Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by paley

  1. doesn't it help when we click on Rugby League articles. isn't that what encouraged jones to continue to spew out his lies with people were clicking on his online articles?

    Absolutely, he thrives on it - not just lies about rugby but he goes out of his way to be a cock about union too, he knew he would get huge amount of clicks by saying Brian O'Driscoll shouldn't be on a union lions tour - however he also knew that there were plenty of other union writers who would give a different opinion. In the national media rugby leaue opinion articles are few and far between so the endless runnng tap of lies spouted by Jones and his ilk about rugby league generally tend to find themselves becoming recieved wisdom. Now that the Times has decided to drop rugby league coverage there is one less voice against the hate. It's a great shame but the national media generally have nothing but contempt for rugby league.

  2. Possibly. is it any wonder when everyday you read the dross they print. most tabloids this week have been fillling their pages with the Peter Crouch story. i don't give a toss about Crouch and what he does, but the tabloids seem to think i and many others do.

    back on topic i think all of us Rugby League fans should only buy newspapers with a Rugby League correspodent. not many options to choose from, but i think we should.

    The best method is to comment on articles and blogs by RL writers - so Dave Hadfields articles or the RL blogs in the Guardian. Unfortunately the Independent changes its comments system every month or so none of whoch I have ever been able to work out how to register with. I am banned from commenting on Guardian blogs because they don't like you pointing out on Shaun Edwards' pieces of fiction that Richard Branson is a billionaire and the muppet at Bath isn't.

  3. We should turn this on its head?

    Isn't the fact that the Times online is now behind a paywall causing this cut?

    By all accounts - none confirmed from News Corp - the users of timesonline have plummeted since the paywall was introduced and revenues are not nearly anywhere near where they want them to be.

    Trouble at 'mill.


    With The Times now deciding to not cover rugby league other than to send ######s such as Jones along to the Challenge Cup final so he can lie about it and Sky marginalising the sport as much as it is able the old argument about increased coverage after a move to summer is looking rather ridiculous. I feel sorry for Christopher Irvine but he must have known that there is no future in being a RL journalist on a national newspaper.

  4. Hardly surprising, The Times has no interest in covering rugby league although who will be their "northern rugby correspondent" when the union season is back on?

    Stephen Jones has been crowing quite a bit in the last couple of years about the decline of rugby coverage in the Times so no doubt he will be thrilled as he will get to lie about the game now with no chance of a comeback - not that there was ever much of one anyway - the traffic was all one way - remember when Chris mentioned the Vichy scandal and Jones filled his column with a series of lies to sooth his readers? Fortunately with the Times now behind a paywall Jones and his legion of Times union writers are an irrelevance.

  5. Bradford v Saints at Wembley in 1996 - it was just a fabulous game. Saints v Bradford again in 2001 at Twickenham, not the game, that was pretty dreadful but in a pub near the stadium afterwards - the place was full to the rafters with fans of umpteen clubs and the Landlord decided to put on a CD of sing-a-long songs - everybody was singing - it was a real standout for me.

  6. yeah, good point, instead of trying to grow revenues and expand the nrl, david gallop should start a campaign to get australian RL fans to call their game the same terminology used by elderly english RL fans

    terminology that the RL media in england seem to largely ignore

    What are you on about now? Who is ignoring it?

  7. Im not Australian and im not wrong the northern clubs broke away in 1895 under the banner Northern Rugby Football Union. The term Rugby League wasnt adopted until much later. Anyway all this is irrelevant most people worldwide think of rugby as rugby union. I dont see whats wrong with referring to our sport as Rugby League or RL for short and theirs as Rugby as they do in Australia. To me Rugby has stereotypes of posh, public schooled and dated. I for one like to think we are a pretty modern sport and out coaching methods are far more advanced than theirs. So why would we want to be tarred with the same brush as them?

    For 100 years anybody who played rugby league was banned from union because they were professional rugby players. Now that union is openly pro union people often claim that rugby has only been played professionaly since 1995. You might think history is bunk but you are wrong.

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.