RFL Chairman responds to criticism

[Pottsy]

No but I aren't trawling through the memory banks just to highlight which other ones are always at it.

It seems odd, given the strength of feeling expressed in your previous posts, that you'd have to 'trawl your memory banks' to find other habitual "denegrators."

Maybe your perception is not wholly fair?

I think Super League Backchat may well fuel this feeling as the editorial tone is generally focused on ranting/moaning.

[Futtocks]

Imagine you're a marketing director at a major UK company reading your Guardian on the train on the way in to work, you take time to scan for articles on rugby league as you have a meeting with the RFL marketing team that day, you either find nothing or doom-and-gloom stories.  You then get to work and decide to be a bit more proactive and have a look at the Times, Telegraph and Independent, same story, either nothing or doom-and-gloom.  What's big coming up in the sport?  A world cup that's almost exclusively full of negative media coverage.  Not exactly likely to get you in the mood for handing over sponsorship money, companies don't like being associated with failures and the news in most newspapers about rugby league is just all about that, rugby league failing.  The RFL people come in, you've got nothing but negative PR to tie against their Powerpoint presentation of what a wonderful sport it is full of prime, marketable fans and spectators, they go away with a "thanks but no thanks" message.

...and that's before you decide to take a quick look at the social media, where wild accusations of corruption, doom and despair are defended by branding any dissenting voices as 'cheerleaders', 'yes-men' and 'brainwashed'.

 

Then, perhaps, you decide to read the opinions of people like "award-winning Rugby journalist" Stephen Jones...  

[Pottsy]

I don't know whether people read Stephen Jones' stuff in the Sunday Times (other than his moronic trolling of rugby league) but he's actually incredibly critical of the authorities and, dare I use the word, 'negative.'

He does wax lyrical in florid terms about whichever player happens to be flavour of the month but he's also possibly the most ham-fistedly reactionary writer working in sports journalism today.

His international match reports are a case in point: if England win 15-12, it was a tour de force enacted by giants and artisans; lose 15-12 and it was a disaster symptomatic of all the game's present ills.

You should be careful what you wish for!

[Futtocks]

I don't know whether people read Stephen Jones' stuff in the Sunday Times (other than his moronic trolling of rugby league) but he's actually incredibly critical of the authorities and, dare I use the word, 'negative.'

He does wax lyrical in florid terms about whichever player happens to be flavour of the month but he's also possibly the most ham-fistedly reactionary writer working in sports journalism today.

His international match reports are a case in point: if England win 15-12, it was a tour de force enacted by giants and artisans; lose 15-12 and it was a disaster symptomatic of all the game's present ills.

You should be careful what you wish for!

It's more a case of what Wiggy writes about Rugby League and the RWC in the run-up to the event than the autotexted dribblings he delivers on the subject of Rugby Union.

[ParraEelsNRL]

The ESL needs more games on TV, two a week is just not enough to get sponsors interested, what do they get out of it when they are hidden away except for 3-4 hours a week.

 

Plain and simple, the sky deal needs to have at least another game added to it to add value for decent sponsors. Sponsors want to be seen, not tucked away.

[Just to be clear]

The ESL needs more games on TV, two a week is just not enough to get sponsors interested, what do they get out of it when they are hidden away except for 3-4 hours a week.

Just to be clear, just how short are NRL matches than you can fit 2 within 3 hours?

Sky usually shows 8 hours of Super League branded programming per week on the main channels, all of which is repeated, usually at least twice, plus as extra 3 half hour shows on the red button, trailers, and coverage of the league on Sky Sports News. All of which would include the sponsor's name being reference and logo being shown.

An extra live match will not be a break point, especially if it only dilutes the existing audience. Sky are currently struggling to schedule their live matches at times which maximise audiences. Leading to them controversially moving the Saturday evening matches to Thursday nights to avoid clashes now that Sky will have Saturday evening Premier League matches.

Extra live matches will be welcomed by most of us on forums like this who go out of our way to watch rugby. But it is general sport fans who are important to broadcasters to make coverage cost effective, and to sponsors to increase their reach. This is why the audience figures vary so much from between 90k and 290k and mediocre matchups can outweigh top of the table clashes.

