Pro 16 needs to pull the plug on Premier Sports

First topic message reminder :



If the Pro 16 wants to compete with the likes of the other top leagues in Europe and further abroad, they need to part ways with Premier Sports. The current Premier Sports contract with the Pro 14 finishes at the end of this season it still remains to be seen if this will be renewed or another broadcaster will takeover the rights.

Many fans have voiced their dislike of the online platform which after several seasons appears to be stable via Sky or Virgin sports packages but less so as an outright online viewing package. Coupled with annoying multiple login requirements to swap from devices and random lost connection error codes before, during and even when trying to watch on demand matches, it would be a real shame to see the new Pro 16 format begin in this manner.

Do you feel the upcoming Pro 16 competition would be a good addition to BT Sports or Sky Sports or even one of the streaming platforms like Amazon Prime?

Would it be better for a return to the domestic networks in a similar format as before?

Could CVC play a part in this decision with their recent investment in the Pro 14 league and 6N?

I know SKY do deals as well though.

This time last year when everything went to pot, and no sport was being payed, my wife called SKY and asked to cancel the sports channels, as in her opinion, I wouldn't need them.

But when she spoke to them, the difference was bugger all because of the deal we were on, and it could end up costing us more when she wanted to put them back on. There is more to it than that when she was explaining it to me, but in one ear out the other as with most things when she is going off on one.

So there might be deals to be had.

I worked at Sky until a couple of years ago. They always had deals to retain customers and stop them leaving, but unless you were getting a friends and family offer, it would be difficult to get anything better than the current advertised deal online as a new customer

I know Premier Sports was a good deal though BamBam, but do you reckon SKY will make a better fist of things than Premier Sports ?

As you said, you worked there so you would know better than most, do you reckon SKY would do a better job, put it more in the mainstream, advertise it better ect......

Pot Hale wrote:With the PRO16 likely to move to Sky Sports platform in Britain and Ireland and likely DAZN and SuperSport in Italy and South Africa, the costs for fans are going to increase.

It already cost more when it went onto PS for us in the UK. The only difference now is that we will be paying SKY for it not PS.

Like BamBam has said, if you already have a Sky package it will not cost a lot more. I would assume most people in the UK were watching Premier Sports via a SKY box anyway, so will already have one foot in the door.

Not everyone is on Sky, and its even less who have Sky sports especially if not a soccer fans.

For the vast majority the switch will result in a significant additional financial outlay

geoff999rugby wrote:Not everyone is on Sky, and its even less who have Sky sports especially if  not a soccer fans.

For the vast majority the switch will result in a significant additional financial outlay

But when we said this when Premier Sports were taking over, we were told to stop moaning.

In the UK, if we want to watch the regions on tele we have to pay for multiple broadcasters.

If you already have sky, which a lot of people do, all you need to pay for is what ever Sky charge for the rugby, you will probably end up having access to the Lions, Championship(SANZAR) and super rugby. It would be quite a decent deal.

Sky will advertise the life out of it if they think its worth it to them. Last time they had the rights they didn't make a great deal of noise, and the timings often clashed with the Premier League so it was rarely ever making it onto the showcase channel on 401 Sky Sports Main Event. There's stats used about how many extra viewers 401 gets vs the dedicated football / cricket / golf channels, as for most people its the default to switch to if they want to watch sport but don't know what

I think there are plus and minus points for different groups of customers.

Current Sky Sports customer but not Pro16 fan - might catch a game if its on and there's not much else so probably a winner
Current Sky Sports customer but is a Pro16 fan - win win
Current Sky TV customer but not Sky Sports - Pro16 might be the tipping point to urge them to subscribe to sports but I feel like its unlikely for the majority. If they do pay up, its more than Premier would have cost. Neither a winner or loser
Non Sky customer - previously could have paid £10 a month online to watch Pro Rugby, now probably has to pay ~£40 - loser
Sky Sports and Premier customer - winner as they save £10 a month

On a purely financial view, I think its difficult to argue that costs won't go up for customers on the whole. Whether the better exposure Sky can and probably will give is worth it to the league can only be answered in the future.

Sky aren't just going to charge for rugby. If they give it a dedicated channel it'll be £25 for Entertainment plus £18 a month, if not it'll need to be part of the current £25 + £22 for Sports package which is £30 at full price

BamBam wrote:Current Sky Sports customer but is a Pro16 fan - win win

Thats me. I fall under that category.

