Not an assertion just believe that is what they think they are.

He's meaning the Hetherington connection!
Not sure how that fits in with the thread though!

I think I am too thick to be on here with all the intellectuals.

So Turkeys do vote for Christmas sometimes....

I have the full Sky package because of RL. I cannot be alone in that. If they took RL from it, I doubt I would keep Sports on, even though it is only a few quid add-on from the Movies. I would probably get a basic package, and rely on Netflix and Premier Sports for my needs.

I'm sure I am not unique in that.

And of course there is the advertising revenue generated through premium slots for a sport that continually produces healthy figures for Sky,

The same with football, the bond is one of mutual dependency (albeit not nearly as crucial for Sky as it is for RL)

I tried explaining that but not nearly to that standard - my waffling usually flirts with a relevant point, but I am aware that it's win-win for sky and RL

I'm in exactly the same position re Sky subscription.

As for Sky's revenue off the back of RL - in addition to the subscribers drawn in by RL, I believe that SL is the second most watched team sport on Sky after wendyball, so they're doing alright out of TGG.

I cancelled my SKY Sports/Movies subscription last year and went with Premier instead. Much better value.
Only things I tend to miss are big events such as The Masters Golf or decent boxing matches (most are PPV anyway), I can take/leave football. 8 NRL games a week are more than enough for me.

Watching SL, with Eddie & Stevo's monotonous clichés and commentary that treats everyone like they are thick, is just second-rate when compared to the NRL coverage, so I barely miss it.

I would imagine many people that subscribe to SKY sports mainly for RL may feel the same if they could save £30 a month.

true enough, you know when you've got Andrew Johns and Darren Lockyer doing the analysis that you've not got a bad line up