Dave T

What model?

Id be really disappointed with Sky paying the same for 3 games on main channels. That would be more premium content for them, and whilst we may make a better deal in total, I think it shows that Sky arent particularly a friendly partner any more, rhey are hard nosed and paying the bare minimum to keep the sport. Sure, its working for them, but all goodwill must be used up by now. But, i would say, the negotiation is what it is. We havent delivered uplifts like Darts, we are still doing what we always did, and that iant enough these days.

Yeah, used to love old Alliance games. Few thousand at Widnes to see Jonathan Davies playing for their reserves was a memorable one.

Huge growth for us would probably be in the ballpark of £20million or so, which is substantial, but dwarfed by the numbers hanging around in the NRL.

Remember when we were told it wasnt about an offer. It was a partnership. Stop asking about an offer everyone. Its not about an offer. Ok?

You've basically made the same point I have. There is growth, but it's modest versus the NRL.

I think we can be disappointed that our TV deal is not closer to theirs (U*****) based on viewers and content provided. I think thats our realistic short term aim.

Just have faith will you?

There is another sport similar to ours that has a hell of a lot of advantages over us, and their comp is really modest when compared to the NRL. That is a far better comparison than our value vs the NRL value in a market on the other side of the world.

We have tickets on three sides of the ground available

From what I could see there are huge numbers still available in the Wire end.

I think we are now starting to see some of the real challenges that some of us have been calling out for a while. It is hard to see how this deal makes loads of sense for the ARLC. There is absolutely growth to be had in the UK game, but it is really modest compared to the Aussie game, so the benefits you are looking at really would have to be some of the softer benefits - player pathways, international growth, expansion of NRL into the UK etc. $60m dollars is a decent pot of money for them to invest in something - but it is peanuts for the sport here - and as has always been questioned, what do we give up - well 50% share is far too high for that cost. If this is the genuine offer ($60m AUD for 50%) then it really does make sense why we have had a year plus of negging, followed by a lowball offer. The NRL have overstated our demise, and probably believed their own hype too - which has been supported by a fanbase and media over here who have been begging the NRL to take over. Look at the comments from that James Graham podcast the other day which had one pundit saying to break away and give away 30% to Hearn. People have been a little cray on this whole subject.

Yes. I must admit, it feels like it would have to be a huge deal to go with them - i.e. £35m a year for 7 years- to provide serious investment plus security - and I just don't see anything like that happening.

I think there are a couple of issues here, and I have some sympathy for one of them. A noisy segment of fans/media/owners etc are so disillusioned with the current state, that they are banging the drum for a deal - any deal. I can sympathise with the frustration, but I think its dangerous to just think that any deal is the answer. Secondly, I think the NRL are used to being able to take control rather cheaply and, probably rightly in their environment have a rather inflated ego. The problem is that ego wont work with Sky Sports or other people here, but good business sense, investment and decision making will.

I suppose as with all of these things, the devil is in the detail. If the commercial agreement is all focused on power rather than payments, then it could work. I.e. if the £30m is a buy in but the 50% ownership is all about power on the board rather than extracting £, then it can make more sense. If there is profit share on incremental revenues, as long as those levels are set appropriately, it could work.

I get that, but commercials have seen some modest growth, and obviously we are hopeful of some growth in this deal. All very modest, but that ain't new news.

We are already on a path of growth, or at least taking actions to get there where we aren't. There are no guarantees that the NRL will deliver more, just because.

If whatever it is is worth £6m then we aee wasting time even thinking about this.

£6m per year wouldn't even get you to the table for a discussion. I expect that isnt the offer.

It doesn't. But £6m per year doesnt do much at all.

£6m per annum additional funding sounds underwhelming without any other context i.e. expertise being shared etc. That will soon get swallowed up.

To be fair, you could argue that full funding for French teams, plus investment in London supports that aim. Of course you could argue that maybe the new Dewsbury team could make way, but it does still meet it in principle.

indeed - we should only be considering playing in areas like this, with the challenges and controversies for huge money and opportunities.

I still think they fundamentally got some things wrong, but it was also clear that they lost a lot of momentum and had to really cut back on costs. Which was a shame as it had a premium feel for a while.

I think the better leadership point, along with more money would see them.invest in the right areas, which could be event management and planning as you suggest. Its a little like when we have had funding for World Cups, it's been night and day and often with RFL employees still h3svily involved. I know the 2021 WC got som3 fundamentals wrong in the end, but there was a hell of a lot that was better than many other things we do.