I will watch Wales play Belgium in the world cup qualifiers on Sky sports tonight, I will also watch a lot of cricket, golf and F1. I also watch Cardiff FC and Swansea FC when they are on, and I will watch a Premiership game if it's one of the big ones playing.

It's a lot of sprt for the price, and I can now add the Pro14 to that as well.

LordDowlais wrote:

BamBam wrote:Current Sky Sports customer but is a Pro16 fan - win win

Thats me. I fall under that category.

I will watch Wales play Belgium in the world cup qualifiers on Sky sports tonight, I will also watch a lot of cricket, golf and F1. I also watch Cardiff FC and Swansea FC when they are on, and I will watch a Premiership game if it's one of the big ones playing.

It's a lot of sprt for the price, and I can now add the Pro14 to that as well.

Yep, likewise. I pay for Sky, BT, Amazon and use paid unofficial streaming services to watch sport that isn't shown on any of them. But we're not talking about whether rugby / other sports nerds benefit, hasn't the argument always been that Premier has limited the exposure and potential growth of the game?

BamBam wrote:hasn't the argument always been that Premier has limited the exposure and potential growth of the game?

Yes, but for me, the growth of the game is not a problem, it's the growth of the Pro14. The thing is, the Pro14 is a bit of a niche area, unless you are already a fan of it, you are not going to go and look for it. Whilst it's on Premier Sports the audience is limited.

Now it looks as though it is going on a more mainstream broadcaster the potential audience is already increased. The same as when it was on BBC, because more people had access to it.

I've looked up the actual figures at BARB
I worked in Advertising for a couple of years and know about this stuff.
Only 20% of UK TV Households have Sky.

So for any of the 80% who watch or want to watch Pro14 rugby next year there is an additional expenditure of £25+
Not been able to find out what % of Sky viewers have Sports.
I certainly know some in country areas , and indeed Ulster ST holders, who do not have sports.
In the country it is for the simple reason there is no cable and BT is unreliable (I've tried them and quickly given up - staying with Virgin).
I would feed pretty confident it will be the same for Welsh and Scottish rugby fans in rural areas.

So we are down to, say 15%, of total viewers.
Even for those few percentage points who have Sky without sports it will cost an extra £18 (figures from Sky website)

Net results if you have Sky sports now happy days.
If you are in the other 85% others - the price has just gone up.

LD you repeatedly told us one of the big problems with Premier Sports was the extra cost.

£10 is looking cheap now compared to the additional, often far more significant, cost for 85%,or thereabouts, are going to have to fork
out if they want to watch Pro16 next year

geoff999rugby wrote:LD you repeatedly told us one of the big problems with Premier Sports was the extra cost.

£10 is looking cheap now compared to the additional, often far more significant, cost for 85%,or thereabouts, are going to have to fork
out if they want to watch Pro16 next year

Well, I was told, to just pay it or don't, but stop moaning about it.

Does this still apply ?

LordDowlais wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:LD you repeatedly told us one of the big problems with Premier Sports was the extra cost.

£10 is looking cheap now compared to the additional, often far more significant, cost for 85%,or thereabouts, are going to have to fork
out if they want to watch Pro16 next year

Well, I was told, to just pay it or don't, but stop moaning about it.

Does this still apply ?

Did you? Or did you take every opportunity since then to announce its killing the league?

LordDowlais wrote:Just checked and EIR sports is 15 euros a month for the first 3 months, then it goes up to 30 euros a month.

So Sky would be cheaper.

You missed the bit where I said that Eir Sports is bowing out of purchasing sports rights. BT Sports are out of the running. So Sky Sports have a clearer field to pitch their proposal in. Less competition means higher prices for consumers, particularly if PRO16 want to get a greater amount for their TV rights than Premier Sports and eirSport offered.

Existing Sky Subscribers in Wales will have to pay extra to watch PRO14. It won't just be included in one of the existing packages at current costs, they'll create a new one with a new price. So Welsh clubs or pubs or individuals who didn't want to pay for Premier Sports per month will still have to pay extra per month to run Sky channel for PRO14.

Pot Hale wrote:Existing Sky Subscribers in Wales will have to pay extra to watch PRO14. It won't just be included in one of the existing packages at current costs, they'll create a new one with a new price. So Welsh clubs or pubs or individuals who didn't want to pay for Premier Sports per month will still have to pay extra per month to run Sky channel for PRO14.

