Jump to content

BBC Sport website


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Eddie said:

I doubt anyone voting for Brexit didn’t want Catalans to win the LLS because they’re French, that’s just childish. 

Admittedly, that was mischievous of me.

There must have been some other reason why he looked like James Maloney had just shot his puppy.

Edited by whatmichaelsays
Link to comment
Share on other sites


11 minutes ago, HawkMan said:

So, 500,000 of 25m is 2%. Does the beeb spend 2% of it's sports budget on RL? Yes ....probably. 

Not forgetting the generosity of my initial number of RL fans figure.

500k is probably about right I reckon, and it’s nowhere near 50%, and I doubt they spend anywhere near 2% of their sports budget on RL. Gary Lineker alone will cost far more than what they spend on the challenge cup and SL show. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

Because the sport isn't giving them reason to. 

If RL content had amazing traffic and click through stats, they'd cover it. If they had an audience clamouring for that content, they'd cover it. 

Without that, RL has to make it easy for them to write about RL. 

How many players were made available for interview to BBC departments before, during and after the event? How much video content was sent to the BBC? How many quotes, stories and subplots were provided to them? Did Ken Davy go in front of the cameras to talk about what a great weekend it was, or was he in the bar sulking that a French team winning the LLS is not the Brexit he voted for? 

All this stuff is what other sports are getting right. You can't blame the BBC if RL won't do the basics.

You won't find me disagreeing on most of those points. I think RL can - and must- get it's act together. 

But none of this changes the fact that some sports are favoured more than others. That is just the way it is.

It's very much chicken and egg this. RL will not get the clicks or views without being promoted by the BBC....so does this mean there isn't demand? Or that it isn't getting the right push? We'll never know. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Eddie said:

500k is probably about right I reckon, and it’s nowhere near 50%, and I doubt they spend anywhere near 2% of their sports budget on RL. Gary Lineker alone will cost far more than what they spend on the challenge cup and SL show. 

So you agree that 500k is about right,  I don't, but I tossed it into the arena so we'll stick with that, that's 1% of the population of England, add the rest of the UK and it drops lower than 1%. Are you seriously saying that The BBC are NOT giving RL with that fanbase a decent coverage. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, HawkMan said:

So you agree that 500k is about right,  I don't, but I tossed it into the arena so we'll stick with that, that's 1% of the population of England, add the rest of the UK and it drops lower than 1%. Are you seriously saying that The BBC are NOT giving RL with that fanbase a decent coverage. 

I think whether RL is hugely popular is almost irrelevant. The point is that with big promotion and a big push, things can *become* popular. 

I can't honestly see that women's football deserves the extensive coverage it gets either but it does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Johnoco said:

I think whether RL is hugely popular is almost irrelevant. The point is that with big promotion and a big push, things can *become* popular. 

I can't honestly see that women's football deserves the extensive coverage it gets either but it does.

Watch the crowds for next year's Women's European Championships in the UK. It will exceed what the RLWC achieved in 2013.

We can sit here and decry sports that are growing. It is much easier than trying to grow our own game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Scubby said:

Watch the crowds for next year's Women's European Championships in the UK. It will exceed what the RLWC achieved in 2013.

We can sit here and decry sports that are growing. It is much easier than trying to grow our own game.

No mate, I want RL to grow itself, I totally agree it's not doing itself any favours. 

But it would be great if we could get a helping hand like the BBC have given women's football. That's not decrying it, it's just acknowledging the reality of things. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always think there is an element of truth to what both sides say in the BBC/media debate.

For RL I certainly think the door is half closed when it comes to the media and as a result it needs to work much harder for coverage and column inches. It certainly does not do this and let's itself down in this regard, I think most agree on this. There are almost certainly less influential RL fans to push the cause but again after 100+ years the sport knows this and needs to work harder and should be churning out media and press releases and match reports to make it as easy as possible. 

Other sports such as RU and Cricket undoubtedly have more clout and influence. The old school tie network so to speak. The door is always open for these sports and they take advantage of this well. However they also make it easy for the media and are dab hands at giving the media what they need and the whole wining and dining aspect. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Johnoco said:

No mate, I want RL to grow itself, I totally agree it's not doing itself any favours. 

