Actually no I don’t, that was poor phrasing by me. What I meant was Sky have 10millions subscribers, those that get sports content are all paying for it.

Sky have recorded sports viewing figures of more than 4m, they never have released their total sports subs numbers and its a pretty closesly guarded secret, but i think it would wrong to think they have ever got near to having 100% of thier sports subs base watching a specific event. I would be surprised if it got much if anything above 75% if that so an educated guess would be closer to 6-7m.

How much realistically is 200k broadband subs worth? especially when Sky still added 110k without giving free sports channels. BT are already trying to sell their product wholesale to Sky so that it can be included in packages and BT can recover some costs. They do that and they massively undermine their own plan.

As i said, expect SKy to go big on the next set of PL rights between £1.3b to £1.8b a season, take all the top PL content and leave BT sports as ESPN with much bigger costs.

If I was Lenegan, I would be more concerned by the fact that his own commercial team can only get a 1 year deal with a small housing company to be the main club sponsor, whilst his rival clubs are signing deals with national and international brands.

With having the international exposure of the WCC (and probably travelling on Emirates next week), it should have been fairly easy to sign up a major international sponsor.

Here's what he said in full....


I believe it is a dreadful commercial decision to be agreeing in 2014, with 3 years still to go on the super leagues current deal, a new deal for super league tv rights for the 5 future years 2017-2021 at only 30% increase and without going out to tender and allowing BT sport to compete.

There are other very welcome elements for championship and championship 1 tv rights and for the community foundations, but the deal for Super League tv rights is only increased by 30% for the future 5 years 2017-2021 compared with the current remaining 3 years deal 2014-2016.

Publically available figures show the football league achieved a 37% increase for an extention from their 3 years to 5 years (not 8 years!). They made available extra TV games where super league has offered a complete restructure of the competition.

Super league should have achieved considerably more than that from committing the next 8 years, or should have extended for 2 years only, leaving us then able to renegotiate leading upto 2016 for 2017-2021 in what appears to be an increasingly competitive market in favour of sellers.

To make it absolutely clear, Sky is a great broadcaster for rugby league and I would hope they would have won any tender because of what they do for Rugby League. They have been wonderful partners for the game over many years and none of my comments are aimed at them. As another club owner hinted they have achieved a great tv deal for their shareholders.

However for the RFL to recommend the selling forward of super league for 8 years with the clubs only given 24 hours notice of the meeting, a limited amount of time to discuss the details and to be forced into an immediate take it or lose it vote, is a complete failure of corporate governance by the RFL and a condemnation of the way Super League is managed by them.

Such a key decision should have been discussed in detail over a reasonable period of time with support from an independent tv expert as all other negotiating rights holders do.

Whilst I understand fully the financially desperate position of some clubs and well understand them voting for any deal which on the short term helps their difficult circumstances, it is the responsibility of the governing body of the super league to make sure the right decisions are taken in the interest of super league and the game as a whole.

Unfortunately these two entities are largely the same people (the dreaded duality seen only in rugby league with the chairman and chief executive of both bodies being the same individuals). Also in my opinion, the chief executive in particular is too closely involved in driving his own personal view of the restructuring of the super league competition rather than the inclusive and open-minded approach which a CEO should lead with.

Decisions taken in haste have a habit of being repented over a long period. I, for one regret immensely that, under the pressure of time and a stated desire for some unanimity, I voted Wigan in favour of accepting the deal because it was clear financially challenged clubs would support it.

I awakened the next day and regretted immensely my voting which - given time to consider properly - would have been strongly against this particular deal since I believe super league could have achieved a different and more structurally sensible deal with sky preferably.

I also resent being coerced into taking an immediate position on something so vital for the future of our game. We are now shut out of any increases in the value of broadcasting rights over an 8 year period. BT sport are very serious competitors and they are in it for the long term yet Super League did not even go out to tender to give them an opportunity to bid for rights. To go with another 5 year contract, 3 years hence from now, without giving others the chance to bid is surely crazy commercially.

I am not suggesting that this tv rights decision should be challenged or reversed since the clubs (including Wigan) voted democratically for it.

