I'm not sure anyone has disparaged Sky in the way you suggest.

I would suggest that the viewing figures I posted (that around a third of RL viewers on Sky were watching Championship games), and adding that the Championship games were routinely in the top ten programs viewed on their channel that week, shows there is an appetite for showing Championship games which is not being satisfied.

My own view is that SLE/RFL have treated clubs below Super League shabbily by sequestering the vast majority of the Sky funds for Super League and by negotiating a deal in which Campionship RL rights were sold either without checking whether games would be screened or in the full understanding that they would not. If it is the latter (that everyone knew rights were being sold but no games would be screened) then, again in my view, that amounts to restriction of trade.

As for there being 'a queue of networks', you're probably correct for Super League, but I do believe that Championship RL could find a new home and the rewards from that might be substantially greater than those currently on offer. However, it does require a Championship with the cohesion, courage and confidence to take a hold of its own future.

The problem with looking at the Championship viewer numbers in isolation is that they don't necessarily make the business case for Sky showing more of the Championship. Many of those viewers may simply be channel-hoppers who landed on a bit of RL, or people who subscribed for Super League content. Whilst you can apportion the viewing figures to argue that Championship clubs deserve that proportion of the revenue, you can't make the case that the Championship clubs are actually generating that proportion of demand - the TV demand is disproportionately for SL content.

The real business case for showing more of the Championship for Sky is whether it would translate into more subscriptions (or whether showing less increases the number of cancelled subs). There are enough case studies to show that lower-league content doesn't necessarily translate into subscriptions both in RL (Premier Sports) and other sports (ITV Digital being a prime example). In other words, people may well be happy to watch the Championship, but are they actually willing to pay money for it? A basketball fan who subscribes to the NBA may be happy to watch BBL, but would they pay an extra subscription for it?

You may be right in what you say bramleyrhino, but we will never know unless someone tries. Championship RL might ever only be a 'filler' program rather than directly a subscription generator but there are plently of new, and old, sports platforms out there who, I believe, will pay for such fillers.

By the way, a number of the programs that Championship RL beat were live RU games.

We have tried it with Premier Sports. I don't know how many subs it generated, but their ability or willingness to pay for Championship access was evidently less that Sky's. Whether Premier decided that the business case didn't stack up or whether the RFL took Sky's dollar, I don't know.

But we can't assume that the appeal of Championship and L1 RL is greater than it is. On several weeks, number of people willing to pay to watch the Championship and League One live in total can be less than the attendance at just one Super League ground.

If the Championship can't be a subscription seller, then it needs to be an advertising puller, and RL fails miserably on that count. If we genuinely want to make RL more attractive to TV, then we need to stop the blame game and the finger pointing and instead talk about how we make the sport more attractive than it is. We are not going to get an enhanced TV deal without offering Sky, BT or anyone else some added value.

Yet you're quite happy for NRL to be broadcast in the UK? Surely SKY should be showing Wath Brow v Siddal as that is British Sport in a Country in which they earn their revenue?

Have you ever stopped to think that a few hundred thousand, if not million people would prefer to watch Rugby Union and not Rugby League? Therefore Channel 4 are showing a product people actually want to watch. Or do you think they just sit there and think 'what shall we bang out in Autumn, tell you what forget what 90% of the UK perceive to be the better code of Rugby we will show West Wales against Coventry because some bloke in Halifax likes Rugby League'

Nailed it.

My Southern Football or Rugby Union customers laugh at me when I invite them to RL games, even Wembley or the Grand Final. They would not make the effort to cross the road to watch a game with full hospitality and free booze. Apart from Adrian Durham not one person I know at talksport will attend a game, again that includes full hospitality at Wembley, somewhere most of them go to for any Soccer game they can get into and fill their faces for free.

Rugby League is about as far from being accepted in the South (anywhere past Doncaster) Scotland, Wales and Ireland as it has ever been. It is because of a decade of mis-management whilst some fat got rich and clubs went to the wall.

It is actually heartbreaking to see.

And the answer.......'ring Eddie Hearn'

Why have you brought me into your petty ramblings.

So..... To counter what said about union being on BBC, ITV, C4 and C4....... You've come up with the BBC.....who this year will have shown 8 games.

The post Richard Lewis era is to blame. Nigel Wood and his 'bottom feeder' mentality diluting the standards.

Are the bbc, or any channel, going to show the England Knights v PNG games?

They have the potential to a great spectacle in front of packed stadiums with passionate supporters.

A documentary on the tour of PNG would be good too.

Do you really need that answering?

I watched the Lock Lane game on the free sports channel the other day. It was well produced and with a good standard of rugby but the viewing figures will have been in the hundreds. We should be actively seeking to partner with companies who will show our product and build our profile. Developing events like the Skolars versus Wigan might be one way to go. Every time someone types rugby into a computer they should get Super League adverts rather than Union ones.
I have posted before that we need to associate glamour with our game. What about a series of nines competitions in colourful locations. If Union can sell competitions , utilising second string players, like the sevens and the LV cup then there may be a market for us.
If any of you have seen the book " No helmets required" you will know that we have a back story that would certainly make a good film in the footsteps of Brassed Off or The Full Monty. That certainly is the type of thing that Channel Four would go for.

The majority of clubs don't have a second string!

.....and that is part of the problem.

Yes please. Anyone know?

TROLLING OF THE HIGHEST ORDER HERE.



Sir Kev asks a question that he and the entire RL population already know the answer too, in the hope of attracting some more vitriol regarding how we are ignored by the media, the RFU conspiracy, the lack of direction from the RFL.......the usual stuff. When given an answer he doesn't like nor expect, he doubles down on the trolling.
It's hard to find an intelligent post from Sir Kev.......he's just a very clever part of a larger trolling wheel that involves others with a similar posting style.

Different IP addresses doesn't stop two (or more) individuals communicating outside of these boards to collectively give themselves a giggle.

Did you type that wearing a tin foil hat? It could just be a genuine question as to whether an England Knights v PNG International next month will be televised.

There is no other explanation for you and your "ilk" posting in similar styles with identical agendas. No two mothers were ever that stupid to screw the same village idiot, so I am happy to assume that you and others are collectively trolling these boards with utter tripe.
Comments like "the game needs Toronto" are nothing more than trumpesque attempts to get a rise out of fans of smaller clubs with no substance behind them at all.
For the record, if you were t post something intelligent that I didn't agree with, that would't make you a troll, but you post inane drivel designed for nothing more than to give you a giggle and that makes you a troll of the highest order....you should be proud, because you and your buddies have cleaned house here and if you were to be "offed" by the mods, there's be nobody left.


It could, but it wasn't

Please provide a quote of when I made this comment. I asked a broadcasting question on a thread about broadcasting. You’re derailing the thread, making you the troll.

Yeah....coz I am gonna run off and trawl through your drivel



No...you asked a question already knowing the answer......try google


Bugger...there goes another Irony meter!

He's bitter because his beloved Broncos will choke yet again and won't get promoted.

ah...the southern hemisphere "cog of the wheel" has woke up.....

Hey.....southern cog. The Broncos won't choke, because the reality is we aren't ready for SL......Toronto will go up and the emperor will be seen to be stark naked and you and your "crew' of trolls can salivate some more...

You woke this morning, typed in RLFANS.COM and posted 6 comments in threads, 5 of which, including this one, added nothing to the topic under discussion, but instead just baiting me.
The Irony of you asking moderators to ban me is somewhat delicious.
Back on topic.
Union is on every main FTA channel in the UK and it is vital we get a FTA element in our next TV deal

miss you xxxxx