The Sun now banning RL indefinitely

[fighting irish]

On 18/06/2019 at 01:36, RayCee said:

You would have to think so. As it has been reported, it wasn't RL banning them. So to punish RL for an action they weren't involved in is totally unreasonable. 

Yes of course, so why turn on RL in this instance, what possible motive could they have? If we issued an accreditation to their man, what's their beef, with us?

[fighting irish]

On 18/06/2019 at 05:53, weloveyouwakefield2 said:

The flaws in the sun’s arguments are massive, the evil people seem to have found an excuse not to cover our sport. I can’t understand why they would do such a thing.

What is ''their argument''? (and its flaws). Have they issued a statement explaining their decision to stop coverage? 

[paulwalker71]

32 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

Assuming that you are right Paul, why do you think the Sun would want to stop covering Rugby League. If the typical rugby league supporter matches the typical Sun reader demographic, why would the paper want to alienate significant numbers of readers and risk a reduction in readership? 

I've really got no clue on that.

My assumption was - to me anyway - the only explanation that fits the available information.

[Martyn Sadler]

2 hours ago, Damien said:

And to what extent the Sun was guided in what to say by the ruling Conservative party, Thatcher and the Police has always been murky to say the least. Yes the Sun did wrong but I think they have beared the brunt of criticism for merely reporting what they had been told by officials covering up their own mistakes and looking for easy scapegoats.

In 1989 the immediate reaction of most of the media and therefore most of the general public was that it was almost certainly the fault of Liverpool supporters. The police accounts of the tragedy certainly contributed to that climate. It was only some time afterwards, when the truth started to come out, that the public feeling began to change.

[Damien]

2 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

In 1989 the immediate reaction of most of the media and therefore most of the general public was that it was almost certainly the fault of Liverpool supporters. The police accounts of the tragedy certainly contributed to that climate. It was only some time afterwards, when the truth started to come out, that the public feeling began to change.

My point is more how much that media reaction was guided by ruling Conservative party, Thatcher, the Police and the likes of Bernard Ingham in the first place.

[Bleep1673]

On ‎17‎/‎06‎/‎2019 at 20:45, EastLondonMike said:

All RL fans should boycott that ###### of a newspaper in response. 

Anyone with a might of intelligence will do.

[Damien]

3 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Whilst it is obviously amongst the worst things it has ever done, if someones only problem with The Sun is Hillsborough then they arent a good person.

Oh please. I really fail to see whether someone reading the Sun makes them a good person or not. Actually I know its complete codswallop as I know good people who do read the Sun.

[Martyn Sadler]

11 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

BSKYB was never majority owned by Murdoch and is now not owned at all by him. It's a wholly owned subsidiary of Comcast.

The RLE's fact checking might be as accurate as The Sun's

Whilst it is obviously amongst the worst things it has ever done, if someones only problem with The Sun is Hillsborough then they arent a good person.

It was a reader's letter, not an article.

And of course for much of its existence Sky has been closely associated with Murdoch.

[JohnM]

I'd forgotten about the IPC period, despite being marginally involved in the pioneering computerised phototypesetting system we installed in Fetter Lane in the early 1970s, and subsequently the ones at the Scottish Daily Record and the Daily Express. 

Nevertheless, this thread has made me realise that is now accepted practice to call people stupid, etc purely on their choice of newspaper. 

[TheLegendOfTexEvans]

11 hours ago, Gerrumonside ref said:

If the rugby league fraternity are going out to bat for the S*n newspaper over this then forget forever expanding the game in Liverpool.

Once the Merseyside media picks up on this then the reaction will be swift and ultimately negative for rugby league.

For some on this thread I sense this is precisely how they would like it to play out.

 

Liverpool should never have been part of a strategic plan. 

However, the support of the biggest national newspaper by a county mile should be.

The game has zero chance of expanding in liverpool anytime soon.  It barely has an amateur presence.

Newcastle should have been the area to hit it strengthens the game in Scotland, the North East and Cumbria.

 

[RayCee]

So has this incident cost Anfield another MW? 

[Martyn Sadler]

I'm glad to say that The Sun are now covering Rugby League again.

I'm delighted for Gary and Gemma Carter.

[londonbronco]

The editorial staff seem to have changed their minds.

 

[Saintslass]

On ‎19‎/‎06‎/‎2019 at 10:46, Gerrumonside ref said:

If the rugby league fraternity are going out to bat for the S*n newspaper over this then forget forever expanding the game in Liverpool.

Once the Merseyside media picks up on this then the reaction will be swift and ultimately negative for rugby league.

For some on this thread I sense this is precisely how they would like it to play out.

 

The game will never expand in Liverpool anyway.  It's a soccer mad city to the exclusion of virtually every other sport in any meaningful sense.  It would be pointless, but perhaps typical, of the RL strategic thinking to continue trying to bash the sport's head against a brick wall and continue trying to break into Liverpool but IMO articles in the Sun are more important to RL than a presence in Liverpool.  

Hopefully the (thankfully temporary) loss of coverage in the Sun will be a sufficient warning shot across the RFL's bows to ensure we never hold Magic there again in the future.

[Damien]

12 minutes ago, Saintslass said:

The game will never expand in Liverpool anyway.  It's a soccer mad city to the exclusion of virtually every other sport in any meaningful sense.  It would be pointless, but perhaps typical, of the RL strategic thinking to continue trying to bash the sport's head against a brick wall and continue trying to break into Liverpool but IMO articles in the Sun are more important to RL than a presence in Liverpool.  

Hopefully the (thankfully temporary) loss of coverage in the Sun will be a sufficient warning shot across the RFL's bows to ensure we never hold Magic there again in the future.