However I hope that clubs, fans and players will recognise that the process followed by the governing body throughout this whole process - whilst resulting in welcome and much needed money for SL and championship clubs- has been seriously flawed and should result in a major review of the management structure of Super League and the dual involvement of the RFL

Lenegan is completely wrong to be criticising the deal after voting in favour of the said deal. he should have grown some balls at the time of vote and voted NO.

When I first saw the title, I thought this thread might have been created in 2012 or something as it seems that this gentleman is always unhappy about something or other.

Bottom line is BT would have been a disaster. Everyone who tries to follow Rugby Union (now there's funny word play) knows that the coverage levels have really decreased since the move.

So while the money is obviously important, and perhaps could have been pushed higher, the intangible benefits of remaining with SKY are plenty sufficient to make the deal a good one.

Indeed. We are however also guarded against the risks of any decrease in the value of broadcasting rights over an 8 year period.

And the market is going to be far different in 8 years time than in 3. Everyone who thinks bt sport were going to pay 300million+ are based purely on fantasy/guesswork/ hope. 200million sky offered represents a good increase for us, adds stability, and let's us wait and see if bt sport become a major player. If in 8 years they're still around you'd feel more comfortable about them being around for the long haul.

Anyway in 8 years sky are going to have much more competition from on demand tv anyway (which aren't ready to compete on this level yet) so even if bt sport falls away the next renewal is just as likely to be competitive.

The main issue IL has is this:

owever for the RFL to recommend the selling forward of super league for 8 years with the clubs only given 24 hours notice of the meeting, a limited amount of time to discuss the details and to be forced into an immediate take it or lose it vote, is a complete failure of corporate governance by the RFL and a condemnation of the way Super League is managed by them

And I completely agree.

What sort of governing body presents an 8 year option for it's 'crown jewels' and demands an answer within 24 hours.

What message does this give in terms of the rl's negotiating position with sky.

I'd say sky considered they were in a pretty dominant position. Do you think this means they were holding something back?

Does anyone think the RL said ' if you want an answer in 24 hours this must be pretty important to you, we can do that but we want 20% more, or do you think they said '' yes sir, be right back sir, straight away sir.

Whether its a good deal or not, we will never know as it appears there was no process of negotiation, just an ultimatum - which just doesn't happen if you're going to get a good deal.

If in 2 years time the deal was less everyone would be moaning saying we should have accepted this deal. We'll see how many subscribers BT have at the end of the first year when broadband customers stop getting it for nothing. I certainly wont be subscribing, I don't watch it now. Far better sticking with sky for now and 200 million is a great deal. If BT prove everyone wrong and are still around in 2021, then that's the time to negotiate a super deal.

BTW ITV digital went tits up because although it was in nearly every house in the country very few people were actually paying for it. Im sure if they were they were in the minority

Ever thought that sky gave them a 24hr take it or leave it deal?

Let's get this straight
Sky made rfl an offer
Rfl take it to SL clubs
SL clubs vote in favour of offer
IL voted in favour of offer

Exactly how are the rfl to blame for anything other than giving SL clubs a choice to accept or not?

IL is a tool.

Apparently the deal for the domestic leagues is worth £163m or thereabouts, with SL clubs getting £1.825m each per season.

Championship clubs will receive payments on a sliding scale based on league position - the 2 SL clubs relegated this year will receive £788k each in 2015, while the top 2 in this year's Championship will receive £550k and £500k respectively in 2015. The rest will receive between £150k and £200k depending on league position. Championship 1 clubs will get £75k each.

The contract also includes £20m for the exclusive rights to the Challenge Cup and all England internationals during the 5 year period, this money to be retained by the RFL.

Finally, there is £17m ring-fenced purely for funding the SL club academies and Sky will pay this in annual installments to each club's Charitable Foundation.

isnt the 2017 WC already owned by the BBC.

If we have given up FTA and restructured our league for this amount, its not looking as promising as it was.

Edit: didn't read.

Pardon? Sky have exclusive rights to the Challenge Cup from 2017 to 2021? If so, that's the final nail in the coffin for that event. They will destroy it.

On the topic of internationals, is that from 2018 onwards? Reason I ask is that the BBC hold international (including England) TV rights right up until the next RLWC in 2017.