Having had a year having to make do with Sky Go for my RL, I'll happily pay whatever they want to charge me to watch it on my nice big tele in HD





Had a spell of watching NRL online too, but binned that off. HDMI cables do help, but broadband speed just aren't good enough for top quality pictures (yet).

Speak for yourself my broadband speed handles hd streaming with room too spare...



But I still have sky sports because of the hassle of finding a decent stream

Or to be a bit more blunt than Sally; No Sky subscribers = No SL funding = No SL

Never had Sky, no intention of ever having Sky, i rarely watch normal TV so would never pay for something i'll watch 5 times a week tops.



I begrudge paying my TV licence so i'm not going to voluntarily pay silly money for something else, i prefer the pub for the games anyway

There are loads of streaming sites that you have to pay for that are a fraction of a Sky Sports subscription, have everything Sky Sports has plus a lot more besides (3pm football, PPV boxing, etc) and generally offer a much better quality of picture than free streaming sites.



Sky Sports current business model is going to prove unsustainable over the coming years anyway, as it is far too expensive (remember a huge percentage of Sky's money goes straight into the bank accounts of Premier League players) and doesn't offer the content that it should. I know this is an RL forum, but when you consider Premier League football has been Sky Sports biggest selling point since it started, it's ridiculous that you still can't watch every game your team (if you have one) plays. But you now can online.



I'm amazed Sky Sports has seemingly been recession proof over the last five years, and I don't doubt that they are very clever and will have long term plans to ensure they remain in business despite the rise of the streaming sites. This will inevitably result in lower prices though - they won't have much choice - and less money paid to all sporting bodies.



As for scare stories of this meaning the end of Super League, well RL existed for a century before Super League was formed and the game sold to Sky, so I'm sure it will continue. Do people honestly think towns/cities like Warrington, Wigan, St Helens, Bradford, Leeds and Hull will just pack it in and forget about rugby league? As if.



In short, no I don't have Sky Sports and I won't be subscribing again any time soon!

I think you are correct when you say that RL would still exist without Sky, but I suspect the outcome would be pretty unpalatable.



At the moment we receive something over £90 million for a 5 yr deal with Sky. That is approximately £1.2 million per SL club. I think the RFL body takes one share and another goes to the Championship, hence the 90 million is divided by 16.



So the question would be, how many SL clubs could afford to lose £1.2 million / yr ? (Lets not forget that last year the clubs were so hard up, they voted to get rid of half the youth age groups in order to save approx £100k). Without the funding, the clubs would be unable to pay player wages. Those players would look for employment elsewhere, some would leave the game altogether, the best might look to the NRL, others to the feeder clubs perhaps, others to Union. I would imagine SL would probably start to look like the Championship, and we would move back to semi - pro RL. With the loss of our best players, spectator numbers would drop, advertising deals would be harder to broker and fall in value. The profile of the game would fall and attract less interest. Fewer players would be attracted to the sport because of the low wages. Less money would be available from the RFL for grass root development and grants. The Championship clubs would lose their £100k per yr ( could Swinton with gates of a few hundred afford that ?) etc etc.



So yes, life would go on, and I would still watch Wire along with the other 4-5,000 'hard core' supporters, but the sport would have lost a huge amount. I can't stand Murdoch, but without an alternative sponsor, we need Sky.

Excuse me for pointing out the obvious, but if Sky werent around paying for the broadcast rights, and these were being taken by some online steaming service instead, then SL's revenue would just come from a different source

. Separate discussion as to what that amount would be, and clearly rival, cheaper alternatives might be more appealing to the customer-but thn will they have the bidding power to get the broadcast deal ( which will likely go to the highest bidder)?



I'm a bit confused by people saying they are watching on-line steaming-I'm assuming this is on illegal sites?

Horses for courses, but I could live with that. Bear in mind it would have a financial impact across all sports if Sky were to withdraw or lower it's funding, so the grass wouldn't neccessarily be as green elsewhere (union) as doom and gloom RL merchants would like to pretend.



Football would be the hardest hit, but all it would ultimately mean would be the end of multi million pound wage packets and I don't think any average fan would be unhappy about that. I don't begrudge RL players what they earn because it's obviously significantly less, but the game was semi-pro for most clubs for a long time and players still played.



As I said, I don't expect Sky Sports to go bust or anything - I hate Murdoch and Sky but I'm not that naive - but I do expect it to be forced to change it's business model over the next few years which will inevitably mean less money.



Either way I won't be subscribing under it's current overpriced with limited coverage model for the forseeable future.







I assume so. PM me if you want links to four of them!

I have a Sky subscription because it's much easier and cheaper for me, living in Leeds and not having a car, to see most of our games (let me guess - not a true fan

). I don't think streaming is in any danger of taking Sky down though, even for RL, given that 324,000 viewers tuned in to the Grand Final. 70,000 watched SL Backchat that week too, apparently.

Streaming is only going to rise in popularity though. Sky Sports is very expensive. It might be okay if you're a 100% armchair sports fan, but if you pay to attend matches/events as well, then considering the high price of tickets (Premier League football is scandalous, but even Super League has risen a fair bit in the last few years) then for a lot of people something has to give. For me it was the Sky Sports subscription. The availability of streaming sites made the decision a whole lot easier though.

And when everyone does this, who is going to be actually pointing the camera at the action?

Streaming is just a poorer quality version of exactly the same thing. If enough people do make that move, then someone will just buy the on-line rights and charge you for them and put more effort into closing down streams.



there is no benefit to streaming other than you getting something for free when you should be paying for it. It would be no different to me arguing that shoplifting is only going to rise in popularity, but then buying things is relatively expensive.

Personally, I have a slightly wider interest in sport than many on here who seem to be limited to RL (and, at a push, football), so I think I actually get good value for the money I spend on my subscription - Also, as some have pointed out, the thought of sitting in front a PC, on my own, watching some pishpoor quality stream, fills me with utter dismay.



By all means, people should choose what to watch and whether to pay their subscription, but its silly to suggest that Sky's SPORTS (not just RL) coverage isn't worth the money.