Good God, are there still people in charge of our clubs who think TV coverage is a bad thing because it might deter a few dozen punters, rather than a great opportunity to attract more sponsorship and supporters in the future?

I'm struggling to imagine any other sport in which TV coverage would be seen as unwelcome!

Shhh please! If SKY hear you they may think it's fine to televise SL games for free, because we would be content with the exposure!

On this subject I am trying to find out exactly what sky are showing as I understand Premier are not showing NRL next year. I don't like sky but it may be my only option. Has anyone on here got any news please?

Yeah, the last time Premier showed Championship games the clubs really coined it in..........

The only people who will watch the game on PS are already RL fans and most Championship Clubs' sponsors will be really looking to open a new market in Canada won't they?

As Alan says it could be the future path to riches for SL too! Remember the hugely successful free exposure through the Stobart deal?

Can you imagine Championship soccer clubs not getting to vote on any TV deals let alone notr being told one had been agreed

And after the world cup shambles and the loss of the NRL deal I'd be surprised at all if there is anyone within RL circles now still subscribing to Premier Sports.

I phoned up to cancel and they halved my payments, so I get the Toronto games for like £1something per game, which I'm OK with.

The issue is the fact the rest of the championship are not getting a penny for it. Why should PS be allowed to rock up at the shay, leigh sports village, post office road and show torronto v Fax, leigh , F*V without paying a premium when this is likely to affect ticket sales.

Why are premier allowed to show Toronto and not the rest of the championship. Sky bought the rights for the championship so why are Torronto allowed to sell there rights to PS. The chmpioship rules are there all clubs should stick by them

Another way of putting it is why would a TV company be prepared to pay for Toronto's games, but aren't interested in paying for other clubs' games?

Or, to be more controversial, why should clubs which have no attraction to TV companies get to block, or sponge off, a deal made with a club which does?

There are some lessons in this, but I think some club chairmen don't want to hear those lessons.

Will it have much effect? Not sure too many fans are going to subscribe to PS if their portfolio consists only of TW games.

How many Championship clubs raised these sorts of objections to their fixtures against Crusaders being broadcast on S4C?

It is a good illustration of the "damned if you do..." aphorism, as RFL are crticised (rightly IMHO) for a TV deal giving the rights to broadcast the Championship to a company that does not intend to broadcast it; yet if they Do manage to get someone to broadcast Championship games, others complain about that.

I don't understand the "hit ticket sales" objection. Talk about glass half empty. If the commercial at the club can't make some money out of advertising at a televised fixture then they should all be sacked.

And if televising killed the numbers attending, what happened at the darts, which was broaqdcast wall to wall, yet is always packed out?

The answer is of course that it's NOT the televising, it's how the game is marketed. Darts have the great advantage of being the current home of the Hearns. If only they would switch to RL as their next interest.