[urlhttp://www.rugbyleaguetoday.co.uk/espn-will-battle-sky-and-bbc-over-super-league-rights/[/url
A battle for TV rights should increase the revenue for super league clubs, which could increase the number of clubs in SL?? I for one hope ESPN join the bidding and Rugby League gets a deal the sport deserves..

More money into the game is certainly a positive as far as a 16 team super league is concerned, however the RFL are skint and government cuts have led to a shortfall in funds for the world cup, so don't be surprised to see it any extra income get trousered.

ESPN may well take the challenge cup then leave no rugby on free tv. Then sack it off again after a couple of years.

Didn't the BBC give up it's rights to the challenge cup?
If so can't see them bidding for it, espn getting the challenge cup would be disastrous for many tv viewers.
Hopefully sky might get the lot, not good for non situ subscribers, but if the BBC don't care!!!

What what I gather, the decision to decide what 'crown jewel' events were going to be retained by terrestrial tv was delayed until 2013, ie until after the digital switchover had occurred. Until that decision, the Challenge Cup has to remain on one of the 5 channels, BBC1, 2, ITV1, C4, or C5.

There was talk however that the Beeb may lose the coverage of it. C5 were interested in it, though it would have to be significantly bigger cash figure in my view for that to be more beneficial than the alleged prestige of BBC coverage.

As for SL, I think as long as the product is accessible then people will pay the premium for it. Whether that be ESPN or Sky. I know that a number of fans keep Sky year round for the football as well, so it gets extra coverage that way from football fans enjoying a different sport. Whether ESPN would do that so much, is a different proposition.

When deciding a provider, are we looking for the following options?

1 - A provider to promote Rugby League for Rugby League fans
2 - A provider to promote Rugby League for non-Rugby League fans too
3 - A provider to expand Rugby League coverage wholesale
4 - Look it as a cash cow for the clubs to increase income
5 - Look it as an opportunity to increase the number of clubs

I think the RFL will hope for more than one of those options, whether or not they have the bottle and ambition to do what they should be doing is a different story. By rescheduling the whole season, around more SL clubs, a gap for an all-stars or international fixture, season launch in the NORTH, bring in international 'b' fixtures v other teams (other than NZ/Aus). This whole plan needs an England manager with restructuring skills. I can't really see it happening that radically!

RFL skint, but had the money to help Quins and celtic

The Cup (or at least the Final) is still a listed event which must be shown on FTA. See the actual article linked to

No

dont know if your being pedantic but doesnt your first comment contradict your second?

Pedantic is his middle name!

No. Last time I looked, the BBC was Free To Air.

No $hit $herlock!
i posted that i thought that the bbc no longer held the rights to the challenge cup, you replied no, and in your previous statement you said that they no longer had the rights (possibly for the cup final only).
i find it quire ironic that you have posted on a thread titled Interesting when you clearly have little, of any interest to post!

?

You're going to have to explain how you reached that conclusion, as there's nothing in what I wrote to suggest it.

Does the BBC have the rights to show the Challenge Cup?

Yes. Until the end of the contract at the end of this season. Then it's up for negotiation. But any TV deal (for the final) must be with an FTA broadcaster.

Thought it lost that status a while back

If it's on the list now, it will stay there until 2013; the Govt (such as it is) announced just after coming into power that they were deferring a review of the list until after the digital switch-over in 2012. The logic being that many more channels become FTA via digital TV.

Well baring in mind, the original post was with a link to the fact that they ran until 2012 and that's what we were discussing, that's a no then.
Sticking on your point that it (CC Final) must remain on FTATV how does Richard Lewis see much competition occurring, if in reality the BBC are the only broadcaster who can show it and they no longer see it as being important?

:7bbuyygy

Right. I see where the confusion's occurring - you're using both the present tense and the past tense to refer to the future.

When you ask :7bbuyygy
you don't mean "does the BBC have the rights to show the Challenge Cup, now?" which is what the the present tense implies, but "Does the BBC have rights now to show the Challenge Cup in the future, from 2012?" and you're right: they don't.

And that's because nobody has the rights to show the Challenge Cup (or the Super League, or the Championships or internationals) in 2012. Those rights haven't been sold yet. What the Beeb and Sky bought in 2008 were three year licences to show SL, the Championship and some international matches (in Sky's case) and the Challenge Cup and some international matches (in the Beeb's case) over the period 2009-2011.

In exactly the same way that Wakefield, or Castleford, or Crusaders or any other club does not have place in Super League for 2012-15 – we were all awarded three-year licenses and have to bid again this year for the next licence period. Similarly, broadcasters have to bid again for the broadcast rights from 2012.

But if you asked "Didn't Wakefield - or Castleford or Crusaders or Wigan or any other SL team - give up its right to a Super League place" the answer would be No. They'll no doubt be bidding for a licence in April (whether or not some fans on here think Trinity should is pretty irrelevant". And if they're successful they'll have a licence for SL for 2012 to 2015. But at the moment they don't have such a licence.

Similarly, the Beeb will no doubt be bidding for the rights to the Challenge Cup this year post 2012, so if you ask, as you did :7bbuyygy - using the past tense to refer to something which has already happened - the answer is No. They've not. They have the rights they bought until the end of this year, which they've not given up; they don't - at the moment - have any rights beyond this year, which they haven't given up, because they naverhad them in the first place.

So, to go back again, there's no contradiction here:

:7bbuyygy

:7bbuyygy
:7bbuyygy
:7bbuyygy

But this statement

:7bbuyygy

does contradict the facts.

)?



Oh – and stop forcing me onto Smokey TA's territory of having to break a post into bits and reply point by point to an argument to show the gaping holes in both its assumptions and logic

That's more helpful than "no"!

Please don't come on here using that language,






We are a "=+=+=+ free zone and its staying that way.

[size=50sorry[/size

Zzzzzzzzz