[ParraEelsNRL]

Being clear as a bell, two games is not enough!

[petesmithfan]

RFL Chairman Brian Barwick has responded to criticism of the RFL in Rugby League Express editor Martyn Sadler's 'Talking Rugby League' column in this week's edition of the weekly newspaper.

Sadler criticised the RFL's inability to raise the profile of Rugby League in the national media, while making irrelevant changes to league structures, and expressed disappointment that Barwick had failed to have a noticeable impact since his appointment in February.

Click here to view the article

If saddler is so bothered about publicising the World cup , why has he spend the last 2 months devoting his editorial to undermining the reforms and anybody in favour?  At the end of the Day the clubs will vote how they see fit and the suggestion that champ clubs will be swayed by a small increase in central funding is repugnant.  If the clubs on mass do not want the restructure then they would vote against it.  Your inference towards Woods a man I do not have much time for, were verging on libellous.  

 

Is sadler still RFL media manager ???  Im guessing not

[petesmithfan]

For God sake. 

 

I'd rather have some insight and reflect on the potential benefits.

 

If Martyn has already made his mind up on it then I'm not interested and If I was Barwick I wouldn't have bothered with a reply. If someone with such "influence" can't hold his water long enough for the facts to get into the public domain then I'm equally not bothered.  Martyn's influence is measured by the number of papers he sells and I for one haven't bought it since Martyn took sides so early on. 

 

Great post.  my issue exactly.  He hasnt waited for any real detail, before making his mind up.................. some real journalism would have been to delve into the other plans so we all had a rounder view but instead he chose to just attack the RFL stance.  

[Pottsy]

I don't watch backchat. I know what I read on twitter mate, this is why I have the opinion I do. Not because I don't like the guys personally.

There seems to be a bit of a mentality whereby anyone not saying things aren't too bad is just a RFL mouthpiece and not one of these free spirits who won't be told what to say.

Fair enough. I honestly don't think this is the case and think you'll find that journalists who cover other sports ( particularly football) are far more openly critical. But I can understand how you might form that perception.

[JohnM]

Sure , some journalists and some reporters of other sports may be highly critical of their sports, but as a proportion of the total coverage of such sports,  is still small.  When it comes to RL, my observation, experience, opinion and belief is that there is a far higher proportion of negativity.

 

There are not that  many regular and frequent posters on this forum . Nevertheless, the forum is occupied  whinges from the same people about referees , game locations, the RFL, SuperLeague, licencing, media coverage, falling crowd levels ( when the facts show the opposite), Maurice Lindsay,  choice of England head coach, choice of England team, unfairness to Championship clubs, Sky TV, Premier Sports, modern stadiums, obesity, train stations, summer rugby,  the Stoop,  etc..in fact, anything and everything, all the time.  

 

It is of course perfectly acceptable to criticise these things and individually, there may be merit in  such criticism.  However, it is the collective knee-jerk reaction of the naysayers to pile in on anything and everything the RFL says.  You can almost guarantee that if the RFL reported that the sun was shining, one or more of the usual suspects would moan and take issue. 

 

Sure, there may be lots that the critics think is wrong with our game. Sure there may be issues to discuss  but we seem to be losing sight of of all the good things that are happening, too ( or denying that anything good is happening at all)

Edited July 28, 2013 by JohnM

[John Drake]

Moaning about people moaning. Is the forum beginning to eat itself?

If you want to see more positive threads on here, don't wait for others to start them, then we may get a few.

Just a (positive) thought.

[brooza]

So just Chris Irvine then?

He sent me a message on twitter defending his "23 years of being positive" about RL in his articles. However, he won't follow me back so I can't reply to him

[brooza]

Just to be clear, just how short are NRL matches than you can fit 2 within 3 hours?

80 minutes

[Pottsy]

He sent me a message on twitter defending his "23 years of being positive" about RL in his articles. However, he won't follow me back so I can't reply to him

Maybe he has genuine concerns about the sport's current trajectory.

I'm not saying he's right or wrong but surely he can only call it as he sees it. I've never actually spoken to Chris Irvine but can't really believe that any RL journalist would be negative for the sake of it.