But it would be great if we could get a helping hand like the BBC have given women's football. That's not decrying it, it's just acknowledging the reality of things. 

The BBC has agreed to show every single Men's, Women's and Wheelchair RLWC games across all its platforms. International sport makes sense as it has wider appeal. 

The reality is that small northern towns playing each other is less relevant in 2021 than it once was. We were fortunate we provided cheap entertaining sport to the BBC (albeit with cigarette and beer sponsorships) when live sport was scarce.

Back in those halcyon days of Ellery Hanley, Martin Offiah and the 1990s Grandstand games - the likes of T20, The Hundred, Women's Super League, Netball Super League, Premier League Darts, NFL London, RU Premiership, Autumn Internationals, Heineken Cup, Paralympics, Solheim Cup either didn't exist or did not have the funding to create a profile.

Edited by Scubby
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Damien said:

I always think there is an element of truth to what both sides say in the BBC/media debate.

For RL I certainly think the door is half closed when it comes to the media and as a result it needs to work much harder for coverage and column inches. It certainly does not do this and let's itself down in this regard, I think most agree on this. There are almost certainly less influential RL fans to push the cause but again after 100+ years the sport knows this and needs to work harder and should be churning out media and press releases and match reports to make it as easy as possible. 

Other sports such as RU and Cricket undoubtedly have more clout and influence. The old school tie network so to speak. The door is always open for these sports and they take advantage of this well. However they also make it easy for the media and are dab hands at giving the media what they need and the whole wining and dining aspect. 

Thank you. Acknowledging this situation exists doesn't put you in the tin foil hat brigade, it's just the way it is.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Johnoco said:

You won't find me disagreeing on most of those points. I think RL can - and must- get it's act together. 

But none of this changes the fact that some sports are favoured more than others. That is just the way it is.

It's very much chicken and egg this. RL will not get the clicks or views without being promoted by the BBC....so does this mean there isn't demand? Or that it isn't getting the right push? We'll never know. 

I don't think it is chicken and egg. If we aren't able to command attention naturally, we have to work harder to make it easy for people to give us attention. 

That's why WSL and women's cricket get coverage. Not because they're benefitting from favouritism, but because they're making it easy for publishers to run content about them. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, HawkMan said:

So you agree that 500k is about right,  I don't, but I tossed it into the arena so we'll stick with that, that's 1% of the population of England, add the rest of the UK and it drops lower than 1%. Are you seriously saying that The BBC are NOT giving RL with that fanbase a decent coverage. 

Yes. How many people do you think are into club rugby Union, certainly not double the number that are into League but they get far more than double the coverage. And as I said I also think more people are into RL than the women’s premier league football but we get about 5% of the coverage that they do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

I don't think it is chicken and egg. If we aren't able to command attention naturally, we have to work harder to make it easy for people to give us attention. 

That's why WSL and women's cricket get coverage. Not because they're benefitting from favouritism, but because they're making it easy for publishers to run content about them. 

Partly true, but they are also obviously benefiting from favouritism. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Johnoco said:

Thank you. Acknowledging this situation exists doesn't put you in the tin foil hat brigade, it's just the way it is.

I think you are over simplifying the situation and creating a victim narrative for the sport.

Rugby Union gets more coverage for a number of reasons and the one you’re focused on will play a minor role.

I’ve worked on media sports desks and never once seen this influence dictate coverage in the terms you believe it’s happening.

 

Edited by Gerrumonside ref
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Gerrumonside ref said:

I think you are over simplifying the situation and creating a victim narrative for the sport.

Rugby Union gets more coverage for a number of reasons and the one you’re focused on will play a minor role.

I’ve worked on media sports desks and never once seen this influence dictate coverage in the terms you believe it’s happening.

 

It's happening because I've noticed it since I got into RL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Gerrumonside ref said:

I think you are over simplifying the situation and creating a victim narrative for the sport.

Rugby Union gets more coverage for a number of reasons and the one you’re focused on will play a minor role.

I’ve worked on media sports desks and never once seen this influence dictate coverage in the terms you believe it’s happening.

 

Which ‘ media sports desks ‘ did you work for ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Johnoco said:

It's happening because I've noticed it since I got into RL.

