Overly simplistic take, but it's to be expected. 

Sky don't 'run' the game. They are just it's biggest commercial partner, with a massive say. Thursday night games being an obvious one.  


In regards to the deal, Google is your friend. Having options on the table and owners with connections - gives back power (even if it's just a little bit).  Also being owned by a cash rich organisation like the NRL can't ever be a bad thing. 


https://www.alloutrugbyleague.co.uk/news/nrl-set-negotiate-record-rugby-1037092

Overly simplistic take, but it's to be expected. 

Sky don't 'run' the game. They are just it's biggest commercial partner, with a massive say. Thursday night games being an obvious one.  


In regards to the deal, Google is your friend. Having options on the table and owners with connections - gives back power (even if it's just a little bit).  Also being owned by a cash rich organisation like the NRL can't ever be a bad thing. 


https://www.alloutrugbyleague.co.uk/news/nrl-set-negotiate-record-rugby-1037092

"Overly simplistic take" and yet you missed the point.

Sky do not run the game, the RFL do. Of course Sky dictate a lot of aspects but they do not run the game.


I am not sure why you are posting about the potential NRL deal? That's irrelevant. What has that got to do with anything? Unless you think the "NRL" coming in would suddenly result in us getting a materially better TV deal? 


There is zero chance the "NRL" suddenly get a materially different TV deal. Whilst its bad for the sport that the Sky deal has come down so much, its a combination of the Sports worth to Sky and the lack of alternatives. So why would the NRL part ownership suddenly change that? Sky know full well the number of viewers, how much they make from advertising etc. Whilst they may be able to get something slightly better, in the short term it will not be materially better.


Rugby League's issues are deep routed and any material change is going to take 5-10 years to start making a dent. i.e. more grass routes rugby, more rugby in schools, mandatory academies for clubs, bigger crowds, more advertising etc. Rugby is barely thriving in the hotbeds, nevermind trying to flog York, London and other championship clubs who only get 1-2000 fans at a game.

"Overly simplistic take" and yet you missed the point.

Sky do not run the game, the RFL do. Of course Sky dictate a lot of aspects but they do not run the game.


I am not sure why you are posting about the potential NRL deal? That's irrelevant. What has that got to do with anything? Unless you think the "NRL" coming in would suddenly result in us getting a materially better TV deal? 


There is zero chance the "NRL" suddenly get a materially different TV deal. Whilst its bad for the sport that the Sky deal has come down so much, its a combination of the Sports worth to Sky and the lack of alternatives. So why would the NRL part ownership suddenly change that? Sky know full well the number of viewers, how much they make from advertising etc. Whilst they may be able to get something slightly better, in the short term it will not be materially better.


Rugby League's issues are deep routed and any material change is going to take 5-10 years to start making a dent. i.e. more grass routes rugby, more rugby in schools, mandatory academies for clubs, bigger crowds, more advertising etc. Rugby is barely thriving in the hotbeds, nevermind trying to flog York, London and other championship clubs who only get 1-2000 fans at a game.