Ofcom's has ruled today that BSkyB must reduce the wholesale price at which it sells Sky Sports 1 and Sky Sports 2 by 23% per subscriber per month.





Does this mean the end of Super League as we know it? Will the game go back to being part time professional?



Are we bothered?

I suspect this was motivated by Football to the detriment of all other sports. maybe it just means there won't be money for the Imports.

TBH if it stops me from cringing when i hear them three clowns i'm all for it.

Doesn't the Super League get some of the highest viewing figures? Highly doubt they would drop it.

I suspect it will mean that they dont buy the rights to the championship games and some of the lower tier premiership games.



We may lose some TV money, just means we will have to produce more talent rather than import it.



I very much doubt it will happen, Sky will take it to the highest court possible and then appeal it 3 times before winning

Really? So you'd be happy if clubs went bust after losing over a third of their income (on average) just because they have commentators you don't agree with?



I'd rather we lost your few hundred quid a year than Sky.

Not sure about losing supporters, but its imperative that we maximise media coverage, if sky renegotiate a new lower payout deal, we will have to cut our cloth accordingly.

I don't fully understand this to be honest.



I know Ofcom have set strict new rules for sky reguarding their pricing of Sky Sports 1 & 2 to Cable, Freeview etc, but Rugby League is one of the most watched games on the channel behind things like football and during the Cricket season, so surely they wouldn't drop rugby league? Especially as it's a game that's on the up?



I mean cmon just last month we set a record in the terms of viewers of a regular league game... That must mean something to Sky?



Or have I got this completely wrong?

It's a terrible decision when Sky have spent billions buying sports rights and Virgin and BT don't put in the money for rights but still get to show them.



Sky do however get permission to launch their channels on freeview, so they can kill BT Vision if they wanted to for a start. Sky also have fibre optic Internet and video on demand coming soon, so that could help them get some Virgin customers.

I think all it means is that providers get Sky sports at a fair price rather than paying hiked up fees. Which means they can pass on the savings to the customer.



Not that Sky doesnt make billions every year.

In it's simplest form it means:-



- Sky have to sell their channels to 3rd party broadcasters cheaper

- Sky have less money as a result

- Sky bid less to acquire sports

- SL get a lower TV deal

- SL clubs get less money



They'll almost certainly use this as a rationale to get cheaper deals, however I suspect they probably always do - it's the art of negotiation.

Wasn't the most recent Sky deal worth less to SL clubs than the original one anyway?



Everyone is focussing on the potential for reduced basic revenue to the sport through reducing the revenue from Sky subscriptions. What could actually happen is that reduced subscription rates will lead to an increase in subscribers which in turn makes Sky Sports a more attractive proposition to advertisers - this then means that income passed onto the respective sports will not be reduced as much as people are panicking about.



Also, with rumours abounding that Sky are about to lose/drop the exclusive rights to cricket (in turn costing ECB & the counties millions a year) monies will still be available for the other sports in Murdoch's portfolio, I think the signal of the end of SL is somewhat premature...