Jump to content


TotalRL.com Shop Alert: Last Ordering Date for Free Pre-Xmas Delivery within UK: 2pm Thursday 18th December!!
Rugby League Yearbook 2014/15 The Forbidden Game League Express League Express Gift Card Rugby League World Rugby League World Gift Card
Buy Now £14.99 Buy Now £14.99 / Kindle Print / Digital Subscription Gift Cards Print / Digital Subscription Gift Cards



Photo
- - - - -

Do we deserve to be in the National Papers?


  • Please log in to reply
82 replies to this topic

#41 Cardiff Cymru

Cardiff Cymru
  • Coach
  • 1,837 posts

Posted 12 September 2010 - 07:19 AM

Crusaders are northern but they're not M62. I personally think BBC's coverage in Wales especially has gone down hill this year despite the team performing well. They cut the live radio coverage that they did from Bridgend every game, they refused to recognise South Wales Scorpions online, they refuse to acknowledge any development, they editted out the under 23 Wales side from rhe online release plus of course they still don't show The Super League Show. BBC1 Wales news have been okay but that's down to one man who works there rather than the corporation itself.
About time I updated this.

Join Rebtel for cheap international calls

#42 bowes

bowes
  • Coach
  • 11,237 posts

Posted 12 September 2010 - 07:20 AM

QUOTE (nath155 @ Sep 12 2010, 12:28 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
why are the crusaders down as northern

Because they are, 30 miles from Widnes. A matter of debate on them and Scorpions of course depending on whether you're including Wales or not.

Edited by bowes, 12 September 2010 - 07:22 AM.


#43 bowes

bowes
  • Coach
  • 11,237 posts

Posted 12 September 2010 - 07:21 AM

QUOTE (JohnM @ Sep 12 2010, 07:53 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I'm certainly not going to "debate" anything with you, seeing as you indulge in personal abuse and incivility.

rolleyes.gif

#44 Methven Hornet

Methven Hornet
  • Coach
  • 9,496 posts

Posted 12 September 2010 - 08:57 AM

QUOTE (JohnM @ Sep 12 2010, 07:53 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I'm certainly not going to "debate" anything with you, seeing as you indulge in personal abuse and incivility.

You must be getting old! The JohnM of the past would have swatted an extreme reaction like that like swatting away a dying autumn wasp! If there is personal abuse do what CKN is advises us to do till he is blue in the face - report it and get on with providing your entertaining but cutting posts.

Bowes - there is a difference between an extreme opinion and an 'extreme' lie (I'd like to know the measurement scale). Calm down, make your usually valued contribution in a civil manner and enjoy the debate.

Right, the Solomon job over I'm off to put some Sunday morning miles in - hope I don't get lost!
"There are now more pandas in Scotland than Tory MPs."

#45 Bob8

Bob8
  • Coach
  • 9,616 posts

Posted 12 September 2010 - 09:14 AM

As much as rugby league being under represented, we also have certain sports over represented. Compared to soccer and speedway, we can be quite happy with our coverage. If rugby league is less reported than a single Manchester United game, that does give a general reflection of the level of interest.

However, some sports, e.g. cricket and rugby union are wildly over represented through a number of factors, which basically come down to where national journalists and their ideal customers went to school.

To compare ourselves to cricket and ru coverage says as much about the coverage of these sports as it does about our own.

"You clearly have never met Bob8 then, he's like a veritable Bryan Ferry of RL." - Johnoco 19 Jul 2014

”I am all for expansion but not to start and string the teams all over the place” – stewpot01 – 11 July 2014

"2013 is on course to be one of the most disastrous in its history." - Creditwhereitsdews - 2nd January 2013


#46 bowes

bowes
  • Coach
  • 11,237 posts

Posted 12 September 2010 - 09:32 AM

QUOTE (Methven Hornet @ Sep 12 2010, 09:57 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Bowes - there is a difference between an extreme opinion and an 'extreme' lie (I'd like to know the measurement scale).

The difference is whether something is measurable, which something like spread of teams is, but there's no point carrying this on of course. You can't have an opinion on whether a cow or elephant is bigger

#47 bowes

bowes
  • Coach
  • 11,237 posts

Posted 12 September 2010 - 09:35 AM

QUOTE (Bob8 @ Sep 12 2010, 10:14 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
As much as rugby league being under represented, we also have certain sports over represented. Compared to soccer and speedway, we can be quite happy with our coverage. If rugby league is less reported than a single Manchester United game, that does give a general reflection of the level of interest.

However, some sports, e.g. cricket and rugby union are wildly over represented through a number of factors, which basically come down to where national journalists and their ideal customers went to school.

To compare ourselves to cricket and ru coverage says as much about the coverage of these sports as it does about our own.

