I'd agree that the sport has let the tail wag the dog for too long, but I see that as a very seperate issue. Someone like Michael Carter or Neil Hudgell will never have the level of vision or ambition for this sport as a Lenaghan, Moran or McMannus. They are on board with this idea for no other reason than self-preservation, not growth.

Of course, all we have at the moment on this announcement is a very clumsy press announcement and disparate interviews with the main protagonists in League Express. It's hard to know exactly what the medium-long term direction of travel is, but IL is already talking about the value of new TV deals. He seems (from his public statements at least) to be of the opinion that we'll get a better TV deal simply by "negotiating harder" or "playing hard ball". Sorry, but I think it's a bit more nuanced that that. Sky know exactly what RL is worth and, if they're going to be asked to pay more, we probably need to add something extra in return. I don't think that this proposal is that something extra.

Wasnt the last sky deal signed far earlier because Sky caught everyone in RL on the backfoot with a now or not at all. The reality is Sky knew exactly how much it takes to make the RFL administration cave - which is likely a totally different number to its true worth, as no other broadcasters had opportunity to compete in an open market for the rights. The pessimist would say that there isnt competitors for Sky, but suspect part of Elstone and Lenaghans plan will be along the lines of find more than one buyer and pit them against each other. How successful it becomes is another matter, as didnt we try that before and ended up crawling back to sky last minute on a much reduced deal?

IIRC, Sky approached the RFL with an improved offer ahead of their annual stock exchange statement, having lost rights to other sporting events (I can't remember exactly). Whatever you think of this deal, let's not forget that the clubs voted in favour of this. IL can decry a "noisy opponent" to democracy all he wants, but he was hardly quiet on his views of that democratic process at the time.

But look at the situation objectively and we're probably not in the strong postion that people feel we are. The value of advertising slots around RL content is also lower than other sports for reasons I've suggested and I can't imagine that, proportionately at least, that many subscriptions rely on Super League. Yes, we offer Sky some value, but they're not going to throw more money at us simply because IL, Moran and McMannus are stamping their feet.

For one example, we're one of the only professional sports that actively dillutes its own TV audience by hosting fixtures that compete with our TV fixtures (there are games at Hull, Hull KR and Warrington competing with tonight's televised game at St Helens). If I were Sky, the first thing I would be insisting on is fixture exclusivity on Thurs and Friday nights - and that is something that Lenaghan of all people cannot deliver under Wigan's current arrangement at the DW.

Can't disagree with much of that. Maybe the only thing worth adding is that I would hope this is just the opening salvo in setting the platform for addressing some of the issues you raise. That simply can't be done under the present set up. As you say we've very much let the 'tail wagging the dog' situation run on for too long and you have to worry that, even acting now, we could already be in a position where we've let our chief competitors get too far ahead. I hope not.

Whether the latest initiative is the correct one or not is almost impossible to say as there are simply too many variables. What I am confident in saying though is the current path is definitely not. That's not opinion. That's borne out by the decline of the game over the last decade or so. Personally, I'm disappointed in Hetherington. Leeds should be at the forefront of moving the game forward. His "Aw, that's not fair!" mantra, whilst laudable on the face of it, is exactly what's been wrong with the game for decades and is the very thing that is preventing us competing on a level playing field. Well, maybe not level but as close as we'll ever get to one at least!

I genuinely hope Leeds get on board. It's going to happen sooner or later anyway. Much better sooner and much better with Leeds on board.

Two sides didn’t field full teams the week before the Toronto vs Barrow fixture in games played in this country so that argument doesn’t stack up.

It’s simple economics, there isn’t enough money to go round the amount of teams in our leagues above the amateur level. Nobody is asking them to fold, for their fans to go and just start supporting other clubs but the reality is that unless they can finance being full time professional or semi professional then the amateur ranks may be the best place for them until a time they can finance a move in to the paid leagues.

There a top tier in Australia sharing a mamouth tv deal between 16 clubs whilst we spread our pittance (in comparison) around 38 clubs! Yes the percentages aren’t huge the lower down the ranks you are but it’s making it tougher and tougher for our top sides to compete.

Don't deny the clubs voted for it, however I think Lenaghans point was that they all voted for it because the RFL were caught completely flat footed, and Sky ran circles around them. Precisely because Sky had just lost rights, they should of been vulnerable, and if the RFL were a step ahead, they could have had offers from the other parties that Sky just lost to already lined up before Sky phoned. Which means Sky couldnt use the now or never and the clubs could have voted without Jeopardy. Elstones job is precisely to stop the clubs being caught flat footed again. Even Turkeys can vote for Christmas when the alternate is worse.

I don't disagree that we as a sport are in a tough spot, others have already said were generally a Type D demographic and that struggles for revenue. Precisely because of that though, the new forms of television, the subscription based one (Netflix, amazon, apple etc) should be the Rugby Leagues best friend. Amazon have proven their desire buying one of the Football packages, which is an absolute loss maker for them - we should have been putting ourselves forwards as guniea pigs for these companies two contracts ago imo. Then the value of advertising matters little. Value is in the strength of the perceived market, not the product itself.

This is partially mitigated in other sports by the sheer quantity available (if you look hard enough you can always find a football match to watch). It would be interesting to see what would happen if all games were available to stream on one of the above platforms and remained on demand for a week following - I know I would probably end up watching most. Retention value in sport has always been one of the biggest blockers for streaming services getting involved. Were a low risk way of optimising the model.

All of this is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things - but there are fairly simple ways that the sport can strengthen itself, so even if Elstone is making it sound "negotiate harder" there will be plans and ideas underlying it.

