[url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/jun/21/sky-tv-super-league-rights?CMP=twt_guFor £90,000,000[/url

Enough to cover Matt Kings wages (just) if he decides to stay on next season then!

I looked at Fatbelly's headline and thought Sky had "gone away"

Good to see the game holding it's nerve.

Sorry LG,

How do you spell Resign? Should I have posted Re-Sign?

Not sure about that, it will cover Roby's though.
What a front line we will have.........

Morley - Monaghan - Carvell

then after 20 mins

Wood - Roby - Harrison (Benny is going to bulk up a bit in the close season)

£90m from 2012 to 2016 is 18m a year, up slightly on the current £16.7m a year deal. Enough to keep a 15th SL team afloat, I wonder...?

With inflation taken into account, it really isn't much of an improvement.....Rather than a 15th club, we should be looking to reduce to at least 12 and using the 'extra' cash to increse the salary cap figure, so as to hold on to our most promising players, rather than have them slope off to Union for higher wages.

Its always struck me that the one time when the British game got a huge increase in money coming in, in the mid 1990s, coincided with possibly the biggest decline in quality that we have seen over about a 5 year period.

In the 10 years since we have improved again but you wonder what happened to all that money, when you compare the standards of around 1990-94 with the standards from 1994-99. How much of it just got squandered on boosting the wages of average players.

I feel compelled to ask what inflation has to do with a TV payment deal?

The fact that in real terms it's probably the same, or even a slightly lower, amount of money, maybe?

But the negotiators must be congratulated. Standing still in this current climate is still a major achievement !

Yes, that's what I meant....Thanks...

when we compare it to our nearest rival (rugby Union) and the way other sports are going in terms of revenue, it shows that Rugby League is on the up. We have increased out money to overtake our competition and have increased where others have failed and most importantly, it is a good amount of money; especially in the current climate.

No bones from me. I think even Sad end would struggle to moan at this.

Ahem, i will take this one, you fishing Fatbelly?

These kind of figures aren't exactly intrinsic to the cost of living, are they?

Does this mean ESPN wont be getting any games?

Championship, Challenge cup and internationals still up for grabs so who knows.

Keep a FEW players happy, by upping their wages, or ditch 2 teams and let them drift to the abyss of Championship rugby, and possibly never come back (Workington, Oldham)....I know where my loyalties are.

Oour game has lost enough teams over the last 20-30 years, we can't afford to lose any more, or we will become a bigger laughing stock amongst the sports media

If SL increases then surely it will have to go to 16 teams to look after the awayday weekend?

I can relate to your POV LG but I disagree.
There is not enough quality in the league to support 14/15 teams. Watching the likes of Crusaders, Wakey, Salford get tonked at least once every 3 weeks is no good for the competition. Yes they can pick up for the odd game, eg Salford beating us. But on the whole this isn't the norm.
Now not for one minute I'm suggesting these must go (although if I had to be cut throat about it, they would go), they have just been poor this year (in fact in light of what's gone on at Wakey recently I have to congratulate John Kear and the playing squad) but I'm with what TS said earlier this year.
Reduce the comp to 10 teams and increase the salary cap.
NOW... We all know the MASSIVE difference between the championship and SL. Here is a chance, if we do get rid of 4 teams, to plough some of that money into the Championship teams so they can also increase their salary cap.
So, for example, if we increase the SL SC to £2M per annum (it's £1.65M at the mo if I'm correct) and the Champ SC to £750K per annum (currently 300K I think - please correct me if I'm wrong) this will allow the Champ sides to (in theory) double the quality of their squads while there will be a slight increase in squad quality in SL.
This is keeping it really basic, obviously administration costs and other things come into it, but £2M per year x 4 years x 10 teams = SL salary bill for 2012-2016 would be £80M. Lets say club revenues cover 50% of the cap, and they get the other 50% from TV rights. This leaves £50M in the kitty which can cover advertising and admin costs, RFL wages and can be passed onto the Championship & grassroots RL. Not forgetting other RFL income of MM, CC, GF & Champ TV rights which will also be available.
As I said, it's dumbing it down A LOT. But IMO this would be the best way forward.

Just out of interest my 10 would be -
Wire, Wigan, Saints, Leeds, Hudds, Bradford, Quins, Catalans, Hull FC, Cas.

If the RFL reduceed the competition to ten teams, Sky would reduce their monies accordingly.

One would soon get tired of seeing the same 10 sides week in week out.

And if the league is reduced to 10 teams, that's 9 home games per season, that's 4 less match day revenues etc... not good

If you use the football analogy re teams getting tonked, there would be a Prem league of about 10 teams MAX....not viable I'm afraid
Like it or not, we need clubs like Wakey, Cas, Salford.

If we want to increase British quality, you reduce the amount of overseas players, and these ridiculous loopholes to get them in. Then we wont lose our youth players who get disillusioned, because they can't break into their respective first team's.

Going back to Dita's original point of losing players to the 3 point game, we haven't lost THAT many (British) players in the last decade...Robinson, Farrell, Ashton and Eastmond...the rest have come back with their tails between their legs

But would they? Do they negotiate the cost based by per club or per game?
Less clubs = Less places Sky have high profile games at = Less local advertising at grounds
On the flip side, less clubs = higher quality teams = closer more exciting games which is a better advert for RL and Sky to sell the product.

You may have a valid point, my gut feeling is you're right but I think the RFL would have a case to argue to keep the figure at close to if not £90M.