SKY : Tue Jan 03, 2012 5:36 pm  

How much longer do people on here believe that SKY will keep airing Rugby League?

I know SKY have signed a 5 year contract to show SL games, but with more people buying Freeview boxes and other broadcasters airing sport plus the recession, it can only be a matter of time before SKY start feeling the pinch.

Do you think SKY will stick with Rugby League or do you think they will pull the plug at some time and stick with Union. I can see a lot of SL clubs going bust if they ever did pull the plug.

Re: SKY : Tue Jan 03, 2012 5:40 pm  

Think the Aviva Premiership will be the go before league does. ESPN already own a chunk of it, so SKY might just cut their losses with that and stick with the Heineken Cup. Think SL is more than safe ast SKY, our new contarct more or less stayed the same, while the football leagues went down £26million.

Re: SKY : Tue Jan 03, 2012 5:45 pm  

We probably offer sky the best value for money. They pay a lot less than they do for other sports and yet still get terrific viewing figures.

Re: SKY : Tue Jan 03, 2012 5:48 pm  

I personally think that SKY will force the issue at some stage and have a unified competition. The top Union and top League clubs in a hybrid game. It's happening now with Saracens and Wigan linking up. Our top players are going to Union (or the NRL)It may be 10 years down the line but I think it will happen.

Re: SKY : Tue Jan 03, 2012 6:31 pm  

WYSIWYG wrote:

I personally think that SKY will force the issue at some stage and have a unified competition. The top Union and top League clubs in a hybrid game. It's happening now with Saracens and Wigan linking up. Our top players are going to Union (or the NRL)It may be 10 years down the line but I think it will happen.

Absolute rubbish. Sky must love RL - the ratings it gets compared to the ££ spent is outstanding. There is also a good argument that having RL is a good incremental earner as opposed to some things which they buy which pad out the overall portfolio, RL fans are fairly dogged and quite a healthy proportion would

As for a unified competition: you, as with all the people who come up with this, don't give any clarity on the process - it's all "in the next ten years" or "five years from now". Why would the RFL be interested? Why would RL club chairmen be interested? The people in charge at both levels are almost uniformally RL fans, who are involved in our sport because it is their sport too, not in it for the money to be made - if they wanted the so-called riches of RU they could be involved in that already.

Moreover what is really in it for Sky and how would they execute this? They may pay a lot of cash to RL and RU for broadcast rights but their influence, such as it was, failed when it came to merging clubs, never mind merging the domestic UK competitions. And, since this would apply only to the UK as the NRL in Australia is never going to be party to such a thing what would the point be?

This "RL will be gone in 10 years" stuff does my head in; not just because it's defeatist, but because it's stupid - and it never actually happens because there is no will for it amongst RL fans who would to all intents and purposes be the surrendering party.

Re: SKY : Tue Jan 03, 2012 6:47 pm  

Sky are nowhere near feeling the pinch, it is a cash cow and makes an absolute fortune. RL is part of that, and will continue to be so.

Hybrid game doesnt make sense right now, and wont for the foreseeable future.

The only time we would see any kind of move towards a combined league is if Union drop 2 men, at that point it will happen because they would be too similar to bother with 2 games, but until that point there is a clear enough distinction. I wouldnt say that will never happen, Union seem to be going around in ever-decreasing circles looking for alternatives to simply admitting they have 4 too many players on the field but we are at least 15-20 years before that process becomes a realistic possibility, never mind actual reality.

Re: SKY : Tue Jan 03, 2012 7:06 pm  

Sky keep turning over massive profits. i have my phone line, broadband, full hd sky package and pay approx £80 a month. i like there products but its all based round there rl coverage.
i they pull the super league i will go elsewhere, straight away.

Re: SKY : Tue Jan 03, 2012 7:27 pm  

I'm sure Sky are more than happy with union filling the schedule on winter weekends, and League doing the same in the summer. No hybrid game nonsense.

The point made about the Football League is a very important one. At the moment, there is no deal in place for terrestrial highlights, and not likely to be one unless the terms change (whoever gets the rights has to record every game, but Sky can show the goals before they do) both codes of rugby, in poor timeslots admittedly, will have that and the lower levels of football will not.

Re: SKY : Tue Jan 03, 2012 8:08 pm  

Sky need summer programmes, hence Masters Football, Speedway, etc. Does ANYONE watch Pro-40 cricket?

Re: SKY : Tue Jan 03, 2012 9:24 pm  

Didn't I read somewhere that RL is the second most watched sport on Sky? Can't see them killing that particular golden goose, given that they bought it for a song, in relative terms.