County cricket is overrepresented but I wouldn't say international is as there is a lot of interest. Club RU should in honesty get more coverage than club RL but not to the extent it does as the crowds are only a little higher on average and big RL crowds are very big. Depends on how well a particular paper sells in the north as well I suppose as people from RL areas are more likely to buy a left leaning paper I would have thought, hence the Guardian gives more RL and there's much less in the Daily Mail

Edited by bowes, 12 September 2010 - 09:36 AM.


#48 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 15,831 posts

Posted 12 September 2010 - 09:56 AM

Surely a measure of how popular these sports are at certain levels is Sky viewing figures. All sports have their top league and some international games shown by SS.

engage Super League coverage more often than not outstrips RU Premiership coverage, often by a considerable amount. How does this then translate that more people want to read about the RU Premiership than engage Super League? That doesn't make much sense to me tbh.

We can have no complaints at Test level, as RU tests often have double the viewing figures of a RU test, but tbh if we had half their coverage it would be a hell of an improvement.

#49 sgorpioncaerdyddrob

sgorpioncaerdyddrob
  • Coach
  • 359 posts

Posted 12 September 2010 - 09:56 AM

I think its less about the Geographical spread and more about whether that Geographical spread includes London and the London centric national media.As far as I know none of the national papers in terms of the UK has its head office outside the South of England.

Other sports like Basketball have a wider Geographical spread at the top level than RL, the distant third most popular sport here in Cardiff is probably Ice Hockey, also a wider Geographical spread. It gets a few articles a week in the local during the season, it used to get far more national coverage when there was money in the League to attract top talent and a London team regardless of the numbers watching it.

The key here is that neither has a top flight team in London and RL attracts far more people to its matches than these sports. I think that in terms of numbers itself RL is worth substantial National Media coverage, but clearly the National Media does not.

Clearly a successful London RL side is paramount to getting substantial National Media coverage.

Edited by cardifcrusaderrob, 12 September 2010 - 02:23 PM.

CARDIFF CITY RUGBY LEAGUE FOOTBALL CLUB cardiffrugbyleague.com
BLUE BLUE BLUE DRAGONS!
Rygbi Gynghrair Cymru am byth


#50 Bob8

Bob8
  • Coach
  • 9,616 posts

Posted 12 September 2010 - 10:13 AM

QUOTE (cardifcrusaderrob @ Sep 12 2010, 11:56 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I think its less about the Geographical spread and more about whether that Geographical spread includes London and the London centric national media.As far as I know none of the national papers in terms of the UK has

Other sports like Basketball have a wider Geographical spread at the top level than RL, the distant third most popular sport here in Cardiff is probably Ice Hockey, also a wider Geographical spread. It gets a few articles a week in the local during the season, it used to get far more national coverage when there was money in the League to attract top talent.

The key here is that neither has a top flight team in London and RL attracts far more people to its matches than these sports. I think that in terms of numbers itself RL is worth substantial National Media coverage, but clearly the National Media does not.

Clearly a successful London RL side is paramount to getting substantial National Media coverage.



Indeed, however, sports that are underreported (speedway and ice-hockey) are by definition not as noticeable when we compare our coverage to others.

Many national journalists really believe that RL has generous coverage. They see the figures, but as there are not that many rugby league fans, they think there must be another explanation. When St Helens win sports team of the year, they believe it must be a fix as they know there are not many rugby league fans. When they have huge numbers of letters asking for more coverage, they believe it must be all the fans organising together as they know there are not many rugby league fans.

Simply, most of the people these journalists meet socially will be fans of RU or cricket and have possibly been interested in soccer since 1990. There might be numbers that say there are lots of rugby league fans, but as they do not meet them, it seems fair to assume that people are only watching the league as they do not have the chance to watch union.

Edited by Bob8, 12 September 2010 - 10:13 AM.

"You clearly have never met Bob8 then, he's like a veritable Bryan Ferry of RL." - Johnoco 19 Jul 2014

”I am all for expansion but not to start and string the teams all over the place” – stewpot01 – 11 July 2014

"2013 is on course to be one of the most disastrous in its history." - Creditwhereitsdews - 2nd January 2013


#51 Blind side johnny

Blind side johnny
  • Coach
  • 9,750 posts

Posted 12 September 2010 - 12:04 PM



A simple question here: If specific newspapers increased RL coverage would you be inclined to buy those papers on that basis? If the answer is "no" then why should coverage be increased?

Whether we like it or not there is a fairly fundamental class divide between the followers of RU and RL - the former are more inclined to buy "their kind of paper" which often gives extensive RU coverage. I have severe doubts that if those papers increased their Rl coverage they would also increase sales.

That's their bottom line.


Believe what you see, don't see what you believe.


