BSkyB

[manxviking]

For all the bad mouthing they get and "how much they control the game" it is now obvious why they only did a three year deal. They have lost a huge amount of money and were desparate not to lose any more sports to Setanta. This puts them in a weaker position. Whilst they are not about to go bust, the RFL would do well to consider longer term than three years. And what if, during those three years, viewing figures fall due to too many meaningless fixtures (or SL attendances for that matter) which will surely happen? Sky and Setanta will hardly fork up extra dosh then will they? An excuse not to expand in 2009?

[scooby]

For all the bad mouthing they get and "how much they control the game" it is now obvious why they only did a three year deal. They have lost a huge amount of money and were desparate not to lose any more sports to Setanta. This puts them in a weaker position. Whilst they are not about to go bust, the RFL would do well to consider longer term than three years. And what if, during those three years, viewing figures fall due to too many meaningless fixtures (or SL attendances for that matter) which will surely happen? Sky and Setanta will hardly fork up extra dosh then will they? An excuse not to expand in 2009?

So using that scenario, come 2012 they will have to reduce SL to about 8 teams.

[Rafe Wrench]

Given the fact that there's hardly a thriving bidding war for televised Rugby League I'd imagine any broadcaster would have some sort of put option in the contract so that, as you say, if viewing figures fall off a cliff, they're not locked into a bad deal for any longer than suits them.

[vikinggriff]

maybe the rfl wanted a 3 year deal so clubs with licences could properly budget for the term of there licence