Well, I don’t think it plays the big factor you believe having worked in the media.

Far more pressure on delivering numbers and demographics than doing favours.

I do think the point made previously by another poster about making things easier in terms of preparing press releases, pre-made content etc is important too and can make all the difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, soulboy said:

Which ‘ media sports desks ‘ did you work for ?

Spent about 5 years working as a journalist in the media quite a while ago before quitting.

Mainly in commercial media for the now defunct emap who owned most of the commercial radio stations in the north of England and a couple in London.

Did news/sport interviews, news reading, news editor duties even a short stint on sports commentary.

You got any media experience?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Eddie said:

Yes. How many people do you think are into club rugby Union, certainly not double the number that are into League but they get far more than double the coverage. And as I said I also think more people are into RL than the women’s premier league football but we get about 5% of the coverage that they do. 

Or it could simply be that God bestowed TGG to humanity and the golden legacy that was planned was shamelessly stolen by other sports,  mainly football by invoking the power of darkness and Satan.

 

avatars-BtzeI8WOT6PvQsKv-S2fFGw-t500x500.jpg

Edited by HawkMan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 05/09/2021 at 09:18, Johnoco said:

I think even that is down the pecking order now in favour of womens sport.

NZ played Aus at the weekend, Bledisloe Cup, and there was barely a mention of it (I happened to see the last 10 minutes as I was flicking through the channels). Zero publicity beforehand, and hardly a peep after it was over.

Its astounding how far RU has fallen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Johnoco said:

I find womens RL pretty good and entertaining. I think it's miles better than women's football, which IMO is pretty rubbish. (Not merely because it's women)

It’s a tricky one this.

Women probably look better playing rugby league as throwing a ball to a teammate is something anyone with the most basic ability can do. Long passing sequences are common (unless someone has a brain fart and drops the ball). There’s also no power required in passing the ball, nor is there any power required for scoring (place ball on ground). Having never played the game before you could pick up the basics and become competent inside one training session. The big difference with the men of course is physicality and speed.

There’s just more requirements in football for women to look decent than in RL.

Having said all that I think in time it’s possible that women’s football could develop and become really good. It’s still in its infancy, and unlike a hand based game like RL (or RU) it will need so much time to come up to standard for women. It deserves to get that time as the development game was unfairly halted pre war.

 

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Johnoco said:

In terms of coverage, women's sport certainly is, if not the enemy, definitely an opponent. It takes away lots of potential airtime and coverage. And plenty of it is undeserved, at least in terms of popularity and crowds. 

Definitely ain’t undeserved. They quite rightly are getting their push having been denied it for so long. It anything it’s righting a wrong, and long overdue.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Gerrumonside ref said:

You seemed to be suggesting it was unfair in some way?

By the way football’s Women’s Super League has had attendances in the 30 thousands previously which I’m sure our men’s game would be pretty proud of.

I do find the way some RL fans think there’s a conspiracy going on that deprives us of media coverage pretty laughable.

Would it not be better to actually examine what WSL and RU are doing with their product and the marketing of it rather than moaning about things being unfair?

I also find the whinging over women’s coverage distasteful. Spiteful even. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, whatmichaelsays said:

I don't think it is chicken and egg. If we aren't able to command attention naturally, we have to work harder to make it easy for people to give us attention. 

That's why WSL and women's cricket get coverage. Not because they're benefitting from favouritism, but because they're making it easy for publishers to run content about them. 

I agree with 99% of your stuff, but not on this.

I think they are undoubtedly getting coverage above and beyond viewer demand, and justifiably so as I said previously. I probably wouldn’t use the word “favouritism” to describe what is happening, but there is a feeling of women’s sport being given a long overdue push.

To me women’s sport is a separate entity and the coverage shouldn’t be critiqued nor compared to men’s sport. Doing so looks like sour grapes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, DC77 said:

Definitely ain’t undeserved. They quite rightly are getting their push having been denied it for so long. It anything it’s righting a wrong, and long overdue.

Most of these women's football teams didn't exist until relatively recently, so how where they meant to push anything? RL gets told to build genuine demand and the coverage will follow.....but this rule definitely hasn't been applied to women's football.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...