I wonder. If it was possible to go back to 1980s style, part time RL with its biff, fast wingers and off the cuff plays, would the paying public welcome it?

Please would you consider that the way this works is SKY show various sports on their English SKY TV channels and this attracts English PAYING subscribers to those channels, thus creating an additional income stream to add to the English companies PAYING to advertise English products? I pay my subs and I consider buying and do buy (some of) the products and services advertised. So the whole business plan and economics of it is SKY getting in advertising revenue from England and subscriptions from England.

So I pay £30 a month or whatever, and fancy a go at some of the beers that are on the adverts. I also like to watch English clubs. Maybe that's just me but a recent survey in Hull showed 80% of fans having no interest in phoney North American clubs. What they want from SKY is Hull.v.HKR and not Hull.v.Toronto and no HKR????? So you are totally wrong with respect and as far as I can work out. SKY care about English fans paying them subs and English advertisers getting English RL fans buying their English goods and services. You have to think about the income SKY would get from say 10 English clubs in Superleague against say 5 English SL clubs plus TWP, Ottawa, New York, Catalans and Toulouse in Superleague?.

I agree about "ratings" but if you chuck Cas, Wakey, Salford, Fartown and HKR out, and send their players abroad to dress up as French and North american players that's a hell of a lot of SKY subs lost and TV dishes ripped of the wall and weighed in at the scrapyard by angry fans vowing they are finished with Rugby league. You have fallen for the constant mantra that TWP are not only glamorous but attractive the world over. They have hoodwinked you my good man. Why not go to the next Hull Derby and discuss one of the Hull clubs standing down for TWP with the fans??.

Take a bodyguard with you.

Subscriptions is all SKY want. Super League the product is now in the hands of SL. The game itself is still in the pocket of the heartlands.

I see SL not closing the door,but I see the lower tiers closing it. Not sure how the SL will survive or all the expansion clubs.

There needs to be change in what form of structure would again be placed to criteria.

Who meets the grade? Who doesn’t?

The key to success is knowing the boundaries... Along with investment. Taking a tax free sum and still no development isn’t an answer.

Although it’s still an answer for the majority of clubs.

Hard to argue Donnyman

You keep making this point but surely you can comprehend that some people in this country (especially the casual or 'not yet converted' fans that the sport needs) will be attracted to watching a game by the novelty of an international club or a big name player (why else are Toronto's viewing figures quite good?)? They might then like what they see and watch some further games.

Also, Sky shows a lot of international sport; NFL for example which dominates the Sunday evening schedule and has plenty of advertising between plays, so it obviously isnt a necessity to feature English clubs. The quality of the product, and ultimately the viewing figures, are more important. It seems common sense to me that most Sky subscribers don't sign up for one programme or sport in particular but for the package as a whole and Sky will pick and chose what it adds or drops based on the value of individual programmes or sports.

You said previously that you don't work with opinions but it seems to be very much your opinion that people will end their Sky subscriptions en mass if an English team loses out to an expansion team - I'm sure a few will but to say enough will to dent Sky's bottom line is pure opinion.

You do make some decent points but you also present them in a very miopic/unbalaced way and ignore/avoid some interesing counterpoints like those made by BrameyRhino.

Indeed and they don't get them from France and they don't get them from North America so SL cannot have any less than nine English clubs in Superleague.

So how can we have a Transatlantic league let alone an Anglo-french one without ditching SKY?.

Yes I can see that some people in this country may be excited by an overseas club or a marquee player in such a club. This may mean they buy a SKY subscription. If that club takes Hull K.R's place can you see how HKR subscribers may cancel - especially if they are dumped for a guest club. You need to decide how you think the numbers would go on this? Nett loss or Nett gain in SKY subs??

As for Bramley Rhino you need to decide if you see him as a more accomplished marketing man than Gary Hetherington. He thinks he is and with respect I think he isn't? Over to you sir!
.

Why does there need to be nine English clubs? As I said they have NFL on their schedule that features zero English teams and still generates interest in this country. I don't think you've fully explained how SL becoming international will impact subscriptions beyond threats from some current rugby league fans to ditch them (many of whom will likely change their minds when faced with the choice).

Sky will look at this with no sentimentality - it will be a decision made on spreadsheets. Viewing figures and advertising revenue. If Toronto pull in decent viewers and they sell all their advertising spots they won't care about the likes of Hull KR and Wakefield even though us fans will.

You could yet be proved right and nobody will watch them but you should at least consider the alternative point of view.

Our posts crossed - fair enough, at least you have considered the alternative viewpoint in your first paragraph. As i've said before, i'm on the fence. The evidence on viewing figures so far seems promising but that was in the Championship with a regular kickoff time and almost weekly slot so i'm keen to see what happens now they slot into the Superleague schedule.

Because SKY themselves require this as part of the contract, they require nine English clubs on the basis that English content attracts the most subs. They will allow other content though.

As far as Superleague go they wanted to drop to 10 clubs ipso facto there is room for one overseas club if SL wants such a club.

I'm not considering any "point of view" I am pointing out that the SL bosses said SKY want nine English SL clubs and SL want a ten club Superleague.

McManus, Pearson and Lenegan's comments. Simple as.

Yes that 10th. club could be Toronto trouble is Perez himself said NA rugby league will not grow if there is only one NA club in Superleague

1. Because SKY themselves require this as part of the contract, they require nine English clubs on the basis that English content attracts the most subs. They will allow other content though.
As far as Superleague go they want to drop to 10 clubs ipso facto there is room for one overseas club if SL wants such a club.

2. I'm not suggesting these things and consequently awaiting to see if I am right.... I'm not considering any "point of view"........ I am pointing out the facts of the matter which are the SL bosses said SKY want nine English SL clubs and SL want a ten club Superleague.

These are McManus, Pearson and Lenegan's comments. Simple as. They run the game, so what they say matters far more than any opinion. To finish this off yes that 10th. club could be Toronto...... trouble is Perez himself said NA rugby league will not grow if there is only one NA club in Superleague - he said there needed to be 5-6 NA clubs in Superleague to at least get a TV contract.

I thought the overseas club quota commitment came from Elstone not Sky? And was in anticipation of our negotiations for the next TV deal. Nice of him to undermine our negotiating position in advance. This is what annoys me about the offcial approach to expansion - there is one foot in and one foot out. Either they have faith in the approach or they drop it. This 'on the fence' strategy is set up to fail.


On your second point - the clubs, especially the big ones, will always want a bigger piece of the pie and they obviously foresee a smaller TV deal and less money. That doesn't guarantee we go down to 10 teams though as a new TV deal may be reliant on a minimum number of games/teams. If they follow the Toronto model we could end up with 9 current teams taking central funding and 3 expansion teams funding themselves as one example. Championship funding could also be cut as another. Many questions to answer and absolute no guarantee we go down to 10 teams.