in terms of television coverage it would be good to see the tv packages split just like premiership football - whether that be two or three packages (1 game each per SL round) is arguable but it should be no more than that

i would enjoy a Sunday night game preceded by a highlights package of the other six games, particularly on free to air television

exposure to a larger audience should be balanced against income, increased sponsor revenue would surely result from a regular slot on FTA

unfortunately the international game seems to be thrown in with TV deals rather than negotiated separately - the world cup should be on free to air though, i hope that is sorted out as having the world cup on sky would be a disaster

No more teams. The number of players that club produce needs to increase the quality of conditioning/coaching and players needs to improve quite considerably before we even think about adding more teams.

Increase the amount each club receives. Clubs need as much cash as possible.

The new TV deal and sponsors should tell us all where we stand as a sport.

actually, if the RFL can get an increase in funding then I think they should keep it from the SL clubs and use it for central funding, for the good of the game at all levels

All I can guarantee,is that whatever is negotiated,the ill informed on here will shout and complain that its an utter disgrace and that they could have negotiated twice the amout,this dispite the fact that the RFL employ the leading media agency.The comments on here and other sites are truely ludicrous - and I look at the BARB figures every week,not just for the occassional 'big' game.

Raising the salary cap to keep British talent from going to Australia is a blunt tool anyway.

Is James Graham going to Canterbury for a bigger pay cheque or his he going out there because Bondi Beach is a little bit more glamorous than Billinge Lump?

Aside from the opportunity to challenge themselves in what is a very short career, Australia offers young people the lifestyle that the north of England doesn't - raising the salary cap doesn't address that.

Let's dispell a myth - Wigan do no shout moan and scream for salary cap increases.

Our chairmen has consistently asked for 'cost of living '(@3%) rises to the cap since he took up his tenure, he is anti raising the cap (with a passion!) - and so am I, against the current income profile within the sport.

However, having said all of that the point of this debate is that the cap does need to increase, because if it doesnt the quality of our product will decrease (we will eventually become a part time sport) - we cannnot be led by the weakest in the comp, we need to raise the high jump bar not let the game decline.

So...we need to find a way to enable a rise in the cap and this can only be achieved on the back of significant increases in revenue - a key source of which is the TV deal.

Hence we need the RFL to get a substancial increase, if it doesn't the future of RL in this country will be put at serious risk.

I take Speccy's point re the BARB stats - and this will hamper the negotiations no doubt. However it is the RFL's job to come up with compelling reasons for an increase or look for innovative solutions (like splitting the coverage across multiple suppliers).

In the current climate it'd be a success if they manage to get a deal which maintains the current level of revenue. Given that the Football League recently had to accept a large (25%) cut from Sky then I don't hold out any hope of us getting an increase of any kind.

No more Championship football on the BBC - Sky have hoovered those rights up, and to be honest, the money they paid for 13 live games a season (10 league, 2 League Cup semis + Final) was a disgrace.

And onto our Championship, I think people need to realise how lucky we are that the league(s) are on telly anyway.

You wont be saying that next year

It's depressing enough most of the time watching Wakey without inflicting it on the world!

Its when you are travelling up to Whithaven for a 7.30 kick off on a thursday after playing the previous sunday you'll not be happy

If the TV deal is improved so the clubs are receving more money, then we could talk about raising the Salary cap. Not until then.

It would be a massive failure on our part if we failed to negotiate a well improved deal. Sky have invested a lot in us in the past to create one of their more popular products. They're not going to want to that away by paying under the odds for their (allegedly) 2nd most popular product and watching the decent portion of our player pool dissapear down under.

there are some people on this thread living in cloud cuckoo land, if we manage 90% of the current deal then we've done well.

What's your reasoning behind that opinion?

You, sir, are quite the haggler!

Unfortunately,just because someone alleges that a sport is the second most popular,doesn't make it true.Club RL compares favourably with Club RU,unfortunately it doesn't compare favourably with International RU.Nor does it compare favourably with cricket,or indeed darts.People need accurate facts to support their demand that RL must achieve a substantial increase.In the present climate,a modest increase would be a good achievment.People need to start living in the real world,not their own fantasy land.

