WWW.RLFANS.COM

how is it a "fair share"?
SL is a business, not a social charity.

If GH doesn't like it then he can begger off, SL IS RUGBY LEAGUE, not the blazers at the RFL.

Well fair enough if that's your view. I'm not going to argue against it as long as you're happy to have a semi pro competition somewhere down the line. Personally I'd like to see the game grow to it's full potential but each to their own, I suppose.

Could I just ask what you consider to be their 'fair share' and what this figure is based on? Are you, for example, basing it on percentage of income generated by these lower league clubs? I'm genuinely interested to know what you consider they deserve and why.

do they not deserve something?
all clubs were happy with the agreed share when the last deal was agreed. what has changed?

the owners want control away from GH and his chums

they also want to cut funding, from the sky pot, to all outside SL. despite agreeing it when the deal was sorted. that's wrong. it should be fairly distributed.

Lenighan & Co are still overlooking the legally binding agreement they ALL signed remains in place for another couple of years at least so at the moment it's hot air & waffle.

They haven't. They have specified in so many words that the funding remains at current levels for the duration of the existing contract.

What has changed is the realisation that we are a sport in serious decline that is falling further and further behind our contemporaries and main rivals. If that doesn't change we'll continue to decline until we no longer have a professional sport. All this has been clearly spelled out in the press conference and elsewhere. What exactly are you finding hard to understand in regards to this?

Do they not deserve something? Well that depends on if you think the drag effect on the top tier is not harming us as a game and as a commercial proposition. It also depends on whether you want to compete on the best possible terms with our rivals. I would also say that it also depends on whether you think that the current modus operandi is a sustainable business model. It seems clear that the general consensus across SL is that it isn't.

This is bullshit with respect and it really would help if you tried to understand the dynamics of the TV deal before you go repeating talking points.

1. Sky came to the RFL/SLE several years before the contract was due to end and years before the negotiations were due to start.
2. They had a hard deadline - an upcoming stock market announcement they wanted to make revealing renegotiated packages across a whole host of sports. This to settle market nerves after the increasing threat of BT.
3. They did give a take it or leave it - the leave being, stick with the existing, lower deal which was an option. Did this place the RFL in a difficult place? Yes - Sky aren't stupid. Did the clubs, including Lenagan who has whinged about it non stop for the last 4 years vote for it? Yes they did because it was a decent deal.

The great irony is that the same people who say the last TV deal was a poor one are complaining that the next one won't match it, even if negotiated by these genius businessmen (not genius at RL but apparently outside it). Which is it to be folks?

Having an SL manager or CEO is fine and I think everyone supports it, including Hetherington.

The structure is negotiable although both sides have vested interests and Leeds appear to be the only one, given the present situation, voting against those vested interests.

What is not fine is SL clubs, purely because they can't grow their own businesses, taking the relatively small (to SL clubs) cash amounts from the lower leagues to plug the gaps in their budgets. It's pathetic and the greatest admission of failure on their part and the greatest reason we should be cautious about empowering a group of failed RL administrators to run the game.