Worzel

I've made my point, and backed it up with clear evidence. Others can judge, you're welcome to your views mate.

No, you're being reductive, that isn't my logic at all and you know it isn't. People want to buy the elite version of the sport, you can take that as read. Then within the elite version of the sport, they want to buy games between teams that are more consistently competitive. We'll get there in the end

You're just going round in circles and deflecting now, or more accurately dancing on the head of a pin. My argument is that it's not important that clubs whose fans cannot buy Sky Sports subscriptions are in Super League or not, because subscriptions from rugby league buyers are not materially important to Sky. Rugby league is bought by Sky for other reasons, and those other reasons involve us presenting the most competitive clubs that we can for them, of which Catalans are one of a number that's already less than 12. I've given you copious volumes of evidence for that. You'd like the argument to be something else, because deep down you probably accept this point now.

I think for me if we're to go to a 14 team league (and I'd align it with the new TV deal in 2027 not rush it into 2026), then the best way to do that is use the complex model we've created precisely for that purpose. The chips should land where they land.

But I haven't said that, have I? If you need to make up things and pretend I said them, then you know you don't have an argument. I specifically said: "They do indeed, there's no contradiction in my position here. It just doesn't drive value for Sky, because there are nowhere near enough of them for it to do so" Perhaps you misunderstood the point I originally made, that's cool, but you can't have misunderstood that specific sentence in response to your direct question.

That was true in 1995, before Pay TV companies understood their business model fully. The realisation that tier 2 sports, even with different seasonality, don't drive new subs or retention in a significant manner is one reason why we now get paid a lot less than we did back then in real terms. It's why Premier League football rights in 1995 were just £60m per season, when rugby league was around £20m per season. So football used to be 3x rugby league, and now it is 70x rugby league. That is as clear a demonstration of what Sky thinks drives UK subscriptions as any academic research you'll find anywhere.

Here's one piece of evidence: Rugby league TV rights fee paid by Sky: £25m per season Football TV rights fee paid by Sky: £1.75bn per season (70x larger) That tells you a very clear story. Football in the UK is mission-critical for Sky, as the #1 sport, as are AFL and NRL for Foxtel in Australia for the same reason. Rugby league in the UK is not. Tier 2 sports perform a different function for Sky. There's load of research on this, if you're genuinely interested you should have a look, here's one example... https://www.broadcastprome.com/news/tier-one-sports-rights-critical-to-future-of-pay-tv-providers-pay-tv-innovation-forum-report/

They do indeed, there's no contradiction in my position here. It just doesn't drive value for Sky, because there are nowhere near enough of them for it to do so, and those that do buy them don't buy them to just watch one club - or to not watch one club. You're just demonstrating you don't understand the point. I mean, how many people do you think buy Sky subs to get rugby league? Football sells Sky subs in the UK. Everything else is a rounding error to them.

Yes, I am seriously suggesting that is not how the Pay TV business model works. The tier 1 sports in a territory are what drive subscriptions, tier 2 sports exist to provide those subscribers with enough content to stay. It is the quality of our content that Sky values, or doesn't. All of the research shows that perceived "quality" of sports content most strongly correlates with consistency of competitiveness. Close games. Rugby league is more valuable when it delivers more close matches, i.e. when more teams in the competition are competitive with all the others. So the most valuable clubs are those who can do that, not those that are located in X place. Catalans is one of those... we don't have enough clubs like that to be able to throw away one of the few that is. You think Sky will pay more money in the hope of picking up an extra 500 subscribers in York? They have 6 million subscribers in the UK. Anyway, most people who live in York who like rugby leage and have a willingness to buy Sky will already be buying it.

It is when you continue to say that it's a problem that they can't, when it has been demonstrated that it isn't. How many extra subscribers do you think Sky will get from London, York and Bradford? The idea that this is part of the business model is comical. I mean, it's not even close to being part of their thinking Given I don't think you're that stupid, there must be another reason why you'd make the argument. My working hypothesis is that you think some teams are less worthy of being in the competition because they're foreign. I'm yet to see you make another argument that stacks up.

Most people who watch rugby league on Sky don’t buy subscribtions to watch rugby league on Sky… what part of that reality do you not understand? People in Coventry don’t prefer to watch Huddersfield because they’re English. They prefer to watch a game between two sides who are consistently competitive. Catalans are more consistently competitive than many English clubs. That’s what English viewers want, and Sky pay for. Unthinking nationalism rarely aligns with sports business mechanics, sorry.