I have the full package, so anything new just gets added in for me. But I get your point. But I do not think SKY will charge extra if you already pay for everything, I watch SH rugby all the time on SKY, I should imagine they would bundle all that together with the Pro14/16.

Pay for PS or pay for Sky either way you are paying, I just think SKY are a better broadcaster. Only time will tell if I am right.

At the moment, in Wales, if we want to watch the regions on tele, we have to pay for multiple broadcasters and an internet provider.

You can get the internet for free if you are a sky customer, so that is one saving.

We will probably be paying for multiple broadcasters next year, won’t we? It’ll still be league on one and European games on BT?

Wasn’t Sky internet free for people on Premier Sports, based on your earlier assumption of people accessing Premier via their Sky box?

LordDowlais wrote: Pay for PS or pay for Sky either way you are paying, I just think SKY are a better broadcaster. Only time will tell if I am right.

Moving the goal post.
Sky may, or may not be a better Broadcaster - that is not the point being made.

You do pay for both but as I have demonstrated for over 80% of the UK viewing public the cost is significantly higher on Sky than on PS

RiscaGame wrote:We will probably be paying for multiple broadcasters next year, won’t we? It’ll still be league on one and European games on BT?

Wasn’t Sky internet free for people on Premier Sports, based on your earlier assumption of people accessing Premier via their Sky box?

No it wasn't. Not that I am aware. I have also checked the WWW and I cannot find anything.

geoff999rugby wrote:

LordDowlais wrote: Pay for PS or pay for Sky either way you are paying, I just think SKY are a better broadcaster. Only time will tell if I am right.

 

Moving the goal post.
Sky may, or may not be a better Broadcaster - that is not the point being made.

You do pay for both but as I have demonstrated for over 80% of the UK viewing public the cost is significantly higher on Sky than on PS

I'm not moving anything though. I have not said people will not have to pay more. In fact, it is on record here, of me saying PS was a good deal. I just think they are crap, and SKY are better, thats all.

geoff999rugby wrote:You do pay for both but as I have demonstrated for over 80% of the UK viewing public the cost is significantly higher on Sky than on PS

I am not even arguing that.

Feels like you are trying to engineer an argument here.

No one is trying to engineer an argument, its just a discussion.

I can recall a lot of posts about people in Wales not being able to afford Premier, so the games being on Premier will kill the league in Wales. That argument is not being applied to the higher cost of Sky.

I expect the counter will be that people in Wales already have Sky so its not so much of an issue. But as shown through a number of different posts, the average take up of Sky Sports among the UK population is probably something like 20% of households being generous. Assuming you're correct about Welsh household finances, it stands to reason that the take up of Sky Sports is at best the same.

Your point re the internet also doesn't make any sense. In this day and age, I can't imagine anyone is taking out an internet package solely to watch rugby, its not far off being a basic utility like electricity at this point. Saying you don't need an internet connection now that the games are on Sky is highly unlikely to be the case for the majority.

This is not intended to be a jab at you LD, but it does appear you're not consistently applying the same arguments you had against Premier to assess the Sky deal.

It may be because some people see the league dying whatever the league is doing because they want the league to fail.

The league was only on FTA it was a sign that no one cared about the league because no tv company outside of state owned wanted it unlike the Prem & T14. You could only see home games so it reduced fans.
When the league moved to paid tv with PS and Eir it was still showing more FTA games then the Prem or T14 and you could watch every single game.  That was a problem because it wasn't a big TV company and who could afford it and how would fans see the league.
Now it might be going to sky with reduced viewers it's great even though the footprint will be much smaller then currently.

If the sky deal brings in more money and the teams use that money wisely then that's good for everyone.  There needs to be FTA games each round to get in new people and help some other fans watch it.
If Sky are getting the 6N rights too then the Pro16 works perfectly for that as it gives Sky games nearly every weekend while allowing Celtic nation fans to watch 6 N and Domestic rugby on the same channel.

It will be interesting to see what else Sky have rugby wise,

They will have the Lions but that will be over long before the season starts

They may have the Pro 16 if a deal goes through which would be a max of 8 games per weekend

No super rugby at the moment as their deal has expired and the games have went elsewhere although it is possible that comes back

6 Nations- will be dependent on if it goes off free tv and will be hotly contested.

If they only end up with Pro 16 I would imagine the games will be spread out among various channels (probably action, mix and arena) as there wouldn't be enough to keep one channel.

