I think everyone would agree NZF bear a lot of blame for agreeing to the deal regardless.
But there were and still are a lot of first hand stories of people being advised what they could and couldn't do so no offence but in the complete absence of any one wanting to make an official on the record statement about things your info is worth exactly the same as the info from numerous outfits and individuals that tried to stream the games and were advised they couldn't because of the Sky deal.
In the absence of hard evidence one horse will always be outweighed by many horses.
yes i'm not questioning that - However I have tried to find out in these circumstances if anyone was approached by someone from SKY telling them they couldn't and under what parameters or if it was someone from NZF.
We know NZF has history with this kind of thing after they said Westpac Stadium wouldn't allow Peru fans to bring in instruments for Westpac to turn around and say they were fine with it but NZF said no.
What I don't know is if there was some kind of contract term which said something like: If NZF wish for clubs to live stream their non-broadcast games then SKY TV reserve the right to withdraw the one camera highlights at each game. And since that isn't happening this season NZF are now looking at streaming. Honestly that's just conjecture, unless we are talking to a horse who has seen the contract (and any amendments) no-one really knows who is telling who the truth.