John Ray (1627 - 1705)

#52 Jerry the Berry

Jerry the Berry
  • Coach
  • 5,252 posts

Posted 12 September 2010 - 12:17 PM

QUOTE (bowes @ Sep 12 2010, 10:35 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Club RU should in honesty get more coverage than club RL


It often does. The 7'000 or so who watch Sale on a Friday night can look forward to reading a decent match report about their match in the following mornings nationals, whereas the 17'000 who watch Wigan just 30 miles away will be lucky to get a couple of lines in the 'World of Sport' or 'Other Sports' sections if anything at all.

#53 bowes

bowes
  • Coach
  • 11,237 posts

Posted 12 September 2010 - 06:38 PM

QUOTE (Dave T @ Sep 12 2010, 10:56 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Surely a measure of how popular these sports are at certain levels is Sky viewing figures. All sports have their top league and some international games shown by SS.

engage Super League coverage more often than not outstrips RU Premiership coverage, often by a considerable amount. How does this then translate that more people want to read about the RU Premiership than engage Super League? That doesn't make much sense to me tbh.

We can have no complaints at Test level, as RU tests often have double the viewing figures of a RU test, but tbh if we had half their coverage it would be a hell of an improvement.

I was thinking attendance wide but fair point though RL has more of a TV culture than RU so more complex with regards to it being an indication of interest.

Edited by bowes, 12 September 2010 - 08:40 PM.


#54 AuroraXIII

AuroraXIII
  • Coach
  • 137 posts

Posted 14 September 2010 - 04:50 PM

It was interesting to see Sale get their Friday night game in last Saturday's Mail when the reason for not covering Friday night Super League games is that they are too late for the edition.
Sale presumably play in a different time zone to Saints, Wigan and Warrington.
If you could show a sports editor last weekend's Wigan v Leeds game, and said that the final was likely to attract 65-70,000, and that the average attendance across the top level of the sport was above 10,000, and there were no pre-conceived ideas or prejudices involved, they would be falling over themselves to cover it.
Rugby League is tailor made for a mass audience.
The games are exciting more often than not. They provide any number of talking points, almost non-stop action and are played by incredible all round athletes - 99% of who are ignored by the vast majority of the media for the vast majority of the time.
I've often thought the sport's relentless nature sometimes works against it. There are no long pauses when commentators can waffle on about the superlative nature of what we've just seen and replay it over and over.
Rugby Union, tennis, cricket and golf are all apparently played by near magicians capable of the most incredible feats of skill. Our players...well you wouldn't know would you?
How many big profile pieces have there been on Adrian Morley for instance? Outstanding in a very good Warrington team, back to back Wembley wins, a success in the hardest rugby competition in the world. A character in every sense of the word.
When Warrington retained the cup, the rugby teaser on the front of the Sunday Times sports section was that Tom Rees was fit again.
Newspapers have all but given up providing any analysis, you certainly won't get much on Sky and while the BBC's studio team do a decent job, the magazine programme is hidden in the schedules and of limited value.
I think we're almost too far down the road to work our way back to fair national newspaper coverage and that the 2013 World Cup could be a make or break competition. Win it, or come very close, and we can try to build on what should be an increased profile in the short term. Perform like we did at the last one and our media future would be even bleaker than at present

#55 Usera

Usera
  • Players
  • 61 posts

Posted 14 September 2010 - 06:17 PM

QUOTE (Maximus Decimus @ Sep 11 2010, 07:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The strength of the game is definitely in the south.

The 3 northern clubs first home games got 5,000 5,500 and 7,500. This is against the Aviva league average of 12,000.

Of course it is bigger and more spread but as far as the Aviva league goes the real interest lies in the south.

When you consider that Exeter are new this year and that the 3 Northern clubs are not well supported, it is a fairly regional league. Compared to the amount of press it gets, how many people do you think are genuinely interested in the results of the Aviva Premiership. I would suggest there are a handful of people in the north.

League clearly deserves to be in the National press in comparison and it would be if the M62 happened to run through London.


It is interesting to note that Sale hardly has any competition in the North-West. They are the only club in the top tier of RU.

The next clubs are two leagues down in national league one, Macclesfield and Sedgley Park whose attendances hardly set the world on fire (the recent match between the two had an attendance of 397)

You do get the impression that RU is declining somewhat in the North and the ambitious up and coming clubs are from the South.


#56 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,701 posts

Posted 14 September 2010 - 06:29 PM

QUOTE (Methven Hornet @ Sep 12 2010, 09:57 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
You must be getting old! The JohnM of the past would have swatted an extreme reaction like that like swatting away a dying autumn wasp! If there is personal abuse do what CKN is advises us to do till he is blue in the face - report it and get on with providing your entertaining but cutting posts.


Also don't forget to press the "ignore" function. No offence to Bowes here though I do enjoy his opinions.


