So does that mean that the RFL did not press gang the clubs into a vote. But actually the clubs voted (decided) to vote on it.

Again all this lets throw it at the RFL's door, does miss the elephant in the room that the RFL can't force anything through. The clubs have the say.

God knows how some of these would cope in a true franchise like the NFL, where there is far more central control

Virtual Tourettes?

They voted to vote on it, then voted to accept it...including Koukash and Lenighan!

Then they bleat!

Incorrect.

Dr Koukash's argument (and that of Ian Lenagan, it seems) is that the clubs were only given 24 hours to consider the deal, so to that extent I would argue that there [iwas[/i an element of 'press-ganging' going on. If the clubs had voted not to vote (just...[ibizarre[/i - I wonder if they've ever voted about voting about voting), what would have been left? So, if not 'press-ganging', there seems to have been an element of 'gun to the head' at least.


Dr Koukash voted against the deal.

No, you misunderstand.

It's a democratic process....they had their vote...and the decision was to accept.

Lenighan voted FOR the deal.

They all had the option to vote against it

Twice

Wibble.

I know Lenagan voted for it. That's why I specifically said [iDr Koukash[/i voted against it. And having voted against it, he's gone on to give his reasons. Quite forcefully.

I can't see what's wrong with that.

There's a difference between giving his reasons for voting against it and calling the rfl incompetent for the deal (paraphrase) - has he actually sat down and logically spoke through his concerns and problems with the deal? Or is it the mishmash of thoughts that seem borderline maniac including everything from the England coach to the first time he had sex? He seems to think the game has far higher value than this deal, where as I think we all know, under whatever circumstances they've come under, on the face of it, 40million a year is the best deal we've done in a long time.

As has been shown, it was the clubs, not the rfl who voted for this deal, and unless koukash thinks he's bigger than the rest of the league out together, he should accept a democratic ruling with a bit more grace imo. Him and lenaghan have gone on a smear campaign against this deal, which was even pretty unanimously agreed even on here for a while before they started. (Though in koukashs defence I think it's for very different reasons)

I'm loving the way the good Doctor is evolving, it wasn't that long ago he was being called Dr. Nocash.

We have a winner.

In reality, a lot of what he says makes sense; I'm not keen on his scattergun ramblings though and his references to women and sex just sound a bit misogynistic and low rent.

He's clearly a top character and just the sort we want speaking upon behalf of rugby league , lol.

He is a betting man, wonder what the odds are if he will even be involved in RL by the time this deal kicks in?

If it's the offer of SKY or let's say nothing else by the RFL and the offer given by SKY was on the table for a short space of time then it seems clear to me that the vote was all but a formailty.
So the 'gun to the head' quote by an earlier poster is bang on the money, Koukash could vote no because he knew that the reality was it made not a jot of difference to the outcome.
The RFL have seen to that, basically it was we've done a deal with SKY, vote for it or else. At least we can now get rid of all the people involved in this and the marketing team that has sold out RL for pennies and maybe get someone whom knows what they are doing.. unlikely.com

No he isn't, however I'll have you a £100 wager on that.

Bleedin' heck, this place is priceless at times. Absolutely priceless.

I wasn't at the press conference so can't give you the full lowdown on his concerns. From the snippets I've heard, one of them is that the clubs appear to have been presented with a [ifait accompli[/i and given no time to consider the deal or to see what else is out there, so to sign yourselves up for such a long deal on such a dodgy premise is risky, to say the least. And I agree. Although the deal looks all sparkly now, with inflation it looks considerably less sparkly in eight years time. In fact, unless the deal is index linked, it looks quite shabby in eight years time. Was that considered? I don't know.

Now I - nor, I suspect, you - know the full details of the deal, but Dr Koukash has been willing to go out there and express his concerns, and by doing so has started a conversation that needs to be had. Is this really the best deal the sport could have got? Why was it so rushed? Is it index linked? Just because the clubs voted for it - albeit in somewhat debateable circumstances - that doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about it does it? And it's a conversation that extends to a more general one about the way the sport conducts itself, which he has expressed concerns about in the past.

And yes, he does express himself forcefully, but I'd rather have someone who speaks their mind - whether I agree with that person or not - than some mealy-mouthed club official (or politician) sound-biting his/her way to a non-answer.

Anyhoo, it appears he's on the Rugby League programme on Radio Manchester tonight, so you may get the answers you seek there. Providing he can get a word in past Jacko, that is.

Fair, your right, the question will always need to be raised. In fact I hope all of the chairmen at all of the clubs would have raised all those questions before committing to it. There is ultimately going to be I agree with my chairman (McManus) and your going to agree with yours in koukash. For me, first off this is a 5 year not an 8 year deal, and because of it we have an increase for the remaining 3 years of the current deal which we otherwise wouldn't of had, so automatically the clubs are better off. It may of been a bribe or it may of been a demand from the rfl, a "well do a deal now but you have to make our current one better too". As you say we, and likely the chairmen, will never be privvy to the negotiation process and the previous iterations of the deals the rfl said no to automatically.

Whilst I can't tell you the terms of the deal, I can tell you 10year forecasts for inflation, the Bank of England are good like that, and whichever way you look at it, it looks better than any other deal we've done, with perhaps the exception of the very first one. With all the complicating factors of the time of it, and all the people who say "what if this ... " it's easy to forget that, but sky will of probably said they wouldn't match this offer if it reached tender, bt sport is still a big question mark over it (however much people want to paint it out to be a rival for sky it take 5-10 years before I'll be convinced it's here to stay) - so we should accept less of an offer just to see what else there is? We've done that enough in the past!

In the scheme of rugby league this is a fantastic deal, you can widen the picture and bring other factors in, and it's harder to see whether it's a fantastic deal in the overall grand scheme of things (only time will tell with that one) - and it's better than not having a tv deal!

The other problem is that what would Sky's reaction have been if we have moved to BT with 3 years left od the current deal.
Would they have possibly pulled a similar thing that that premier have done. That being have the rights but decided not to show (Or made the production of showing pee poor) in a show of spite?

I'm comfortable with the deal; for a sport that's often said to be dying, this much financial stability for this many years can only be a good thing.

Now it's up to the clubs and the governing body to maximise their revenue streams from other sources - something which the majority of clubs, my own included, have not done throughout the SL years.

I just wish people would target there guns better.

If you don't like the deal then have a go at the clubs who voted yes.

I can respect Koukash as he voted no, but he too has aimed his sights at the wrong target. He should be berating his fellow chairmen for being short sighted and for not wanting to risk refusing the deal.

In the end it's a deal between SL and SKY. The RFL had no vote on this one.

If he wants to batter the RFL, then the comment about the England coach, or the international set up, or the sponsorship deal is a far better and more accurate stick to use.

Good thread this

Both your post and mine written before the season commenced.
I was optimistic and wrong.

you are [uNOT[/u Marwan and I claim my fiver!