It is massively more. And it's only for their premiership. Not internationals, not Heineken cup, (correction - not in first year), etc.



I accept all the usual bleating about the disadvantages we face in getting deals comparable to RU, but a) this is nothing to do with Internationals, and b) we need to learn something instead of making excuses.

They can only sell what they're given to sell. RFL can't say "we hired IMG, so now we take no blame for anything". If that's all you have to do, then my mum might as well run the RFL, all she needs is the list of sub-contractors and a telephone.

It's £27m a year for SL, Championships & Challenge Cup compared to £38m a year for Aviva Premiership & Heineken Cup. Hardly an earth shattering difference, especially given the difference in costs.

And you're right it's nothing to do with internationals, as Internationals aren't included in either deal.

Factor in the playing and coaching squads of 20 Championship clubs, and you have evened it up

The TV money SL clubs recieve is enough to cover competitive squad in SL imo (1.32mil - 1.69 mil are the figures used on this thread) £1.5mil would be the average. Gate receipts, shirt sponsor, kit manufacturer, other sponsors, corporate money, grants and merchandise should be enough to cover staff wages and all other day to day cost imo as long as your chairman/CEO knows what he is doing so why clubs are reported to be on the edge of bankruptcy is beyond me.

It does make you wonder, doesnt it?



A simple formula would be to only spend 90% of your previous years income, any surplus could then be spent on marketing your club to increase turnover and therefore potential increase in spending



It shouldnt be hard should it

, then again my club made a profit when playing in SL

Said just about all I wanted to say myself. They've got 38 Premier League football matches and now a load of rugby union. Football will get some to sign-up for the service. Not sure BT will attract enough with club union games to make it worthwhile.



I say this not a an RL fan, but no sport other than Premier League football will get the masses subscribing to pay for that and any ancillary deals. 38 games a year is nowhere near enough to do that.

Rugby Union is massive in the UK - or at least the perception is. They call it "Rugby" on telly but they always mean Union.



League is a small northern sport which has a big final on the BBC once a year - Eddie Waring used to commentate on it, as well as It's a knockout.

They call it rugby in Oz as well, they call games they care about Footy or Cricket. So let em av it, we'll be Footy or League!

OK first point on this is that the criticism of the RFL of our deal is harsh. We signed ours a year ago. BT won't bidding for sports then, so the RFL were restricted in asking for larger payments. BT are new on the game and are a HUGE company, they have just as much money to throw at sports as SKY, they will be investing a lot money and will be prepared to lose a lot of money at first to get customers signed up. They need marquee sports to get people signed up and will pay over the odds for it. Also what happens when two people want something? They start bidding for it, meaning the RFU could keep putting the asking price up. RFL didn't have this.



Second point, now BT look big players, that will put the RFL in a good position when the next contract comes up for renewal as SKY know how big SL is to them and now they have genuine competition, out contract will increase.

And in a move that we'd expect from our own RFL, there's now a dispute with the ERC about the BT deal and the validity of screening the Heiniken Cup matches which have been previously contracted under a seperate arrangement.

Nearly every club is running at a 250-500k deficit so clearly it is not enough.