Martyn Sadler

I'm not sure that most people involved in running our sport understand what determines the quality of the product, given that they have done quite a lot to diminish it over the years. It isn't just better players, although that of course contributes to it.

The numerous stoppages in the game have impacted on the quality of the experience, whether live at the ground or on TV. The same is true of other sports, of course.

It should always be better, but very often the presentation determines whether a game is uninspiring or not. The great BBC commentator Bill McLaren could make the dullest international rugby union game seem interesting because he was so well informed about and interested in the teams and the players, and he could communicate that interest to the TV viewer, causing audiences to grow substantially while largely overlooking the true quality of what they were watching. Quality can be a highly subjective impression, which is strongly influenced by the commentary that surrounds a game.

You were correct to make that point three years ago and it is still valid. Over time I'm sure more people have come to accept that view. To relegate a team like Toulouse or not promote London on the basis of what might be 0.5 points behind the 14th team, particularly if it were Huddersfield, would be madness.

On the weekend just gone, only one Super League game had a winning margin of more than 20 points (Wigan v Catalans). Another one had a winning margin of exactly 20 points (Toulouse v Huddersfield). But the latter result was unexpected. In the media tipping competition, 55 of 73 entrants tipped Huddersfield to win. The other five games had margins of two (Wakefield), eight (Leeds and Warrington) and ten (Bradford and Leigh). On the other hand, of the eight NRL games, four had winning margins of more than than 20 points, with Penrith's margin over Wests Tigers ballooning out to 68 points. So let's not feel too defensive about the quality of our competition. The one area, however, where I think the NRL does come out better is the season-by-season fluidity of the league table. At the moment, the top four finishing teams from last season (Raiders, Storm, Bulldogs and Broncos) occupy positions 11 to 14 in the current table. To a slightly lesser degree, we see the top three in Super League last year (Hull KR, Wigan and Leigh) now occupying positions 5 to 7.

If Toulouse were to be excluded via the gradings system I would be tempted to walk away from Rugby League.

We focus on Paris, the reaction to John Kear's death, the extended contract for Brad Arthur, all the match action and a preview of the coming weekend.

If Paramount did acquire the rights for TNT, it would be interesting to see whether they would run any games free to air on Channel 5. I think that could make it quite an attractive proposition.

That used to be true, but I would be surprised if certain formats couldn't be produced quite cheaply now.

The takeover bid has added some uncertainty but no indication has been given that the channel will exit the market. I'm not sure that Paramount would want to exit a market with so many potential consumers, but you never know.

From what I understand, TNT are interested in creating a dedicated rugby channel, which we've never had on Sky. IMG are actively talking to them about how this might work and how the two codes might be integrated on the channel. One advantage of this is that it would require more content than we currently see on Sky, which would presumably give some scope for magazine programmes, which in my view we urgently need. It would also presumably make it easier to appeal to viewers whose first love might be rugby union, but who might be persuaded to give our game a try. If the RFL does move to TNT, or to any broadcaster other than Sky, I believe they would be looking for a lengthy contract, perhaps ten years, at the end of which the broadcasting landscape might look very different to the way it looks now. But it isn't a done deal yet.

If it doesn't, the RFL will stay with Sky.

Not long ago I thought it unlikely that Super League would move away from Sky. But as negotiations continue, TNT is apparently making a very strong bid for the Super League rights. I would guess now that it would be 50-50 between Sky and TNT for which of them will broadcast Super League next year.

Don't be ridiculous. When you say he wasn't hurt, you were wrong. If you meant to say that he was hurt, then say it. If you meant to say he wasn't seriously hurt, then say it. But don't make a statement and then try to pretend that you meant something else simply because I point out that you were wrong. I appreciate the sentiments in your post but sometimes you need to accept a correction with good grace.

He was hurt. He was dazed immediately afterwards and was still feeling like that when he climbed the Royal Box and he apparently was shaking in the dressing room after the game, which is why the club sent him for a hospital scan. Technically he wasn't concussed, but he was certainly very badly shaken. And then there is the impact on his family, especially his mother, who was horrified at what she saw. We can't ever afford to see another tackle like that one again. The most important thing of all is that he wasn't paralysed. And for that we can't thank whichever God we believe in.