www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/fe ... ast-rights

www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/fe ... ast-rights

can only be good for the game. I would love to see a terrestrial company have a highlights package as its what we lack in the scheme of things nationally. Even if its ITV2 , 3 or 4.

I see ESPN advertising on SS are they totally independent of Sky ? (Before anyone says I do fully understand the revenue that is created by advertising for commercial TV)

It looks like the game is likely to get extra revenue, which I hope is not peed up the wall as is often the case at the moment. Could that also raise the prospect of an additional team as opposed to losing one for another?

i would like to see espn get it, save me some a lot of money on sky

love the ice hockey on there to so win win situation for me.

would miss the darts though

I think the game would slowly die without sky

As I have put on the VT. The ideal situation is ESPN show enough interest for SKY to panic and up their offer.

moving to ESPN isn't right for the game at the moment though IMO. SKY completely ignore any sport they don't cover, and cutting the game off from the coverage on SKY News and Sports News would be a disaster. You would end up with the loyal RL fans watching on ESPN, but no casual fans being attracted to the sport.

why would it?

espn are a global international company

must be good for the game having other broadcasters interested.get a bidding war going,more money for the game.

Would do the game no good IMO. Sky obviously have set packages and I'd say most customers just pick a set and say "yeah I'll have the sports" but they don't want to pay the extra for ESPN and little add on challenges. Also with RL being a minority sports as far as broadcasters are concerned, ESPN wouldn't be likely to rush into thousands of pounds of advertising to lure the usual Sky Sports viewers into extra expenditure. As mentioned above aswell - the casual sports package owners will no longer tune in, lowering viewing figures, lowering sponsorship and advertising, lowering interest altogether as far as TV coverage is concerned.

or you could just cancel your sky sports subscription package and pay for espn coverage at the cheaper price

And you could also remember there are FAR more sports than this one which I am inclined to watch..

Viewing figures would collapse and I wonder if ESPN would be as happy as Sky are to offer the BBC secondary rights.

They would indeed. ESPN's football viewing figures are lower than Sky Sports',BBC's and ITV's on a VERY regular basis, and (not that I like to compare the two) this sport is worlds apart on following numbers. Should ESPN win a bidding war, I think they'll bitterly regret a) paying more than Sky, b) having less than half the viewers and c) losing money in the process as it becomes an unpopular slot for advertisers.

As it happens I am a big fan of a variety of sports. With Sky being large bidders and popular with viewers it suits my needs. I'd rather stick to visiting the KC and sacrifice watching other matches (apart from on the odd weekend pub excursion) and keep watching a multitude of sport with sound coverage than regret paying to watch ESPN slowly ruin what Sky has worked so hard to bring more to the front. I've even seen SL being advertised regularly on a variety of Sky's channels, bringing attention. I doubt ESPN would do the RFL and SL the same favour.

Any news of NRL coverage this season ??

Thoroughly enjoyed the free games end of last season.

Personally HATE paying Sky fees for tons of football which leave me cold.

All rugby on ESPN would get my hard earned every time.