You can tell the way Sky News is heading as they have just handed Kay Burley a new 5 year contract.

*shudder*

Bmx, angling, boxing, Spanish football and pool on today. No rugby league world cup

In reply to the op, Sky may well be making a statement but, it seems that they have also made an error in judgement over the 2013RLWC.
Between them, The RFL, Premier and the Beeb have done an excellent job and the World Cup looks like exceeding even the most optimistic forecasts.
All we need now is for England to win the main prize...........ok, that's too optimistic.
Also, Vossy has been a revelation, lively, enthusiastic and knowledgeable, certainly the pick of all the commentators in RL over the last 10 years.

doubtful.
The RLWC will deliver record crowds, but other than those of us "in the know", the competition has done little in the way of media domination. BARB figures for the BBC are great with 2.2 million peaks figures, but regardless of how many viewers Premier being Free on Virgin opened up, it is actual viewing figures that are the Key. 150K averages for SL on Sky across 54 regular season games and play-offs/GF costs SKY 19,000,000 a year + outside broadcast costs etc....I suspect Sky know what they would pay and what they would fill with if they didn't get the rights. 316k a game would have cost SKY 7 million for 22 non England games whilst driving eyeballs to the BBC for the 6 exclusive England games.

SKY have RL by the throat for 3 more years....by the time negotiations start in 2 years, the landscape will be clearer with BT, Premier and the internet all possibly interested in the rights.....what is needed is strong leadership with a clear vision as to what is expected. I would say 1 FTA game a week should be key...even if its on the digital wilderness of FTA TV or exclusively on-line.

Please feel free to keep quiet on your 'in the know' info.

PLEASE!

my post was relevant to the topic. I didn't claim to "know" anything or be "in the know", I simply based my opinion on the available information.

If you re-read my post, you will see the reference of "us in the know" was meant in the context of those of us who are supporters of the game and therefore are aware that the tournament is available on Virgin platform FOC as well as on paid subscription on Premier Player and on the Sky Platform.....it is highly unlikely that random sports fans will have discovered RL through Premier TV because it is free for 30 days........it has been available on SKY for a long time and had only 6,500 subscribers as of July this year before it lost Conference footie to BT Sport.

I'll respectfully request you read and attempt to comprehend what you are commenting on before trying to jump on any bandwagon......and I repeat, a quick glance at the on-line editions of the national media in the UK and their respective sports pages will point you in the direction of a reality check.

I have been away for a coupleof weeks on a RLWC odyssey at many sold out or almost sold out stadia. Prior to that I remember your in the know numerous posts on how bad the attendances would be at the Cup games. Now you have been proven to not be not in the know in that area you have switched to the TV coverage aspect in a similalry negative manner.

Whilst it is early days, maybe the loss of the soccer contract to BT and the record crowds and viewing figures for the cup will make Sky realise that they 1. Need to replace their lost soccer coverage and 2. Realise what a gem they have in RL and improve their coverage and cash offerings at the next contract discussions,

I don't have the same in depth knowledge as you, Gutters but, the viewing figures alone make the World Cup a success, not to mention the actual attendances + the quality of many of the games.
Bearing in mind that Sky is all about having something to put on our screens, IMO they have definitely made a boo boo.
They could have secured the rights to this for not a lot of cash.
Maybe they are happy with their schedules for the 6 weeks of the World Cup but, there is no doubt that with the obvious exception of football, this comp could have given them a decent return.
Not to mention the fact that, on the whole, most fans have been pretty impressed with the Premier coverage and there is surely a risk of some Sky customers having had their eyes opened to one of their competitors.

I'll say this over and over again. It was far more important to get the big games on free to air TV than how many people are able to view USA vs. Cook Islands for example.

Yes, the non-BBC fixtures may have got larger audiences on Sky Sports, but it's really not that important if that meant no games on the BBC.

I think sky will draw conclusions from how many sky customers have bought premier, how many will keep it when they realise they can watch evry nrl game and how many also ditch sky sports.

Thats the evidence they will make regarding rl

I think sky will draw conclusions from how many sky customers have bought premier, how many will keep it when they realise they can watch evry nrl game and how many also ditch sky sports.

Thats the evidence they will make regarding rl

No

I would be surprised that Premier Sports only had 6,500 subscribers before July. Yet were able to function as a tv channel buying rights.

You are one of those who I referred to as being in the know and therefore you are fully aware that RLWC is on at the moment and that Premier TV have been showing games on their media player, SKY TV and FOC on Virgin.....you are in the minority in the UK.


Or Sky will look at the number of their users who subscribe to the Premier coverage (reportedly 6,500 in July) and say to themselves that 19 million a year is about right.


BBC viewing figures are brilliant and I freely accept I was 25% out on my predictions for attendances.....BT sport has 500,000 subscribers and BARB report their audiences...even if they are 12,000 (see last reported week).....just because "we" are watching premier, it doesn't mean the country is.

Doubtful, as they very quickly found something else to spend their cash on by the time IMG went back with a discounted offer...it's only a mistake if you look at it from a RL fans point of view.
But decided not to negotiate.....looking at their turn over and that of the RLIF, I'd say they know what they are doing.
We will never know. They would have based their assumptions on previous international viewing figures.....and they have bee getting 500k for the other lot in the afternoons.....

Premier TV cover sports that they can pick up cheap....handball, greyhound racing, NASCAR, NHL Hockey and the NRL......19,000,000 a year would require 160,000 subscribers at a tenner a month.......and advertisers don't generally buy stand alone slots, they buy packages, so ad revenue would be minimal.


BT Sports declare 500k subscribers and BARB report their figures, even those as low as 12,000.....if Premier TV were getting record numbers of viewers they would have said as much.

A mate of mine recently bought a new fleet of courier vans...they are all bright yellow. Before he did this, I didn't notice yellow courier vans, but now they are friggin' everywhere......RL Fans will notice and enjoy the level of RL coverage on Premier TV because they know it's there....your average UK sports fan is none the wider.

Premier TV have the rights to greyhounds, bowls, ice hockey, handball and the NRL.....none of which would have cost a lot of money.......Sky prop the RFL up with 19 million a year....that is out of premier TV's league.......they chased SKY once before as Setanta......remember how that panned out for them?

Where do you have the figures about subscriber from?