you may not be paying directly - but somebody will be (and subsequently, you will be paying for it indirectly).

I have a Virgin Media subscription to watch RL on SKY, the OFCOM proposal just seems to extend this to all broadcasters.

I would pay for Championship only no SL how does that work?

It won't - if you think Sky don't give a monkeys about semi-pro rugby league see how other mainstream broadcasters (most of whom have drastically reduced their live sports coverage) feel about it.

Did you read the statement?
Sky produce it as part of the exclusivity package with SL and barely break even. They wouldnt run it if it wasnt for the SL deal

But, Skys business model is dependant on getting people to pay for channels

whether they use football, RL or cricket to entice them in.

Most of their sports customers will get Sky for one or two particular sports, but when they subscribe to Sky, they need to subscribe to a basic package, and then pay for the premium channels,

if you no longer need to pay for the basic package to get the premium channels, then the value of the premium channels to Sky, and as such the amount they are willing to invest in them, drops

i dont know the full details of teh OFCOM proposals....will third party broadcasters be able to pick and choose which sports they show, or will it be like Virgin where they just get the SKY Sports channels, warts and all.

If Sky have to do it, I would guess that it will probably be the latter. As they will be wholesaling it, they will pitch it so's other channels can't make a bean unless they charge more, potentially a lot more, than the Sky uplift (from the Sky basic package).

regardless, it still means that even if you need to subscribe to sky sports as a whole you still dont need to pay the original £17.50 for an entertainment pack

if you get the basic package plus sky sports it costs £35.50

even if Virgin charge £18 for Sky Sports and pass that on direct to sky, Sky are still losing out on the original £17.50 you needed to pay to simply get the basic package

therefore for every customer who chooses to go through virgin rather than Sky for Sky sports, Sky lose out on £17.50 and the value of using Sky Sports to attract customers to sky is basically halved

I doubt if that would be the case, the only thing that would be majorly hit is prize money for winning trophies and only a few clubs do that anway. the super league on the other hand would be in real trouble.

As would every other pro sport in the world.

Soccer clubs would collapse faster than Lehman Brothers, as they did after the ITVDigital debacle.

Dont forget, whatever effects us, effects soccer 100x more due to the sheer scale of numbers involved with them (more clubs, more money, more games)

It might even mean that RL remains constantly bouyant since terrestrial broadcasters arent overly interested Sky Sports could maintain it as an exclusive.

I know I only used to get cable/sky for the the SL games, then cancel the whole lot after the season ended, dont even do that these days, so the cheaper "RL only" option or even "Sky Sports" only option would tempt me back, meaning they get their £18 they would never have seen again.

When the Shadow Minister of C (K?)ulture talks about tearing up the BBC Charter and doesn't promptly get a kicking from Conservative Central Office (they call it a clarification), then it's reasonable to assume that this is under consideration. Better be nice to Sky, if the Conservatives win the next election they may end up being all we've got!

alternatively, they are increasing their market size, by making it available without all the rest of the rubbish.

if, for example, you can subscribe to a website that is offering SKY Sports only without all the other channels for around £20 a month only (i.e. you dont have to pay for the rest of the Virgin Media package) - more people will take that option and SKY will increase their revenues tby having more viewers, (able to charge more for advertsing, etc).

Just because they have previously gone for a high cost, low volume strategy doesnt mean that it is the best way to go in the future. And it doesnt mean that the RFL are reliant solely on income from SKY. More people paying less increases the "market" that is able to watch RL on a regular basis and should (in theory) increae attendances and sponsor revenue.

The way it is and the way the game has been handled we need Sky's money. Anyone saying differently is a bag of frogs.

My parents', grandparents' and sister's households drop Sky Sports as soon as the rugby starts and get it back again for February. They've been doing the same for a while now and they aren't alone.

but Sky will have looked at this model and decided it isnt the way to go,

if you want to think we will just hit lucky and an OFCOM decision which isnt made to increase the revenue of Sky, will anyway then fine.

But im pretty sure some very good people at Sky have already done the figures, and already made the decision

Bitter and twisted Leigh fans you have gotta love em