Just caught the last bit of Martin Kelner on hawksbee and jacobs show on talksport, where he seemed to be implying that sky were either reducing the TV deal substantially or not offering a new one at all. Obviously a bit worrying but as I only caught the very end I wonder if anyone heard the whole thing and can clarify

I didn't hear it because that program is not broadcast here in Kiev. But if your impression was correct then rugby league is in big trouble.

Assuming it is true (and it's TalkSport, so it's a decently proportioned assumption), can anyone really be suprised?

The whole argument for a bigger TV deal seems to be "but we want one", justified by some gerrymandered stats around opening week TV figures and the viewing figures for a Grand Final played during an international football week.

I certainly don't see SL offering anything tangible to Sky that they don't already pay for and in many cases, given how the TV and advertising model has evolved, we're actually offering them less value that we were when the previous deal was hastily signed.

I would think that if we could get London back into Super League, and Toulouse also promoted into Super League, with Toronto being retained there, by 2022, with the prospect of New York and perhaps Ottawa joining in 2023 or 2024, then the RFL would be offering a more interesting and thus valuable schedule to Sky and all other potential broadcasters. A Super League team list that is not so obviously confined to the M62 corridor will appeal to viewers, especially foreign born viewers, in the more cosmopolitan south of England. If my Super League promotion scenario was to happen, then rugby league would have a good chance of getting at least the same if not more money in the next contract.

Unfortunately promotion and relegation precludes my scenario from being a certainty, while obviously a return to licensing could guarantee it.

I've had a catch up listen, and it was just speculation that sky might be giving it up as they will be spending even more on fending off other companies from their golden egg of premier League football. No concrete evidence of anything, though they implied that the negotiations had been difficult. They ended by saying more news on it on Friday. But it does look like it might be bad or at best
underwhelming news at some point

I heard the broadcast, and it sounded very negative in respect of the deal that SL will get with Sky, should there be one.

This will be the first test of many club chief execs / owners "putting their money where their mouth is" when it comes to the TV deal.

There has been no shortage of high profile people pointing at how poor the RFL-negotiated deal (that they voted for) was - I look forward to those same people demonstrating how much better they are in due course.

I think those people are at Super League clubs and have appointed Mr Elstone to do the successful negotiation(s).
The complaint was the haste of agreeing to the current deal without trying any other company,except Sky.
[url=https://www.thedrum.com/news/2014/02/04/wigan-warriors-chairman-asks-why-200m-sky-sports-tv-rights-deal-didn-t-go-out-tenderLenagan[/url
[url=https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/feb/04/marwan-koukash-salford-rfl-skyKoukash[/url

Hopefully they won't get exclusive rights again. Maybe the 3 main fixtures bit have min 1 on free to watch TV. Don't know the viewing figures but more people seemed to watch the union when it was on chanel 5 the other week than of it was on sky

[urlhttps://talksport.com/[/url

Its quite simple for me, SKY stop showing RL then i don't subscribe to them anymore and so will 100’s of thousands of others, i get sky for RL and anything else is a bonus. No RL no sky for me

You think "hundreds of thousands" of Sky subs rely on RL?