Why make a point about split SL packages and then refer to 'evidence' based on exclusive bidding rights?

The 'evidence' is that only two broadcasters were interested in the two packages available, because one of them was the Challenge Cup. But, in reality, we have to accept that the Super League is the RFL's biggest asset, but the wat they currently sell it effectively counts everyone but Sky out.

Setanta showed an interest in showing Rugby League (NRL), but could not bid for the full package. Who is to say they wouldn't have bid for a smaller package of games if it became available?

Who is to say ESPN wouldn't in the future?

And, I genuinely believe that a package of 10 sunday SL games would interest the BBC, especially if it included Celtic and Harlequins. It's extra live sport for them, where they already have the presenters, commentators, and infrastructure. They could also incorporate the SL show into the coverage.

At the moment we have an auction with only one possible bidder.

Not just rugby league. How many other sports outside of football have broadcasters queuing up to bid?

And the question still remains as to why the BBC won't broadcast The Super League Show nationally and not hidden behind the red button!

Well we've got an international on the BBC coming up, which will provide plenty of exposure for the sport, and almost certainly will increase sponsorship etc. I don't think we lost.

Are you living in a fantasy world? Setanta not only bid for the full NRL package, they outbid Sky for it. And then went bust. (and chose not to take up all their rights, broadcasting fewer games than they were entitled to do. But that was their marketing decision).

Showing a small number of SL games would be brilliant for the BBC. They would be broadcasting live coverage of the premier tournament of a popular, traditional sport, which will allow access for millions who cannot afford Sky.

Easily justifiable, even without looking at viewing figures.

They also broadcast the Challenge Cup nationally, suggesting they treat live sports much better than a pathetic highlights package.

Ultimately, as I've said before, showing Friday and Saturday night Super League is in Sky's best interests, which is why they do it. The RFL is not a charity, and shouldn't be scared of them when planning to grow the game.

You might think that. There's no evidence that the BBC does. And quite a lot of evidence that it doesn't.

Is there any other sport shown on FTA where the Tv station has to provide its own coverage/camera crews etc? (Other than soccer which is just a beast unto itself). Isn't RL the number two TV audience sport in the country? If so then surely someone would want to go to the expense of showing it? Sky could be given a delayed replay of need be of the game similiar to what Ch9 do with Fox

Super League, along with many other sports, claim to be the second highest rating sport of Sky, but everyone is light years behind football. I imagine Sky have little to no interest in showing delayed coverage of a match already shown live on another broadcaster, certainly they have dropped Challenge Cup re-runs in recent years.

The real problem SL has is that it doesnt provide content to TV stations that they can market to a wide enough base.

Forget how good the game is, the way a TV company looks at things is they have say two games (Four hours of content) every week and that content comes from mostly a small area of Northern England.

The BBC and Sky dont care about teams in France, that has zero impact for them.

Outside of northern England you only have the Crusaders and Harlequins....and thats just not enough to really interest stations to take up the game and show it on a national basis.


You need a national competition if you want national coverage, and right now SL does not provide that.

Yeah, great game to watch, and people from all over England will have a look. But you need teams based around the country to really give a TV station a product it will show nationally.


When I was over in England I have to say, I was really impressed with the coverage League got. Granted I was in the Leeds/Machester/Durham/Hull areas, but Rugby League there got huge coverage in all forms of the media.

You need that across England, and to do that you need to expand the top grade. Until you do that, nothing else really matters.

If England-A were involved in the European Championship, could we sell that to the BBC? Or a Euro-Pacific cup?

Could we add to the current international calendar and try to sell those matches as a seperate package?

Do you want to watch an England A game? I don't. Does anyone? Can you get 5,000 to an England A game even in Yorkshire?



Give TV companies what they want. Its that simple.

Each package goes to the highest bidder.
Smaller bidder pays astronomical fee to beat off Sky
Bidder doesn't secure enough customers to make bid profitable
Bidder struggles financially
Bidder goes bust
Sky gets package

You could call it the Setanta system, or ITV Digital system

As sure as Video Killed the Radio Star,
SLY TV saved Pro RL in this country.

They plough in the money that keeps at least 8 of the 14 clubs afloat and are now giving exposure to the Championship....what more do people want?
The BBC treat and show RL like it is still stuck in the 50's (the sport, not the BBC......BUT THEN AGAIN...) and the "other stations" are really on their butts. C5 and C4 are in real danger and ITV are laying off people every day in the regions.

How much have sky paid for the four nations games at the end of the year? Why didnt the RFL sell all the games to the bbc. Im sure theyd have been interested in them, it might of been less money than sky are paying but wouldnt the exposure for international RL of been worth it?

Well there has been a compromise as 1 game is on the BBC but if this happened then Sky's £54m contract would quickly become £30m as the internationals get alot of viewers and Sky value them

It's two games on the BBC. They have England v Australia and France v Australia. I'm not sure if they are shared with Sky mind but Sky will at least have delayed coverage of both as well.

Exactly. Without Sky we'd have gone on with regional action on Granada and Yorkshire TV and then gawd knows where after they merged into the national ITV.

This splitting packages is a bad idea. The Scottish SPL have split its coverage between Sky and ESPN but that just forces fans to have to pay two subscriptions to see every game. Madness!

So you think the TV contract for the four nations is worth £24m? I very much doubt it, if it was so valuble internationals would be played all year round as they are in RU.

I think I'm watching the wrong challenge cup

"errrrrr that was just a super errrr ball errrr back in my day eerrrr the ball was made of stone errrrrr could try eerrrrrr over to you welshman"

"well this is a well worked try, this guy passes to this guy *draws annoying white line on screen* and then he runs in here and some bloke stood in this corner puts the ball over the line....can I go home? I dont want to be here"

Well in fairness I think they've made a start by seemingly making Dave Woods the main commentator this year although I'll wait and see if he gets the final.

Knowing the BBC it will be given to the guy who does Castlefords commentary for their home games on Superleague TV.

Morgy? He'd be brilliant on the Final

the commentary on the Cas v Quins game this year was classic.....