Do you really think Rugby League would get better coverage if it was more geographically spread out?
I honestly don't anymore. When we get a couple of lines in most Nationals for a game at Wembley that was officially a sell-out then it's a pretty poor do. Either John Drake or Martyn Sadler posted on here earlier this year about how hard it is to court the National press even with freebies, so I think unless something absolutely drastic happens, we as a sport are always going to be stereotyped and this is a comfortable option for many sports editors.
If we had Plymouth Titans playing Gateshead Thunder in the Grand Final in 10 years time, I'm sure it wouldn't attract that much publicity. Both London and Perpignan having teams at Wembley failed to excite the National press or media in recent years, so we're pretty much p!ssing against the wind looking for it.
I'm all for expansion of the game, but I fail to be optimistic about any significantly increased coverage it would get our sport anymore and I haven't a clue how we ever will I'm afraid, especially when the broadcasters and media seem to prefer the other code of rugby. For example, the BBC Radio 5 sports program last Saturday morning came live from the ground of Exeter RUFC and trumpeted the arrival of Exeter into the top flight of Rugby Union. We'd never ever get the same in February from the likes of Wrexham or Perpignan. We just aren't considered as newsworthy, despite the Aviva Premiership having a similar geographical split as the Engage Superleague, but with the bias towards southern based teams.