You're on the wind up, right? What Sky are buying is competive games. They would prefer Leeds, Warrington, Saints, Hull KR and Hull FC because they are more likely to deliver competitive games (in the research a "competitive game" is defined as one where the result is still uncertain with 25% of the time remaining). Those sides would be far more likely to do that than Hunslet, Keighley, North Wales, Goole and whatever Coventry are called now. Got it yet? Yes, some clubs do also have an inherent brand value. But, guess what? That brand value is based on their recent ability to deliver more competitive games. Catalans are a well-resourced club, one of the few that is profitable. They have large crowds, good youth pathways, and a recent history of winning things from Challenge Cups, being in Grand Finals or just play off qualifying. The idea that Sky would prefer Bradford, York or London scarbbling around for results instead of that club is embarrassingly comical. Or indeed Hunslet, Keighley, North Wales or Goole. Seriously, what is it with a certain section of British society and their allergy to "foreign" things? It's really, really weird behaviour.

Jeez, how many times do we need to explain that Sky don't buy rugby league to sell subs? It's nonsense. Only the #1 sport in a market sells meaningful numbers of subs. In the UK, that's football. In Australia, that's AFL and NFL split geographically. Every other sport is bought merely to pad out that content. What the rights buyer wants is high quality content... ie more close games than big spreads. Catalans deliver more of these than many English clubs, so are more valubale to Sky. We can see this by the fact they choose more Catalans games for prime coverage than numerous English clubs. One day this very simple fact will enter people's brains. I hope.

Perhaps, but it depends on your definition of worse. By “worse” I include a junior English player not getting his debut, and then losing the future ability to develop from there, because the club chooses to pick a better (better today) player for that match. We have to at least try to develop talent for the medium term. If we have too many imports, even if they are better than the domestic alternative right now, we may not develop some of that domestic talent for the long term.

This is precisely what we're going to get, it's what those "thinkers" have always focused upon. As with the absurd "middle eights" concept, it is all about enabling clubs in the bottom half of the table and the top quartile of the championship to be more competitive in the very short term. It is no way to run a sport. We need to focus upon 1) what creates the best elite clubs, and providing a roadmap to more clubs becoming like elite clubs and 2) expanding pathways and enabling talent from those pathways to get reasonable opportunities to develop. We need to level up, not level down. Nigel Wood has always been about levelling down. I don't particularly agree with the NRL idea of 10 clubs, but at least it shows they think about the right things: The quality of the product, and using that quality to increase the elite comp's media revenues in order to spend elsewhere and build the sport for the long term.

Which is precisely why we need regulations and restrictions to compel clubs to invest time, effort and yes money in the right things for the long-term health of the sport. I understand why they wouldn’t if allowed the choice. That’s why we need to remove that choice.

Yeah the cognitive dissonance is hilarious Both of the mythical arguments they make are in total contradiction with each other. But then we already know this lot aren’t the brightest, they gave Nigel a job he wasn’t allowed to have without checking any details!

He's doing a good job of running offence for whoever is pulling his strings. A real journalist would call out how vapourous all this stuff is. This story is just one side playing for time. The amusing thing is it's like two men with combovers deperately trying to convince some poor woman they have a full head of hair, and asking her to go on a date: In truth they're both bald... there's no NRL offer or serious proposal, and there's no other investment interest from these random countries named. It's all twaddle.

Recent results would suggest otherwise Australia could probably field 4 sides that would give England a good game, that's true about their strength in depth, but they can't use them all: You can only pick 17 players at once. When we play them, it's rarely uncompetitive. Ergo, we are competitive.

One of the good things about Craven Streat is that it fronts onto the pitch, and Rovers don’t really need an extra 1,000 seats every week. This season we’ve got the issue of Coldplay taking over the ground in August, so we’d have had to dismantle the temporary stand and then build it again after. I reckon the idea of making it an “final straight” of the season bit of extra impetus is a good thing, makes a feature of it… also August and early September weather better suits the lack of roof!

There’ll be an extra 1,000 seats for Rovers final matches, as soon as Gwyneth Paltrow’s ex-husband has finished prancing about…

Just a bizarre decision. People talk about French super league clubs “taking money from the English game”, but are happy with us spending money on players who can’t succeed in NRL pathways at the expense of encouraging talent to develop and get their opportunity through our own pathways

You have encapsulated precisely everything that is wrong with a subset of rugby league fans in one post. Congratulations As promised, I am indeed happy to be corrected that we only reached 990,000 after 100 games, which is a terrible result for the sport. Hopefully the game issues a new press release with this correction, because upholding this principle of relentless negativity is far more important than (a) the underlying point of it being a good season and (b) heaven forbid, promoting our sport! You get the sport you deserve mate.

Imagine hiring a rookie coach, giving him such a terrible squad that you have to add bit parts to it with no planning during the season, and then sacking him 2/3rds of the way during the season. Disgraceful stuff by Castleford.

But I provided the evidence? Read back it’s all there. I don’t think I need to provide him with a table of attendance data that’s publicly available elsewhere, that would be a bit weird. So given that, the onus is back on the person saying that the evidence was incorrect. Since then of course, we’ve had crickets.