#57 StevieM13

StevieM13
  • Coach
  • 182 posts

Posted 14 September 2010 - 10:49 PM

QUOTE (thirteenthman @ Sep 11 2010, 09:13 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
To answer the question in the OP, while we deserve to be in the national media, it would be hard to argue the case for the coverage to be more extensive. Why? Simply because at national level, RL isn't as popular as other sports. This comes down to the sport being centred around the club game. In other sports the main focus of attention is on the international game - Football, Cricket and RU being the main examples. Until we make the international game the focus of attention, or at least more important than it is now, nothing will change.

I know a lot of people on here are convinced it's just a big RU led conspiracy. 10 or 20 years ago it was probably true. But things have moved on. Comparisons are made between crowds like 15,000 for Leicester V Northampton and 85,000 for Warrington V Leeds. The important comparison should be 70,000 or so for the England RU team and the 20,000 for the England RL team. And that's even before you take into account the crowds for Wales and Scotland.

International competition is where you pull in the interest of the general sports fan. It's these people that RL has left behind. Pull them in with big international matches, and their interest may spread down to club level and hopefully even amateur level and participating in the game itself.

The Eddie Waring documentary midweek made a telling point. Every few weeks upto 1996, RL was broadcast into everybody's home. The sport picked up a lot of interest from the casual sports fan all over the country. That, sadly, was partially abandoned. RL's visibilty to the public at large has reduced, and along with it the interest. Cricket has faced the same dilemma - go for the money from Sky or keep the terrestrial coverage with the widespread coverage. The jury's out on the effects on cricket, but RL definatley seems to have suffered.


Your last paragraph is very true You only have to look at the huge levels of interest genbrated by Kangaroo tours to see this. The 1990+94 series had the same effect. Changes in the newsprint industry have not helped either. Sky might have saved the game in some people's view, but it killed the international game and keeps it from the widest possible audience. Even the crowds it draws are incomparable, so it killed it for many fans as well.

Edited by StevieM13, 14 September 2010 - 10:52 PM.


#58 koli

koli
  • Coach
  • 172 posts

Posted 15 September 2010 - 04:44 AM

I'd be very interested to hear what from the newspapers themselves about how they decide the allocation of coverage between RU n RL.
As businesses you would imagine they have some financial basis for deciding how much coverage to give each sport and some relationship between what their readers want n what they get in terms of coverage.
The implication from their actyions is that over the last 30 years or so ,although RL attendances have gone up ,the interest in RL from their readership,at least relative to soccer,Cricket n RU has gone down.
Something David Sadler could organise?A forum with sports editors of the major papers and a fact based discussion on how they decide their coverage?

#59 tonyXIII

tonyXIII
  • Coach
  • 5,057 posts

Posted 15 September 2010 - 07:27 AM

QUOTE (koli @ Sep 15 2010, 07:44 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I'd be very interested to hear what from the newspapers themselves about how they decide the allocation of coverage between RU n RL.
As businesses you would imagine they have some financial basis for deciding how much coverage to give each sport and some relationship between what their readers want n what they get in terms of coverage.
The implication from their actyions is that over the last 30 years or so ,although RL attendances have gone up ,the interest in RL from their readership,at least relative to soccer,Cricket n RU has gone down.
Something David Sadler could organise?A forum with sports editors of the major papers and a fact based discussion on how they decide their coverage?


The buggers don't even turn up to the CC Final when given freebies, they'll never turn up to a 'forum' where they might have to actually work.

Edited by tonyXIII, 15 September 2010 - 07:27 AM.

Rethymno Rugby League Appreciation Society
Founder (and, so far, only) member.


#60 Shadow

Shadow
  • Coach
  • 8,160 posts

Posted 15 September 2010 - 03:10 PM

QUOTE (koli @ Sep 15 2010, 05:44 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I'd be very interested to hear what from the newspapers themselves about how they decide the allocation of coverage between RU n RL.
As businesses you would imagine they have some financial basis for deciding how much coverage to give each sport and some relationship between what their readers want n what they get in terms of coverage.
The implication from their actyions is that over the last 30 years or so ,although RL attendances have gone up ,the interest in RL from their readership,at least relative to soccer,Cricket n RU has gone down.
Something David Sadler could organise?A forum with sports editors of the major papers and a fact based discussion on how they decide their coverage?


But it's not a choice between the two, it's a choice between a whole raft of minority sports and RU has a massive spread of clubs across the country. There are 5 leagues in Yorkshire alone with 13 clubs to a league and I'll bet each club has at least 2 sides so that's 130 teams playing most Saturdays, which is the thick end of 2,000 people playing in one county alone. To just look at the headline figures of SuperLeague and Aviva Premiership is to miss the majority of the story.

God Rides a Harley but the Devil rides a Ducati!




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users