They do have free tv with Pick tv and I think sky sports mix is free so could put some games on there if they wanted to do free to air on some.

neilthom7 wrote:It will be interesting to see what else Sky have rugby wise,

They already have super rugby, and the rugby championship (SANZAR). They also show a few games from the English championship.

BamBam wrote:I expect the counter will be that people in Wales already have Sky so its not so much of an issue. But as shown through a number of different posts, the average take up of Sky Sports among the UK population is probably something like 20% of households being generous. Assuming you're correct about Welsh household finances, it stands to reason that the take up of Sky Sports is at best the same.

That is 20% more people than had PS from the start.

LordDowlais wrote:

neilthom7 wrote:It will be interesting to see what else Sky have rugby wise,

They already have super rugby

Do they? Why have Rugby Pass or whoever had to take up showing the games then?

LordDowlais wrote:

BamBam wrote:I expect the counter will be that people in Wales already have Sky so its not so much of an issue. But as shown through a number of different posts, the average take up of Sky Sports among the UK population is probably something like 20% of households being generous. Assuming you're correct about Welsh household finances, it stands to reason that the take up of Sky Sports is at best the same.

That is 20% more people than had PS from the start.

I really don't get what you mean here, sorry.

Look, I do not know what people want from me ?

I am happy that it looks like the Pro14 is going to one provider, I think it is going to a better broadcaster than what it is on now, and I am not the only one, as the originator of this thread has already said the Pro14 needs to pull the plug on Premier Sports, whether I am right, or he is right, only time will tell.

I have explained why I think this on numerous occasions. Again, whether I am right, or not, time will tell.

Now what more do you want from me ?

RiscaGame wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

neilthom7 wrote:It will be interesting to see what else Sky have rugby wise,

They already have super rugby

Do they? Why have Rugby Pass or whoever had to take up showing the games then?

They don’t have super rugby

Sky’s contract ran out with it at the end of the 2020 season and has not been renewed

Rugby pass are showing the New Zealand super rugby at the moment and I think world rugby website is showing the Australian version or at least it was

neilthom7 wrote:

RiscaGame wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

neilthom7 wrote:It will be interesting to see what else Sky have rugby wise,

They already have super rugby

Do they? Why have Rugby Pass or whoever had to take up showing the games then?

They don’t have super rugby

Sky’s contract ran out with it at the end of the 2020 season and has not been renewed

Rugby pass are showing the New Zealand super rugby at the moment and I think world rugby website is showing the Australian version or at least it was

I think this is due to the current situation we find ourselves in with the pandemic. I am sure when we are through this, SKY will be putting their bid back in. When the competition is back to normal.

LordDowlais wrote:

neilthom7 wrote:

RiscaGame wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

neilthom7 wrote:It will be interesting to see what else Sky have rugby wise,

They already have super rugby

Do they? Why have Rugby Pass or whoever had to take up showing the games then?

They don’t have super rugby

Sky’s contract ran out with it at the end of the 2020 season and has not been renewed

Rugby pass are showing the New Zealand super rugby at the moment and I think world rugby website is showing the Australian version or at least it was

I think this is due to the current situation we find ourselves in with the pandemic. I am sure when we are through this, SKY will be putting their bid back in. When the competition is back to normal.

Super Rugby AU changed their broadcast partner from Fox to Stan Sport and that has caused problems

As anyone who watched Super Rugby on Sky will know they used Fox's coverage for it and then sometime had their own studio guests for half time.

They haven't been able to reach a deal with Stan Sport and it's looking unlikely they ever will which would mean they would have to go put their own broadcast teams on etc and that makes it too expensive for them I'd imagine

Another reason for them not renewing would be the time zone issues with no games on at good times.  Also due to the smaller market it is aimed at its not really as valuable as the old Super Rugby.

Not sure what the demand is to watch games on Friday mornings which is half the games being shown each week.

Again the dirty little secret is that alot of international money for Super Rugby was built around SA & Argentina being in it because it aligned better with Europe and North America.  NZRU thought it was their teams who generated it but as they have found out they are just a small island in the wrong place.

Now that SA are joining up with Pro Rugby we now get the benefits and will be seen as the replacement of Super Rugby for those markets.  Hence why sky wants to get in.

If you read SA papers they seem a bit feed up with the same teams playing each other yet again.  They can't afford a 12 team domestic league and also recognise domestic leagues only appeal to smaller audiences..

If we go back to SKY sports do we have to put with the woke nonsense that makes watching the football unbearable now?