We may as well just give up then. There is absolutely no reason that any area should not be able to have a Rugby League club. Liverpool may not become the next Wigan or Leeds but there is no reason that we couldn't have a Newcastle type club. If we had clubs like that up and down the country then Rugby League would be much better for it. Not every club has to be a Super League club.

[Dave T]

32 minutes ago, Damien said:

We may as well just give up then. There is absolutely no reason that any area should not be able to have a Rugby League club. Liverpool may not become the next Wigan or Leeds but there is no reason that we couldn't have a Newcastle type club. If we had clubs like that up and down the country then Rugby League would be much better for it. Not every club has to be a Super League club.

Yup.

I think we often get a bit obsessed with having an SL club in these places, but I think the important thing is that we have a huge potential audience in population centres like Liverpool right on our doorstep. We should be trying to drive interest for our game in places like this to try and tap into the corporate £, the media presence, the potential TV viewers, kids playing, plus the fans interested have plenty of options on their doorstep in the form of St Helens, Warrington, Wigan, Widnes etc. To follow a club it doesn't need to be exactly from the place you live/grew up/were born - football is the perfect example of this. I'm a Man City fan, but I am not from Manchester.

I am cool with staging events in Liverpool, but we should retain control of them, and I don't think Magic is the right event to be held there.

[Martyn Sadler]

21 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Yup.

I think we often get a bit obsessed with having an SL club in these places, but I think the important thing is that we have a huge potential audience in population centres like Liverpool right on our doorstep. We should be trying to drive interest for our game in places like this to try and tap into the corporate £, the media presence, the potential TV viewers, kids playing, plus the fans interested have plenty of options on their doorstep in the form of St Helens, Warrington, Wigan, Widnes etc. To follow a club it doesn't need to be exactly from the place you live/grew up/were born - football is the perfect example of this. I'm a Man City fan, but I am not from Manchester.

I am cool with staging events in Liverpool, but we should retain control of them, and I don't think Magic is the right event to be held there.

If Rugby League can be successful in Melbourne, then it can be successful anywhere, including Liverpool.

I think it's fair to say that Melburnians are even more fanatical about Aussie Rules than Liverpudlians are about football.

But it needs some strategic, intelligent thinking and financial support that I'm not sure we possess.

[gingerjon]

1 hour ago, londonbronco said:

The editorial staff seem to have changed their minds.

 

I assume that's The Sun then?

Might as well lock the thread. Story's done.

[gingerjon]

Just now, Martyn Sadler said:

If Rugby League can be successful in Melbourne, then it can be successful anywhere, including Liverpool.

I think it's fair to say that Melburnians are even more fanatical about Aussie Rules than Liverpudlians are about football.

But it needs some strategic, intelligent thinking and financial support that I'm not sure we possess.

Or realism about what success looks like.

A Liverpool-based Championship level side drawing 1,000 a week and running juniors is, with some spade work, achievable and would be a success, and should be celebrated as such.

[Dave T]

Just now, Martyn Sadler said:

If Rugby League can be successful in Melbourne, then it can be successful anywhere, including Liverpool.

I think it's fair to say that Melburnians are even more fanatical about Aussie Rules than Liverpudlians are about football.

But it needs some strategic, intelligent thinking and financial support that I'm not sure we possess.

I agree, but I think we need to be clear about what being successful in Liverpool means.

It may mean every school in Liverpool playing RL, a handful of amateur clubs, plus a growing fan-base around the existing game on TV and in local grounds and major events. Corporate income should obviously be targeted too.

I see little need for a Liverpool Super League team when you have a choice of SL rugby being played less than 20 miles away.

[Dave T]

Just now, gingerjon said:

Or realism about what success looks like.

A Liverpool-based Championship level side drawing 1,000 a week and running juniors is, with some spade work, achievable and would be a success, and should be celebrated as such.

Stop copying me before I have even made my point.

[Martyn Sadler]

2 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Or realism about what success looks like.

A Liverpool-based Championship level side drawing 1,000 a week and running juniors is, with some spade work, achievable and would be a success, and should be celebrated as such.

In the old days Liverpool City used to play at Knotty Ash, but they rarely drew a crowd above 400.

But I agree that we shouldn't walk away from Liverpool.

I can't understand why St Helens abandoned their attempts to expand their supporter base in Liverpool a few years ago.

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Martyn Sadler said:

In the old days Liverpool City used to play at Knotty Ash, but they rarely drew a crowd above 400.

But I agree that we shouldn't walk away from Liverpool.

I can't understand why St Helens abandoned their attempts to expand their supporter base in Liverpool a few years ago.

I suggest it was all a bit difficult and didn't pay off immediately?

Although to be fair, wasn't it this thread where it was highlighted that Saints are advertising in Liverpool at the moment?

[Martyn Sadler]

Just now, Dave T said:

I suggest it was all a bit difficult and didn't pay off immediately?

Although to be fair, wasn't it this thread where it was highlighted that Saints are advertising in Liverpool at the moment?

It was also before Saints moved into their new stadium.

I hope they are promoting themselves in Liverpool.

I can't imagine it's not possible to persuade at least 500 Liverpudlians to begin supporting them.

[gingerjon]

4 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Stop copying me before I have even made my point.

A lot of it is optics, isn't it?

London have been bottom of league all season long. Last night they played in front of barely 1,500 people and squeaked past Hull KR in an error-strewn match.

You wouldn't necessarily know that from the way we're now perceived. Because the club, and by extension a lot of people in rugby league, have realised what success for London Broncos (not necessarily London as a place) looks like. A solid club playing with spirit bringing on players who might not get a chance otherwise.