crashmon

They are treated in the same way as SL matches Same with Tennis matches on sky sports + If something is not shown on a actual numbered sky sports channel, then its not on on-demand, and you cannot record it

Rugby league shown on sky sports+ only? Also its timed. It usually expires after about a month. On Discovery plus I can watch sports up to a year later. My point is the games \ coverage shown on sky sports + only, not shown on standard channels which are delivered by satellite technology. Those which are only delivered by broadband.

For me this thread is worrying in terms of the future as it regards RL. 1) we know sky subscriptions are going down in terms of satellite viewing, most new sky subscribers are streaming only 2) sky streaming devices (glass and stream) have no capacity to record events streamed on those services 3) Now on sky go you can get films, documentaries on demand, but not sports offerings. 4) This means the sky sports streaming offering is below standard of other sports streaming services (which offer on-demand showing of sports events after the live broadcast) 5) RL is 100% dependent on Sky. No other broadcaster is remotly interested in it (I don't count Premier sports) If sjy starts shifting more stuff to streaming platforms, and start to reduce satellite, and they have a sub-standard streaming service, then people will not pay premium prices to subscribe to something that if your not able to see the live broadcast, you have to go elsewhere to watch the event. If this then drives down subscriptions, then sky less money, then less money for RL, as RL is 100% dependent on sky to remain relevant and exist in a professional format. Will be interesting to see if in the future sky improve sky sports+ and enable an on-demand option, but not holding my breath

I bet if it became possible to have a NRL team in the UK, it would based in London. and I bet it would get 10K crowds plus easily. Because it would be set up, supported and managed correctly Of course not possible with technology today with travel times and timezones. But my point is more that it would be set up and marketed properly, and I bet would be a sucess

Fool me once shame on you Fool me twice shame on me Fool me 10-15 times in the last 10 years, I must be a London Broncos supporter

THe NRL see the future as the NFL \ NBA model. There is no place for International rl in this future

I'm not saying BTW SL is worth 4X less than a year ago. Even sky would not go that low Just that I expect Sky won't pay any more (at best) for SL rights in the next cycle, which if you consider inflation would be a real terms drop in income (but only a smallish drop in income). I just don't see them getting any more coming in from SKy unless something changes (not saying that a London team is that), but something has to change from the status quo if SL wants to get more income from TV \ Streaming going forward

Its less about how much that SL is worth, and more related to how much money Sky have with them losing subscribers year on year, and the cost of football rights. Its not like other major tv or streaming providers are banging down the SL door to bring RL to their channels. You might have the greatest show on earth, but if only one player is interested in showing it, and they only have x amount of money, if your not able to get others interested, x is the only money your going to get

Union and Cricket get most of there tv income from international coverage. Thats the income stream League does not have. Hence why the focus so much on the clubs tv deal for SL. Yes club union does not attract a lot of vierweship on tnt sports. But the 6 nations pulls in the revenue. SL does not have anything like it as a revenue stream

In three years when we have the next round of RFL funding, and SKY offer less money (as 1 people are switching to streaming and therefore have more choice, so I expect Sky subscription numbers to fall, and 2) football rights and NFL rights are going to rise and rise at the expense of other sports Sky covers. People are going to come back and say "Oh why did we not ensure RFL in London in some form. Because unless the NRL see some reason to convert Superleague into a feeder league for the NRL, I really don't see a professional future for RL outside of Aus. (I also think cricket in the UK will slim down a lot at least in the county championship, T20 and Hundred might survive longer). Cricket, Union, other broadcasters are interested in covering those sports, so there is some competition for rights here. Nobody but sky cares at all about RL. I could see Amazon Prime or Discovery sports bidding for NRL, but not for superleague. And don't include BBC or C4 as both are strapped for cash, so they might be interested in showing some games, but they not going to pay much to do it

Agree. When I say London, it does not mean the broncos. I would love the Broncos to get back what they had, as I enjoyed following them year on year until 2020 ish when going part time and moving to a ground we could not afford at the same time was the last straw. RL needs London in some form, does not mean they need the Broncos. Ideally I would start by having England play a test in london every year, but thats a topic for another thread

Ignore copied wrong message

Union and Cricket have something League does not have. Revenue coming in from Thriving International competitions. 6 nations rights sell very well, as does the cricket WC's. So other revenue than TV Money All League has is Sky, no other broadcaster is really interested in paying 30M, 40M etc for it. And Sky are not going to pay premium for a regional league, which the Super M62 League is. They will continue to show RL, but put less and less money forward as they will need it to keep the likes of Tennis, NFL, F1 etc on TV as well as the football. RL is not going to sell to other platforms like Amazon or Discovery Plus or Apple without at least a national reach