[JohnM]

Of course he may have concerns and of course  he's not negative for the sake of it. 

 

Its a question of demeanor, mindset, and priorities. Some reporters and posters prioritise good over bad, others don't. Some reporters and posters  have a sunny disposition, some don't  and some reporters and posters  have a mindset that assumes a default position that  the good outweighs the bad and some don't. 

[Pottsy]

It's a tough one. Using yesterday as an example, looking at things as a journalist/editor, which of these things rates highest in terms of news values:

1) Wigan being very good and racking up a record score in a game they were expected to win.

2) London Broncos being very poor despite fetching in Soward in a bid to return to wembley.

3) a very poor crowd at what should be a showcase occasion for the sport.

[JohnM]

Its not tough. Johnny Mercer was right - its 1 every time.  The others are of course, the natural haunts of so many empty-glass RL reportes and so many RL posters on here. 

 

(I suspect the editor doesn't even care.) 

[Dave T]

It's a tough one. Using yesterday as an example, looking at things as a journalist/editor, which of these things rates highest in terms of news values:

1) Wigan being very good and racking up a record score in a game they were expected to win.

2) London Broncos being very poor despite fetching in Soward in a bid to return to wembley.

3) a very poor crowd at what should be a showcase occasion for the sport.

And after the quarter finals which were described as the most depressing set of QF's for years (or similar)?

 

This despite a very close game live on the BBC where Hull FC the underdogs beat Catalan.

You also had Wire beating a team 2nd in the league very convincingly.

 

Compare that to if Chelsea had played Liverpool in the FA Cup quarters and despite the close game everyone expects Liverpool stuffed them 5 nil. Do you think the reaction of the football journos would have been to slate it? I suspect they would have been worshipping Liverpool's performance. Instead in RL we end up discussing whether the cup should be scrapped.

[Pottsy]

I think you're wrong to assume that if a showpiece football event was being played out in front of so many empty seats that this wouldn't be a hot topic for sports columnists.

It wouldn't be the biggest story but it'd certainly be a heavily discussed topic.

[JohnM]

You share the negative mindset, though,  If Wigan had won in front of a full house, you'd then move on to saying that the real story was the wrong choice choice of stadium.

 

In fact, had the game been played in Coventry, in front of a full house, with London winning a hard fought game by a last minute drop goal, you'd side with those posters on here and the stalwart band of RL reporters who would complain about car parking, ticket prices, traffic jams, kick off time, commentators, impenetrable local accents,  lack of pies etc etc.

[robinson2]

As far as I can see, Brian Barwick is not there to run the game nor to restructure the competition. He is there as a well-known administrator with a foot in the door at the big TV networks etc and to get the game noticed where it would otherwise be ignored. I'm not saying that this Rome should be built in a day but do we know what, if any, progress he has made on that score?

[Dave T]

I think you're wrong to assume that if a showpiece football event was being played out in front of so many empty seats that this wouldn't be a hot topic for sports columnists.

It wouldn't be the biggest story but it'd certainly be a heavily discussed topic.

But in all honesty, this crowd was expected, I pretty much called it spot on last week.

 

We knew there were going to be thousands of empty seats. London are a basket case of a club, and tbh whilst it was a good turnout from Wigan, I'm sure plenty of them saved their £20-30 to buy tickets this morning for Wembley.

 

Why focus on this over everything else.

[gingerjon]

I think Chuckles has been reading this forum:

 

"Fantastic pre-match at #CCHulWar by @NYBrassBand - seriously good band and part of great atmosphere building at Huddersfield #rugbyleague"

[Pottsy]

You share the negative mindset, though, If Wigan had won in front of a full house, you'd then move on to saying that the real story was the wrong choice choice of stadium.

In fact, had the game been played in Coventry, in front of a full house, with London winning a hard fought game by a last minute drop goal, you'd side with those posters on here and the stalwart band of RL reporters who would complain about car parking, ticket prices, traffic jams, kick off time, commentators, impenetrable local accents, lack of pies etc etc.

Really silly and pointless post. I won't even dignify you with a proper response if that's the best you can muster. Utter drivel.