I think the main thing we need answering is what happened to the Myler money??

surely thats conjecture ? the figures must be based on "live dishes" so pubs clubs and living rooms all over the country/world will just be one dish = one vote, not to mention the millions who don't have sky.

The may bit saves you somewhat

League Express debated TV audience figures after Christmas. The RU Premiership final got a similar figure, whereas the England vs. Argentina friendly at Old Trafford got over 700,000.

I know we're digressing here, but the issue they were raising was more to do with the audience profile. Advertisers, in sport ad breaks, generally target males between say 18-40 in social classes A, B and C1 ('middle classes'). League Express quoted figures (I can't remember where from) that showed the percentage of those in that target audience, watching rugby league on Sky, was very low; considerably lower than those watching rugby union.

That's probably more of a concern vis-a-vis future Sky contract renewals than the actual viewing figures. I think Vic Wakeling, when he was the gaffer at Sky Sports, always said they didn't insist the RFL make Super League more cosmopolitan; they weren't arsed; but I bet it's the reason why the RFL feels it needs Harlequins and needs to expand - preferably to slightly more affluent areas.

A interesting point to note is that this source LE used claimed the female audience for rugby league is one of the highest for any televised sport - abnormally high.

My figures were based on what a another poster had posted on a previous thread, he quoted the City match.

I wonder what the demograph of live darts is then, is that pulling in the middle classes to appease the advertisers?

Oh, and I realise that the thread's gone somewhent off topic, but obviously the answer to the original post is "players' & coaches' pockets" and that's where that debate ends.

You'd guess it would be similar to rugby league; however it does appeal to cockneys. Again, I can't remember what LE's source was.