What woke nonsense would that be? And what is the meaning of woke in this context?

Brendan wrote:

Again the dirty little secret is that alot of international money for Super Rugby was built around SA & Argentina being in it because it aligned better with Europe and North America.  NZRU thought it was their teams who generated it but as they have found out they are just a small island in the wrong place.

.

It has long been acknowledged that South Africa brought in a substantial part of SANZAAR revenue through Super Rugby and they thought they weren't getting their fair share of it. It ain't no secret.

Perhaps a bit of biased commentary on your home front.

What remains to be seen is how much of an uplift does SARU bring to the PRO16 pot with Sky now best positioned to get the UK and Ireland license rights?

Pot Hale wrote:

Brendan wrote:

Again the dirty little secret is that alot of international money for Super Rugby was built around SA & Argentina being in it because it aligned better with Europe and North America.  NZRU thought it was their teams who generated it but as they have found out they are just a small island in the wrong place.

.

It has long been acknowledged that South Africa brought in a substantial part of SANZAAR revenue through Super Rugby and they thought they weren't getting their fair share of it.   It ain't no secret.

Perhaps a bit of biased commentary on your home front.  

What remains to be seen is how much of an uplift does SARU bring to the PRO16 pot with Sky now best positioned to get the UK and Ireland license rights?

One of the reason NZRU jumped ship was that their new TV deal was now the biggest in SANZAAR (in part it was down to Rand being devalued).

As a result NZRU thought that the viewing numbers for Super Rugby were down to their teams being so good, which isn't the case.  Suddenly NZRU are struggling to get viewers in Europe even though they have some of the best teams.

The secret was that SA game times were more convient for Europe which is why people in Europe watched, rather then SA being the biggest TV Market.  NZRU failed to understand this which is why their tv deals have failed to inspire and they are now closer to finacial instability.  They still have great teams but it's not something Europeans fans care about as they get ready for work on a Friday Morning.

The reason sky are getting on board is not because of the SA teams but because of the time the SA teams will be playing.  SARU will keep the money from their tv deal so SA TV deals are irrelevant.  The league get 10m for SARU regardless of TV deals.  If the 5 NZ teams were joining the Pro16 I'm fairly sure sky wouldn't be looking for exclusive rights in the UK as half the big games would go unwatched at silly o'clock in the morning.

The IRFU understand that people aren't going to watch just the Irish playing which is why they are happy to keep building the league while at the same time providing the biggest games in the league, the NZRU weren't so much.  It's also why RA always wanted a Tasman league over an Australian league even though they are a bigger market.

BamBam wrote:What woke nonsense would that be? And what is the meaning of woke in this context?

Just turn on sky's sports before any game. Shouldn't have to be explained to you its as clear as day.

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

BamBam wrote:What woke nonsense would that be? And what is the meaning of woke in this context?

Just turn on sky's ports before any game. Shouldn't have to be explained to you its as clear as day.

The anti gambling messages while running sky bet? Is that it?

Brendan wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

Brendan wrote:

Again the dirty little secret is that alot of international money for Super Rugby was built around SA & Argentina being in it because it aligned better with Europe and North America.  NZRU thought it was their teams who generated it but as they have found out they are just a small island in the wrong place.

.

It has long been acknowledged that South Africa brought in a substantial part of SANZAAR revenue through Super Rugby and they thought they weren't getting their fair share of it.   It ain't no secret.

Perhaps a bit of biased commentary on your home front.  

What remains to be seen is how much of an uplift does SARU bring to the PRO16 pot with Sky now best positioned to get the UK and Ireland license rights?

One of the reason NZRU jumped ship was that their new TV deal was now the biggest in SANZAAR (in part it was down to Rand being devalued).

As a result NZRU thought that the viewing numbers for Super Rugby were down to their teams being so good, which isn't the case.  Suddenly NZRU are struggling to get viewers in Europe even though they have some of the best teams.

The secret was that SA game times were more convient for Europe which is why people in Europe watched, rather then SA being the biggest TV Market.  NZRU failed to understand this which is why their tv deals have failed to inspire and they are now closer to finacial instability.  They still have great teams but it's not something Europeans fans care about as they get ready for work on a Friday Morning.

The reason sky are getting on board is not because of the SA teams but because of the time the SA teams will be playing.  SARU will keep the money from their tv deal so SA TV deals are irrelevant.  The league get 10m for SARU regardless of TV deals.  If the 5 NZ teams were joining the Pro16 I'm fairly sure sky wouldn't be looking for exclusive rights in the UK as half the big games would go unwatched at silly o'clock in the morning.