In terms of the TV deal, as a sport that desperately needs to grow its audience, my view is we need to move away from an 'exclusive' deal with any subscription based orgsnisation and insist on an element of terrestrial free to air coverage. A mix of 2 games on sky and 1 on FTA each week would be ideal.
This will no doubt reduce the value of our TV deal in the short term, but the national coverage that FTA could generate would IMO have a huge impact on the long term value. There is very little live sport on terrestrial nowadays - we'd certainly get the casual sports viewers, the trick then is drawing them in as more than just casual.
What is for sure is that if we started attracting large FTA audiences, the follow up deal would be worth significantly more.

If you accept cutting the tv revenue, then you will in turn cut the quality of the product further, hence making it not worthy of terrestrial viewing. Whilst I don’t disagree with the sentiment of your suggestion, the quality on offer needs improving massively first, or the opportunity will have been lost.

It may be baying for blood but I can't wait to see Hetherington's dramatic u-turn if Leeds end up in the m8s and have this ongoing injury crisis.

FWIW I can't believe how dire Leeds look right now. And don't get comfy if you end up in the m8s. We walked it undefeated in the first ever m8s. On paper we had a stronger team the following year but injuries (and the Kelly issue) conspired against us when we got relegated.

No need to worry though, if you do end up like that, as I stated, Hetherington will make a dramatic u-turn and SL will suddenly go to 14 teams as well and save you. There is no way the RFL will let their favourite team get relegated.

It seems to me that the TV rights to SL have been skillfully mismanaged by the RL authorities for years. We appear to be happy to dance to Sky's tune, contract after contract. I would love to know how much effort goes into exploring alternative options. But one thing is certain, if we don't have viable options else where, then our ability to get Sky to pay more is non existant. If that is the case, then RL will continue to go backwards. Some creativity and courage are required form those that promote and market RL, but I won't hold my breath!

Chicken and egg....

The game has no money to improve the quality.

And it would have less if we jumped to your suggestion of cutting tv revenue, and hence an unattractive product.

More BS from an inbred

Short term pain for long term again is my view. The drop off in revenue wouldn't be that dramatic, and some National FTA coverage should allow the club's to attract better sponsors to plug the gap further. The club's need to be doing much more than they are currently to earn more money on top of TV cash - they need to improve in this area, and FTA would give them a platform.

I'm no media expert, but it appears the main 2 TV deal possibilities are Sky & BT. A warning to the RFL & SL - after years of competing, which has the effect of inflating the price, Sky & BT are now being much more collaborative in order to deflate those costs. The deal we would have got 2 years ago by playing the 2 off is now likely to be much less lucrative (even assuming: 1. both are interested, 2. the product remains as attractive as it was).

you mean an opinion from someone who sees GH & the RFL for what they are?

Only if you're blind.

or not a Whino?

GH has held back RL for a decade, to keep precious Leeds as the RFL team of choice, now the wheels are off you are in free fall, embrace it.

Of course. The only club in this sport that is a success both on the field and commercially is the one that is holding the sport back. Not, for example, the three that put out SOS statements this week.

Hetherington has done more for the expansion and sustainability of Rugby League in this country than anyone I can think of. His track record of accomplishment speaks for itself.

He's keen for the RFL to remain in charge partly because he had to sort out the mess last time the SL clubs went rogue without any consideration of a game wide strategy or any interest in doing the unglamorous bits of investment and administration the governing body needs money to do.

GH was the major sponsor and supporter of Nigel Wood - no one can seriously suggest Mr Wood took the game forward in any way. In fact the game went backwards so I am unsure as to you comment about sustainability

You have little time for Leneghan - his club produce as man youngsters for his own club and the wider game as a whole. If we consider participation/quality of the player pool to be one of the biggest challenges of the sport then Wigan have/are done/doing a pretty good job.


If the game is going to get a new boss man it needs to be from outside of the sport e.g. Richard Lewis who comes without affliations and is left to get on with the job without interference from the likes of Leneghan or Hetherington. Sadly I suspect Ralf Rimmer - a failure at club level and part of the Wood mafia that failed the sport.


There are two issues for me - The game as a whole has two real challenges - how do you increase participation and how do we get more money into the game. The RFL can deal with the first challenge but the elite competition is what is going to drive the second. Both parties should be left to persue their own strategies seperately. The premier league in soccer shows what is possible financially when you seperate the elite competition from the game's governing body

so you would be happy to have say 7, profitable clubs, 4 or 5 who make the numbers up at the top level and the rest go part time or bust?
Salford, Huddersfield, Widnes and to a degree Wakefield offer nothing to the competition off the field. nothing at all

As I have said I think a 14 team SL - locked in minimum 5 years that covers all the areas the competition wants to include:

West Yorkshire - Leeds, Bradford, Castleford, Huddersfield/Halifax
Lancashire/Cheshire - St Helens, Wigan, Warrington, Leigh/Widnes
Humberside - Hull and KR
France - Catalans and Toulouse
London - Broncos
Canada - Toronto

All other clubs are linked to one of these - say Featherstone to Leeds, Wakefield to Castleford etc

Home and away once no magic weekend unless its part of a regular fixture and each seven lose a home fixture the following year the other seven do likewise

Top 5 playoff for place in GF - no hub cap - prize money based on place in table to encourage competition towards the end of the year. CC to be played for by the top 8 each year.

No other games on the day the televised matches are on if this is practical - would a Saturday afternoon be attractive to a BBC?

why should bradford be rewarded after what they've done?

I agree with most of that. Would just make the play off the top 6, not 5. Don't agree with the CC format proposed, either drop it or make it unseeded for all. And the "hub cap" should be celebrated more not less, it is an achievement that makes the previous rounds something worwhile.

I would also ensure we have a South Yorkshire representative in there, and a Cumbrian. More important IMO than London and Canada.