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.

Easy.

Nine English teamsWigan
St Helens
Warrington
Leeds
Bradford
Hull FC
Hull KR
Huddersfield
Castleford
[/i
Five non-English teamsCatalans
Toulouse
Toronto
New York
Ottawa[/i

Total 14 Super League clubs.

Depending on the success of the 14 team international roster, there could be six possible future additions to make a 20 team Super League later in the decade, comprising 10 English clubs, 4 French clubs, 3 US clubs, 2 Canadian clubs, and one Serbian clubLondon
Boston
Philadelphia
Paris
Avignon
Belgrade[/i

Mindful of the fact that there are not sufficient British players for a 20 team Super League, there would have to be player development starting with enhanced junior development structures, in France, Canada, the USA and Serbia. Other Super League players could be recruited from the NRL.

SKY show the NFL because they get the coverage from NBC and ESPN. They do not send film and production crews to the USA every week.

SKY will not even send film and production crews to France to cover Catalan, a member of SL for 14 years now. They were happy to get free coverage from Toronto to show their matches but will not be sending any film or production crew to the Lamport this season.

Why on earth then would they even consider jetting crews and equipment around the world televising Ottawa, New York, Belgrade or Valencia. The only way coverage would happen would be if they were getting it for free. This free coverage of course will never happen. Even Toronto, who can apparently afford, for some reason, to pay one player over £50000 per week to play Rugby League have had to cease the professional filming of their own games to be able to pass onto SKY. The broadcaster is hardly likely to be interested in some smartphone shots done by the "CEOs" of New York or Valencia.

The whole direction this could go is akin to the game committing wilful suicide. Sky will NOT be interested in only showing half the teams half of the time and will certainly not pay £200M for the privilege of been able to show only half a dozen British clubs.

The SL chairmen are hopefully savvy enough to realise this is a very, very important time for the game, new TV deal and all, and they will likely put an end to a lot of this nonsense in the near future. In fact it will take care of itself in most instances as most of these new "projects" are about as robust as a chocolate fireguard and have no chance of ever getting within a mile of SL. The RFL however really need to take stock of what they are actually about.

Moving on slightly, because while I take your point we could go round in circles for a while, this last point interests me. Do you not think it’s a major issue that they haven’t really settled on a position yet? They might not be as savvy as you give them credit for and they/the RFL should really have taken stock a long time ago. Like I said before it seems to be one foot in and one foot out on expansion and that is going to lead to a shocking negotiating position. From the sounds of it Elstone seems only to be interested in a deal with Sky which limits our negotiating position further.

SL/RFL are two wildly differing things now despite Mr Lenagan's latest hint at the cooperation of Simon Johnson.

Elstone is interested in whatever the SL chairmen tell him to be interested in and that is SL only. I think they would be over the moon with getting exactly the same price they got last time as long as it is divided between them only.

I don't see the expansion issue arising in SL/SKY negotiations, aside the Elephant in the room that is Toronto (who might well only be a short term irritant to the SL chairmen anyway). I think SKY and SL will both be on the same page on that (non) issue.

The RFL however seem to have the own agenda and are happy to entertain anyone who ventures even the wildest of ideas. I am not sure there is any long term plan for it all and much will fizzle out but some sort of statement of direction and plan for the future of the game outside SL cannot hurt. They really need to be looking after the needs of the existing members and the potential of such as Newcastle and York as SL will cut them adrift given the opportunity or need.

It may well have been Elstone, but the fact seems to be in a 12 club set up 9 must be English clubs to satisfy SKY's English subscribers. I can understand this as SKY perhaps should not block the games ambitions to expand, had TWP gone up last year, and Toulouse gone up this year we would have such a set up.

But the key word is "expand" and the definition of this whether as it was as defined to Catalans in 2006, Toulouse 2015 or Toronto 2016 was that Superleague does not want an expansion of the number of miles it takes to get to games, and they don't care what crowds "expansion" clubs get because few away fans will come here anyway.

For all three expansion clubs the expansion required was defined as more TV money from French and North American broadcasters and more quality players, and for Catalans that meant players good enough to stock the French International side - we must remember that. We must also remember for Toronto the game did not want to wait 40 years whilst TWP developed a "grass roots" they wanted players NOW and were promised grid iron conversions.

So when SL review the new SKY deal at whatever level it may be - maybe between £120-150M for a 5 year deal, then they will have to revue the inclusion of overseas sides to create expansion. You know as well as I do that review will expose Catalans, Toronto and Toulouse as total failures to expand the SL player base or the SL TV money.

I never ever said there would be a total guarantee SL would drop to ten. But given...

a. Expansion has been a complete 100% failure on the targets the game here set for the expansion clubs
b. There will be less money to share amongst the English clubs
c. SL have already tried to drop to 10 but lost the vote a year ago - but can revisit that and win it at the TV negotiations
d. We don't have 12 English clubs with solid backing from benevolent benefactors

.....Then clearly the odds for a 12 club Superleague are around 100-1 against and for a 10 club superleague odds on, that's of course "absolutely no guarantee" but very very likely for good reasons. I see no reason for the clubs to continue with failed expansion clubs nor put clubs in SL who can't afford it..............Don't you??