Apparently he couldn't vote no because some of the others were going to vote yes, he felt "under pressure" to go with the majority instead of his own view.

Bless

to be told 24 hours before such an important decision is completely stupid. But he should of been strong enough to say no.

Lets face it those saying it's a bad deal have no idea what BT would have offered, if anything.

Had it gone to tender in 2 years and we got less than what SKY have offered they would have been calling the RFL for not taking the money early.

It's like Deal or no deal. You can take what the banker offers or roll the dice.

Not seen it for ages but got home early from work today and the lad gave up £8000, for a toss up between £10 and £50,000.

He got the £10. For him it's not great as he could have moved on, but it's a gamble worth taking.

For RL getting the poorer deal could mean the death nell for many clubs.

You can't treat business like a gameshow. You have to take the best deal on offer not hope there is something in an unopened box.

Now if BT where making inquiries around the £300 million mark then you could call it a bad deal.

"IF"....the most important word in the RL Fans vocabulary

If me nan had balls she'd be me granddad

Bottom line is its a decent increase and should give everybody a bit of stability, now its just down to what the clubs and the administration do with that money and stability

Quote: Starbug "Bottom line is its a decent increase and should give everybody a bit of stability, now its just down to what the clubs and the administration do with that money and stability'" Throw it all away again chasing a dream? Or call ryan mcgoldrick a marquee signing and pay him all the extra money ... www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/f ... ee-players? One of the two...

Quote: Starbug "Bottom line is its a decent increase and should give everybody a bit of stability, now its just down to what the clubs and the administration do with that money and stability'" Throw it all away again chasing a dream? Or call ryan mcgoldrick a marquee signing and pay him all the extra money ... www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/f ... ee-players? One of the two...

And Sky have 10million TV subscribers, all playing for sports content, BT have about 2million TV subscribers, the majority get it for free.

Sky's sports content makes them money, BTs costs them money, it is a loss leader for broadband at the moment.

It's not about a battle for TV supremacy. BT simply don't have platform to deliver it, nor the infrastructure, nor personnel, nor real motive to compete with Sky, it's about BT protecting their mature retail markets, there is a point where it simply doesn't make sense for BT to fight that battle, it doesn't make sense for BT to use profit making parts of the business to subsidise a heavily loss making TV business

Perhaps the bribe of a one-off £300K windfall was conditional upon actually voting yes to the Sky deal? Must be difficult to turn that down under time-constrained pressure, even on a matter of principle.

Really?
BSkyB have 10,500,000 TV Customers. You are assuming they are ALL subscribers to the sports packages, which they are not......the best guesses of media watchers is that SKY sports has a few million.....given Soccerball is the #1 draw card for Sky Sports, yet 2,000,000 is the top end of the viewers they get for the premiership, I'd say 4.5 million tops is the number.
BT Sport have 2,000,000 people on their books now...they got 1.3 million for a recent game.....they bossed the on-line sign up market in the last Quarter of 2013......their strategy is working.

Personally, I see the future of sports broadcasting as being on-line and that places BT in a strong position. superdooper TV's that do everything, in every home, will be the norm within 24 months. I currently surf the net at home on my TV and watch a lot of content from the web (ooh er Missus). If BT can control the largest number of customers accessing the web, then that makes them more powerful than any TV company. IMO that is.

I've recently ditched Sky and I'm now firmly in the BT camp. The unlimited broadband, phone line, anytime calls, BT Sport for just £27.75 per month was the clincher for me. Also getting Premier Sports for all the NRL, Origin, Tests dirt cheap deal for the equivalent of £2 a month for the next 6 months, and that's still less than £30 per month in total.

Sky want double the amount I'm paying each month for all the above (broadband, phone line, anytime calls, BT Sport, Premier Sports) and that's just for access to their sports channels so I can watch Super League? Pffft. I don't think so.

Can always find an online stream of any SL game (or any other sporting event) if you know where to look, so yes... BT by plenty.

And that's missing the problem, what's good for consumers is bad for investors (who ultimately are the ones who decide the longevity of a company whose publicly listed like both bt and sky.)

If you look at bts core business, (which plays a large part of the reasons why it's figures are bigger than bskyb's) it's an incredibly mature industry, the landline is dying a slow but sure death, which whilst that decline hasn't hit it's terminal velocity yet, is on the definite horizon (due to people like me who live on their mobiles and have no need for a landline) a lot of this in recent years had been made up for with growth in business function, but the innovation and acces to VoIP now means the fall of the bt core business will hit hard. This is undeniable, and precisely why they are shifting into other business areas. It's a sensible move, given, as I said terminal decline has not yet hit.

Unfortunately the business they are now focussing on, is a heavily saturated market (hence the deals you mention, they need to win customers, and quick) they probably won't have too much costs refocusing as it's a similar industry, but how much penetration they can actually achieve is the real question. Ultimately they won't be able to afford to keep giving bt sport as part of a sweetener (there's already talk of introducing sign up fees) - and there are obvious questions over how much is too much for the champions league.

Sky sports on the other hand, and the old dogs in the game, it's not like it's the first time they've lost out to sports events (itv sport anyone?) and by the looks of it are playing the long game. (Which is fine for rl, it will take until 2020 to know whether bt sport has any longevity anyway) and whilst there's no particular good news on the horizon as far as I'm aware, there's no particular bad news either. I imagine the price will drop, should bt sport continue to be able to afford to bid on lots of sports (though I said the same about apple so what do I know) but it seems to take on every competitor with an arrogant swagger, and ultimately win out through attrition. I've yet to see anything to suggest different.

The rfl can't afford risk after the structure debacle. For the risk averse trader, I know what horse I'd be backing. At least until bt sport matures.

(Note this is a fundamental analysis I haven't seen either of the long term charts)

Lenegan is right. Time he did set up a rebel league. RFL are a disgrace. Some people here need an eye test to support the RFL's ludicrous decisions! No foresight at all!

Perhaps it was. But then I would expect him to man up and live with that decision instead of whining a week later like a little girl who didn't get the pony they'd hoped for Xmas.

His main principle it seems is to bitch and whine about the RFL & SL bullying poor Ian.

Yes you are right it is time he shut up and got on with it the deal is done now if he did not like it he should have done something at the time not say yes and then change is mind