I think it has just been disclosed that the RU cap has been increased because of their TV deal so that each club gets a £500,000 increase in their cap to £5.7m.



There has been loads of discussion on other threads about structure etc. but what are our people in charge doing when this can happen and even though (as I understand it we have massive TV viewing figures) they can get what is in essence a rise of about minimum £6m and probably up to £10m a season, this is a rise.



What are we doing to get a real deal not a deal that is less than the original 1990's deal?



Until we get a fair deal for what is on offer with viewing figures that are normally above the RU guys the only way is out of existence. It seems to me that everybody NRL and RU are getting massive increases in their TV deals but not us, what is also apparent is that their deals are quite widely circulated whereas who knows what our position is, certainly not the paying fans?



We are being treated as mugs and the RFL hierarchy continue to operate in their own "we are OK so stuff them" world.

It's not down to pure number of viewers, it's down to the value of every individual viewer. Unfortunately, some unemployed, council estate chip gobbling northerner is worth less than a relatively affluent RU or NRL fan.

How much less am I worse then?

A chip eater pays the same subs as anyone else. Regulars Giggs, Ferdinand and Rooney would certainly pull the RL average viewer salary in the right direction.

But marketing firms don't care about the amount of subs you pay. Nor do they care about averaged salaries. It's all about how many fall into specifically designed categories, which can be sold to companies. The higher end the category, the more financial institutions, car manufacturers and blue chip companies are interested, the more they are willing to pay for the advertising space ...



Equally the lower down categories, whilst still attracting advertising space, don't tend to be from such high blue chips, meaning the marketing budget is smaller, so less can be spent, so the advertising space is worth less.

I am merely employing the stereotypes that the advertisers utilise to make a point.



I'll guarantee there's a lot more BMW and Range Rovers etc. on the car park at a Northampton - Bath game than a Cas - Hull KR game though. Jaguar pay more for an advert than Foxy Bingo, and that's why we receive less money, even though we have higher viewership.



The truth hurts, and until we break the shackles of our self-imposed northern post-industrial working class traditions, we'll always be the poor man of English sport.

thats a very simple outlook on things, I doubt the target audience has any baring on it at all. Why are poor peoples shops like Aldi and Lidl the two fastest growing supermarkets? because there's money to be had off poor people. The RFL just don't realise it.



I've just seen and advert for Unions Heineken cup....... a run of the mill lager.....? it wasn't the Pims trophy.



Anyway here's my take on Why union get more:



The RFU is an industrial and provident society owned by over 2,000 member clubs, representing over 2.5 million registered players and forms the largest rugby union society in the world, and one of the largest sports organisations in England. It is based at Twickenham Stadium, London.

Patron Queen Elizabeth II

Chairman Bill Beaumont

President Paul Murphy









And the RFL :

is run by the fat Yorkshire boball on the left......

But how fine grained is the advertisers info?







Soccer has many more fans than RL or RU. Adveritises tartet it due to the numbers watching it. Not because they all live south of Watrord gap.

I'd say third largest brewer in the world and sponsors of the best non-international football tournament in the world, where as SL has Heinz Big Soup. Our key demographics don't hold the value that football and RU do to advertisers.

Partly, and partly because soccer fans in the UK have more money than RL fans.



I feel like I need to clear up that I am not denigrating northern RL fans. I consider myself as someone that stands up for working class rights and believe in taking drastic steps to increase social mobility. But, we earn less per viewer than other sports viewer-wise because our viewers have less spending power than the sports we're comparing ourselves too (in advertisers' eyes at the very least).

That's quite a change of mindset needed for me and others, as previously crude Sky viewing figures, rather than specifically designed category adjusted figures, have generally been held up to show RL in a favourable light against RU. That's presumably snooker and darts down the swanee as well.



Does anyone have any figures for how much of their income Sky Sports derive from subscriptions against advertising income?

Think you have hit the nail on the head there ans isn't his failure to secure decent sponsorship over recent years one of the things IL and his allies are complaining about?