems to be the case all the best talent already finds an academy to go to and for every young lad that makes it to a contract with the senior side well over 100 don't, so it's about quality and not quantity. Salford can't afford an academy but are likely to go out of Superleague anyway.

The other English clubs have academies and they are in place at Newcastle and London. The Catalans academy closed though.