and im sure theres thousands of people,who don't have sky,who saw the warrington v hull game in sunday,who thought "how good was that..im signing up for sky so i can see more games like that"
Just to be clear, the overnight rating was 898k. Which is about average for cup matches, so why would the BBC want to show a live game every week when a Dad's Army repeat can get 1.4m viewers? As it is they have cut back the number of cup games they shows in rounds 4 and 5 even though they normally have two all-Super League ties they could show.
Sky pay a premium for exclusivity, if you sell games to another channel it does not meant they will walk away, but the amount they pay will be less. Is it worth losing income in favour of greater exposure, assuming a major free to air channel was interested? The RFL thought that logic made sense recently, and were thoroughly lambasted for it.
It's one thing BT sponsoring a couple of teams - especially as the only games played by those teams that will be shown on Sky will be in the European Cup - and quite another sponsoring an entire league.
Just to be clear, I agree but Sky will be showing the Celtic league from 2014 to replace their lost English Premiership coverage. Which is also when BT are hoping their power grab will see them showing European game instead anyway.
I would be shocked if the Sky contract did not prevent the RFL selling any major Super League sponsorship rights to rival broadcasters. It should be a standard clause in any agreement, including for all other sponsors. But clubs are separate businesses, which is why Hull and Warrington were both sponsored by Magners at the John Smith's Stadium in the Tetley's Challenge Cup.