so you have all that kit sat doing nothing the rest of the week?

even the BBC/Sky don't actually have their own kit for everything, they hire people in, I doubt there is enough spare capacity to cover RL as well, look at the extra channels on satellite/free view, they dont have live content, they have one or two people in front of a single camera, usually playing a lot of repeated content, the advertising is peanuts too.

The danger is that the clubs would suffer through the turnstiles. Currently we charge ca £20 a match - whereas you could sit at home and watch all your teams matches for £15/month - I could see a huge drop in season passes and people just picking and choosing their games and consequently the death of Rugby League.

I thought the RFL stream live games outside the uk for around a £5

only the sky games

Adrian MorleyFinally, I believe the time has come to make sure a video referee is in operation at every Super League game. In Australia, all the games are televised but it makes sense for a big screen to be in operation over here because decisions are vital and we need this facility in operation.'"

That is my main worry about this, a lot of people get sky specifically for Rugby or Football if this was then available elsewhere a lot of subscriptions may well be dropped and it will hit the clubs in the pocket in the long run. This would then lead to clubs either charging more for matches to the public or cutting the money they pay players which would then have a detrimental effect on the product on the pitch.

It has worked fine with Sky having the monopoly so why change it.

I think people are unhappy with the cost of an un-competitive situation more than any real grupe with Sky.

Ahhh.. but could they do that legally after the ruling has been made that only SS1 & SS2 are to be made available, thus changing the goalposts (so to speak) ???

I could accept the ransom I am charged by SKY far easier if I wasn't been taken from behind by Karoo every month.

To be honest I think it would be a good idea because they'll be a lot of sports fans who won't/don't get sky(Me included) I wouldn't ever want to purchase a sky package, I'm quite happy with the channels I get through freeview.
I try to watch it round friends, at my mums or even down my (local)club which only happens when they start playing early May.

I think that sky may lose a few customers directly watching SS through them BUT they will gain an awful lot more through other mediums were they will still get a % of the fee charged.
If the fees charged to other media companies were set realistically then sky could actually increase revenue for SS in the long run.

Don't know what the outcome will be 'but haven't the Premier League and Cricket started some form of legal challenge to this ruling,as it will affect their income stream.Could see a lot of Other sports,such as ours ,onion signing up as all sponsorship will be affected somewhere down the line.

Add to those costs the use of Sky's platform. We would need to rent satellite time too and that don't come cheap.

Within the board of the RFL there are people who were involved in setting up MUTV and other channels. During previous Sky contract negotiations, the RFL seriously investigated RLTV and determined that the economic argument did not stand up to scrutiny

seen as they already show rugby league on 3&4 when schedules are full I'd suggest it's very likely. I'd imagine they'd do the same for other sports too.

Also if you were to show a live NL1 NL2 game , 3 live Super league games , 3 live NRL games, A weekly highlights package and a classic match section. They'd still be loads of the schedule to fill up.