Looks like it's dead. Batley, Bradford, Dewsbury, Featherstone, Wakefield and Widnes listed as being against it.

A saw a quote somewhere with a ludicrously low amount being offered to clubs. So silly I won't give it any further milage.

I have heard that Kate has been abducted by aliens though.

Wollo is quite correct though, ludicrously low amount if the reported figures are correct.

Any amount over 400k is split to champ clubs on a 20% split.

It's second tier sport, and TV companies are hardly lining up to broadcast the games, the figures a low because that's the value of them.

Effectively the deal would give each club £400 (that's 4 hundred pounds ) per game, which is an absolute sham

Its a very low amount but lets face it, it isn't worth any more than that. I think clubs would be better off without it because I think clubs would lose out on Ticket income which is everyone's main source of income at this level.

It's not just ticket income either, it's money spent once inside the ground as well.
If figures being bandied about are correct, it would only need around 20 fans who would go to a match, to stay at home and watch on TV, and the club would lose out.

I don't understand why any club would accept a deal like this when IMG points are offered for increasing engagement on social media and YouTube. Why give away all those clicks for a few hundred quid?

I remember years ago when Match of The Day weren't allowed to say which matches were going to be featured until 3 pm on Saturday due to worries about it affecting attendances.

I'm not sure how many Bradford fans were at BV on Friday night, but it was a good number. How many of them, and Wakey fans too, would have looked at the weather forecast (rain) and thought...'Nah, I'll get a few tins and a takeaway and watch it on Telly'. I'm not sure we would have had a full house if it had been broadcast live.

Yep and obviously Saturday blackout is still a thing, it's against the law to broadcast an English club football game between certain hours on a Saturday and that was always to protect attendances for clubs.

I get the point of attendances but I'm not sure I get this point tbh, surely the more exposure to a wider audience for clubs would only increase click rate / followers etc on social media ? I don't think it stops anyone going and watching videos on the YT, If anything it likely increases. Then there is all of the hidden benefit of increased sponsorship revenue into the club based on X televised games a year.

I suspect that growing YouTube and other social media interactions will be more attractive to advertisers than exposure on a little known TV channel. It would be interesting to know if there's any actual data to back this up or disprove it...e.g early challenge cup rounds on BBC Red Button v. those on Our League.

The point is that club want fans interacting with its own social media channels, reacting to its own clips and pushing through to its own YT. All those metrics have value for both IMG and for attracting future sponsors. If it was on Terrestrial TV or a dedicated show on Sky to compliment other coverage its different, but a small TV channel with low viewing figures and little cut trough offers little if any benefit. The value of Championship TV rights are more or less cancelled out by the cost of production. To the bigger clubs, who already have media teams it makes complete sense to utilise its own media assets.