The IRFU understand that people aren't going to watch just the Irish playing which is why they are happy to keep building the league while at the same time providing the biggest games in the league, the NZRU weren't so much.  It's also why RA always wanted a Tasman league over an Australian league even though they are a bigger market.

I wonder if one of the reasons they are brining in the Fijian Drua is to appeal to European audiences. Maybe I'm way off and it's just me but I've never got into super rugby (I can't remember the last full game I watched) but with the Drua there from 2022 I'll be watching every game I can.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

BamBam wrote:What woke nonsense would that be? And what is the meaning of woke in this context?

Just turn on sky's ports before any game. Shouldn't have to be explained to you its as clear as day.

The anti gambling messages while running sky bet? Is that it?

Eh yeah sure.

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

BamBam wrote:What woke nonsense would that be? And what is the meaning of woke in this context?

Just turn on sky's ports before any game. Shouldn't have to be explained to you its as clear as day.

The anti gambling messages while running sky bet? Is that it?

Eh yeah sure.

I assume not then. I'm at a loss. What were you meaning?

No 7&1/2 wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

BamBam wrote:What woke nonsense would that be? And what is the meaning of woke in this context?

Just turn on sky's ports before any game. Shouldn't have to be explained to you its as clear as day.

The anti gambling messages while running sky bet? Is that it?

Eh yeah sure.

I assume not then. I'm at a loss. What were you meaning?

Probably best you don't know.

Why not? You wanted to make a point didn't you lf4l? Be brave and spell it out.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Why not? You wanted to make a point didn't you lf4l? Be brave and spell it out.

Ill spell it out no bother at all, in fact I'd be more than delighted to but let's face in this day in age I'll be banned for life on the forum for it, in order to appease the eternally offended.

If you think that, it would probably be easier to not even allude to it.

Brendan wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

Brendan wrote:

Again the dirty little secret is that alot of international money for Super Rugby was built around SA & Argentina being in it because it aligned better with Europe and North America.  NZRU thought it was their teams who generated it but as they have found out they are just a small island in the wrong place.

.

It has long been acknowledged that South Africa brought in a substantial part of SANZAAR revenue through Super Rugby and they thought they weren't getting their fair share of it.   It ain't no secret.

Perhaps a bit of biased commentary on your home front.  

What remains to be seen is how much of an uplift does SARU bring to the PRO16 pot with Sky now best positioned to get the UK and Ireland license rights?

The secret was that SA game times were more convient for Europe which is why people in Europe watched, rather then SA being the biggest TV Market.  

The reason sky are getting on board is not because of the SA teams but because of the time the SA teams will be playing.  SARU will keep the money from their tv deal so SA TV deals are irrelevant.  The league get 10m for SARU regardless of TV deals.  If the 5 NZ teams were joining the Pro16 I'm fairly sure sky wouldn't be looking for exclusive rights in the UK as half the big games would go unwatched at silly o'clock in the morning.

Where did you get your info re "SARU will keep the money from their tv deal so SA TV deals are irrelevant.  The league get 10m for SARU regardless of TV deals."

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Why not? You wanted to make a point didn't you lf4l? Be brave and spell it out.

Ill spell it out no bother at all, in fact I'd be more than delighted to but let's face in this day in age I'll be banned for life on the forum for it, in order to appease the eternally offended.

Why? You'll only get a ban for breaking the site rules. As a regularly banned poster, I can confirm I've only ever been banned when breaking rules, and it hasn't been for life yet.

Which rule do you think you'll be breaking by saying what "woke nonsense" you don't like, and explaining what "woke" is?

RiscaGame wrote:If you think that, it would probably be easier to not even allude to it.

Agreed

BamBam wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Why not? You wanted to make a point didn't you lf4l? Be brave and spell it out.

Ill spell it out no bother at all, in fact I'd be more than delighted to but let's face in this day in age I'll be banned for life on the forum for it, in order to appease the eternally offended.

Why? You'll only get a ban for breaking the site rules. As a regularly banned poster, I can confirm I've only ever been banned when breaking rules, and it hasn't been for life yet.

Which rule do you think you'll be breaking by saying what "woke nonsense" you don't like, and explaining what "woke" is?

Its the ' dont be a racist pr**k' one.