Hasnt Lewis already said that ESPN are involved though and want to take some games?

If that is the case they are going to know what SKY paid 3 years ago and are going to know what sort of money that they will have to put up if they are indeed interested.

Try horse racing and channel 4

[url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13384857Incomes to fall back to 2004 levels[/url

Sky will have to reduce costs for advertisers, they can't do that whilst paying increased amounts for TV rights, they have paid less for football recently, and I expect they will pay less for RL.

Sky will repurchase the rights for SL. They will pay a bit more for it. They will do this for three reasons. Firstly they need to pay roughly what they are paying now, for the product they are paying for to be of the quality it is. Sky dont want lower quality RL because fewer people will watch it. Fewer people watch it, fewer people pay for sky, less money is made from advertisers.

Sky cutting 25% of the cost of RL would likely cut the rights value by about £5m a year. A miniscule sum to Sky, a good amount to RL. It simply doesnt make sense for them to damage their product to save such a miniscule amount.

Secondly, ESPN are rumoured to be bidding, which should force the price up.

Thirdly, RL benefits from its reasonably small size at the moment. We dont have massive long term contracts and debts hanging over us. That gives us a huge amount more flexibility to, if we need to, take a lower amount and go to terrestrial television. Sky pay a heavy premium for exclusivity and the lower visibility they give. If they stop giving us that premium, then we dont need to stay with them. Remembering the premium they pay us, is a fair amount to us, but a miniscule amount to them.

Sky will pay the minimum they think they can get away with paying to get what they want.

They're a business, it's not up to them to run the clubs or worry about how the product might change if the clubs lose part of their current funding.

Given the likely lack of competition in the bidding process, there's no reason to suggest they will offer any more for the product than they are currently paying.

If RL starts losing players because it can't afford to pay them, where are they going to go? Domestic rugby union. Who has the main rights to domestic rugby union games? The net effect on the quality of the two products to Sky? Minimal.

Anyone got the demographic breakdown of the viewing figures for Super League?

Would suspect that the value of the TV deal reflects the fact that most SL viewers are working class Northerners who will have less disposable income and will be less inclined to purchase luxury brands. This makes it harder for SKY to sell expensive advertising to fund the television rights.

Contrast this with cricket and RU which probably have a wealthier viewing public ...

Value of the TV deal will not significantly increase until we get better viewing figures amongst the demographics advertisers are interested in (ie. Southerners).

'interested' and 'rumoured' go into the same box as 'alleged'.

Clearly,ESPN will be interested and rumoured to be interested in RL,but that is far from knowing that they would come anywhere close to actually bidding,never mind out bidding Sky for the rights.Incidentally,if they were to do so,wait for the complaints from 'supporters',when they find out that Warrington v Hull is scheduled for 6.00pm on a thurs evening.Sky actively schedule against ESPN,meaning that ESPN have to counter by scheduling at inconvenient times,to 'beat' Sky.
One area where the RFL may be able to get an improvement in terms,is for the thurs evening Championship game,which now regularly gets around 60,000 viewers on Sky Sports 4.

Sky will pay as much as they think they can get away with without damaging the product, what I was saying was that 'as little as they can get away with' is higher for sky (and higher again for ESPN) because of the lower visibility of their platforms. Sky have to pay more than ITV or the BBC because if they both offered the same, ITV/BBC can offer high visibility.

Also, they do 'worry' about how the product might change if the clubs lose part of their income. If it damages the product then the value of what they are paying for changes.

Or the NRL, or sport as a whole. It benefits Sky for the quality of RL to be as high as possible.

Sky dont simply pay the minimum they can get away with. They pay an amount they believe to be congruent with the quality of the product they want to offer. Paying a minimal amount could damage the product they (sky) then sell, which in turn affects the amount they make from selling that product on.

Its like a Chef will pay a premium to buy top quality ingredients. He will get them for as little as he can, but he isnt going to damage his end product by scrimping on what he is prepared to pay for his tomatoes.

Hopefully , as at the moment SKY dont pay anything for this coverage , the club owners need to decide if they want it to continue