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.

Perhaps without any consultation, agreement or consideration of the rest of the League Clubs & perhaps another example of positive discrimination in favour of another overseas Club to the detriment of R.L Founder Member Clubs !

To treat one group differently & with favour over another is discrimination whether you like it or not, this is just another example of discrimination in the pro expansionist wet dream.

Dig a little deeper & I would suggest that more is being hidden by Red Hall than we can possibly fathom.

Think we have gone off track a little

Basically, Toronto roll into town with a camera crew behind them - EXPECTING to broadcast the game.

They did it last year with the league 1 clubs and it payed off for them.

The higher up they get the more "savvy" the opponents.

End of the day they are nobody special

Be great if Sky showed SL games with a highlights show. And PS bought the Champ rights and broadcast all TW games plus one other game per week (with all Champ clubs getting a slice of the broadcast deal). With SKY retaining Summer Bash and Middle 8's. In an ideal world anyway!