I'm a lapsed broncos fan, was gold member from 2000 to covid. Stopped going when moved to wimbledon (not because of wimbledon I will add, more because of the way Broncos was being run). Bottom line, outside of football every proefessional club sport is suffering. union club game is equally up the spout as RL, as is county cricket. And football is taking more and more of the resources (I say resources as its not just hard cash, but youngsters playing the game, volunteers, fans, tv revenue etc). So how does RL compete with the world of less resources, less cash, less money from TV. Not by being a league of clubs clustered around the M62. You need investors, and for that love it or hate it you need a presence in London, as that is where all the money is to be found. Now does this mean a London club should be the broncos. Absolutly not, the broncos as a club do not deserve to be in SuperLeague unless they finish 11th in the table. They finish 12th, they should go down. But unless the NRL decides they want SL as a feeder league, and they provide money etc, and SL teams become full of young aussie lads, for SL to survive you need a presence in London, or you will become less and less relevant as a sport as the years go on. I'm 52, and I fully expect that unless things change substantially, only Football in the uk will be a professional sport at the end of my lifetime, I expect Union, League, cricket to get more and more squeezed, and more and more clubs go to the wall, as the Virus whcih is football consums all

I have sky q with my work schedule, I watch approx 90% of my viewing (Sport or otherwise) on catch up, or by recording the game onto the box to watch later Discovery plus usually keeps live sports it has covered available for a while after its been shown (I don't have tnt sports part of it, but I do have the eurosport stuff) So this is really poor from SKY IMHO

Is there a reason why the M62 England not considered for then next mens WC? Did we lose too much money in the last M62 England WC? As until we get a proper international game going, you only have Eng in the NH capable of even getting close to breaking even in a WC. France might have the facilites but they don't have the interest in the sport for crowds in games not involving France to be higher than low 000's

SO I am probably going to get lots of "confused" or "sad" responses to this, but personally I think that we are not going to solve the WC issue, until we have a proper international calander. Union, Football, Cricket, Ice Hockey have robust international calanders for all levels of countries taking part. Union for instance has a pyramid like (Six nations, Rugby Europe Championship, RE Trophy, RE conference) with yearly competitiions for all levels of the international game in Europe, with (outside of 6 nations) relegation and promotion in the other tiers. You get regular International RL every year, you get at least 3 games a year for each nation, you get regular tournaments set up properly, and I think the WC problem will actually resolve itself. I'd be more focusing on getting yearly comps going before worrying about expanding the WC. Because right now I see the WC's as basically the NRL teams rebranded into countries + England. Does not feel like a "WC" to me much

To me the biggest gap is the depth. We have a few teams (3 or 4) who could compete with the NRL teams, but then the falloff is much larger than in the NRL. We just do not have the depth of talent available. Its a bit like scottish football, Rangers and Celtic would be lower half english premiership teams, but the rest would not even get into championship or even league 1. SL is a bit like that compared to the NRL. Rangers could beat Man City in a one off game, but over a season would be a long way behind. So you can't really take the WCC as an example

NRL == NFL, English Prem, NBA, Champions League SL == League 2, Scottish League football

They sent me that as well. Only one place to put comments, I put this

Group 1, Aus, NZ, Leb, Q1 Group 2 Eng, PNG, Q2 Group 3 Sam, Ton, Fiji Inter group games would be, Eng vs Fiji, Sam vs Q2 (probably cooks), Png vs Ton All group 2 games played in PNG plus the PNG vs Ton and Eng vs Fiji games. I'm expecting somthing like the above. Semi finals would be WG1 v WG2 and WG3 vs RU G1 This means that the last two world cup finalists (aus, Sam) would avoid each other until the final. Also means in the group stages you maximise revenue, as you have Aus vs NZ, Ton vs Sam and Png vs Eng in the group stages.

from the article Serbia’s men played five internationals last year, with wins against Greece, Italy and Czechia and losses to France and Netherlands. Already they have beaten Montenegro in 2024 and looking to take on the Netherlands again in September in a warm up game for these clashes. Men’s head coach, Darren Fisher, noted: “We are extremely excited about the opportunity of the qualifiers, facing Wales initially will enable us to test our strengths. We’re grateful to France for hosting the games and for us it’s a great opportunity to be part of a major competition.” So Serbia play 5 international games, and we struggle to get 2 with a 3rd being a championship warm up game

Your not going to get people from wales, scotland, Ireland interested in a GB brand if its just filled with England players. As then its not GB, its england in another name.

So I would pay to see a full strength england beat wales by 90. I would not pay to see England F beat wales by 40, when the England A team was playing away as a "GB" team when its not a GB team, as its full of England players. The reason the Union Lions works is that it actually has representives from each country, and they are proper representives, not makeweights. Until GB is really GB and not just England in another name then I'm not interested.

the england tesm would still put 50+ on all the other teams even with a 4th or 5th string apart from perhaps France who they would also beat but by probably 2 scores