Are you listening SL/IMG?

[Worzel]

21 minutes ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

Ah, ok. I was referring to Sam4731's post which directly preceded yours. I took your post as a reply to his, which perhaps it wasn't, so if so that's my fault, though the point I was making about the SL occupancy bias remains. I don't think anyone can argue, for instance, that it's easier to average crowds of 3,000+ in SL when hosting Wigan, Hull KR, St Helens, Leeds etc with a team built with £1.4m central funding etc than it is hosting Sheffield/Whitehaven/Dewsbury etc etc with a team built on £80k central funding in the Championship?

Ah gotcha. No I wasn't, I always quote when I'm replying to one post in a chain. But get you. 

Yes of course there is, that's inherent in any league though, and in a sense quite rightly - we want some security for clubs that are doing the right long-term things, that creates the environment within which investors spend money on the right things (rather than just 1st team squads).

There's no perfect system, but in a challenger sport like ours all basing things solely on on-pitch results does is encourage short-term spending on players. That's not in the sports' interests, or even necessarily 'fairer'. David Hughes at London has invested the best part of £30m over 25 years for example, to achieve what? Weekly defeats in a rented stadium, no training ground, barely any community outreach and an empty shell of a club really. Imagine what spending £30m a different way could have created for us in London. We need to move thinking beyond "next year is our big year"... look what that did to Featherstone only last season. They're still paying bills that in reality they couldn't afford. 

[JohnM]

In my view, repeated, is that promotion only by performance on the field is not what it seems. Performance on the field depends on the actual players and the quality of the coaching team. The player roster depends on how much a club can pay, how good a club is at attracting players because of the quality of the coaching teams. The quality of the coaching team has it's own dependencies, too. Also in play is club ambition, spectator numbers etc. All these things are taken into account in the grading scheme.

As regards the Guardian article, a much more productive and valuable subject might have been to investigate why the mainstream media - Mail, Mirror, Independent, Times. Telegraph  give so little coverage to the sport as a whole and especially to match previews and reviews. The odd article in the relentlessly negative low-circulation Guardian hardly counts, unless of course I have it wrong and  it turns out to be the favoured paper  of our target audience. 

[RigbyLuger]

49 minutes ago, JohnM said:

As regards the Guardian article, a much more productive and valuable subject might have been to investigate why the mainstream media - Mail, Mirror, Independent, Times. Telegraph  give so little coverage to the sport as a whole and especially to match previews and reviews. The odd article in the relentlessly negative low-circulation Guardian hardly counts, unless of course I have it wrong and  it turns out to be the favoured paper  of our target audience. 

Like the article last week about the start of the women's season, but what's the point if you're not going to mention the games when they're played.

[Archie Gordon]

I think this article strengthens my view (borrowed) that the CC round of 32 should be branded as the 'community round' and each tie should have the lower-ranked club at home. 20 non-SL qualifiers plus the 12 SL teams.

[Cheadle Leyther]

23 hours ago, JohnM said:

In my view, repeated, is that promotion only by performance on the field is not what it seems. Performance on the field depends on the actual players and the quality of the coaching team. The player roster depends on how much a club can pay, how good a club is at attracting players because of the quality of the coaching teams. The quality of the coaching team has it's own dependencies, too. Also in play is club ambition, spectator numbers etc. All these things are taken into account in the grading scheme.

As regards the Guardian article, a much more productive and valuable subject might have been to investigate why the mainstream media - Mail, Mirror, Independent, Times. Telegraph  give so little coverage to the sport as a whole and especially to match previews and reviews. The odd article in the relentlessly negative low-circulation Guardian hardly counts, unless of course I have it wrong and  it turns out to be the favoured paper  of our target audience. 

I think you’ll find that the Sun, Daily and Sunday Mirror, People and Star do give match reports and previews. Indeed the Daily Star describes itself on the front page as THE Rugby League newspaper.What irks me is the slavish coverage of Union in the so called quality papers of the Times, Telegraph, Express, Mail and yes Guardian. This in a sport that has had its top division reduced to only 9 clubs. Moreover attendances at both codes teams are quite similar. I know it’s often said ours is a Northern sport, but look at their spread- 3 in the South West, 2 In the Midlands, 2 in London and 2 in whole of the North-hardly the whole country.     I’m afraid the closure of the northern offices of these newspapers many years ago has led to this situation. It is especially disappointing with regards to the Guardian which of course started off as the Manchester Guardian.

Oh for my Neville Cardus of long ago!!

[iffleyox]

2 hours ago, Cheadle Leyther said:

I think you’ll find that the Sun, Daily and Sunday Mirror, People and Star do give match reports and previews. Indeed the Daily Star describes itself on the front page as THE Rugby League newspaper.What irks me is the slavish coverage of Union in the so called quality papers of the Times, Telegraph, Express, Mail and yes Guardian. This in a sport that has had its top division reduced to only 9 clubs. Moreover attendances at both codes teams are quite similar. I know it’s often said ours is a Northern sport, but look at their spread- 3 in the South West, 2 In the Midlands, 2 in London and 2 in whole of the North-hardly the whole country.     I’m afraid the closure of the northern offices of these newspapers many years ago has led to this situation. It is especially disappointing with regards to the Guardian which of course started off as the Manchester Guardian.

Oh for my Neville Cardus of long ago!!

agree, but it's 10 rather than 9. They started 22-23 with 13 clubs in the top division rather than 12.

[JohnM]

2 hours ago, Cheadle Leyther said:

I think you’ll find that the Sun, Daily and Sunday Mirror, People and Star do give match reports and previews. Indeed the Daily Star describes itself on the front page as THE Rugby League newspaper.What irks me is the slavish coverage of Union in the so called quality papers of the Times, Telegraph, Express, Mail and yes Guardian. This in a sport that has had its top division reduced to only 9 clubs. Moreover attendances at both codes teams are quite similar. I know it’s often said ours is a Northern sport, but look at their spread- 3 in the South West, 2 In the Midlands, 2 in London and 2 in whole of the North-hardly the whole country.     I’m afraid the closure of the northern offices of these newspapers many years ago has led to this situation. It is especially disappointing with regards to the Guardian which of course started off as the Manchester Guardian.

Oh for my Neville Cardus of long ago!!

"What irks me is the slavish coverage of Union in the so called quality papers of the Times, Telegraph, Express, Mail and yes Guardian."

I agree completely. I don't rate the Express or Mail as "quality" though, and the  Guardian has a trivial circulation of mainly Owen Jones/Melvyn Bragg-ish acolytes (present company excepted, of course) There's a real story there for a Guardian reporter to investigate why that is. 

[gingerjon]

4 minutes ago, JohnM said:

"What irks me is the slavish coverage of Union in the so called quality papers of the Times, Telegraph, Express, Mail and yes Guardian."

I agree completely. I don't rate the Express or Mail as "quality" though, and the  Guardian has a trivial circulation of mainly Owen Jones/Melvyn Bragg-ish acolytes (present company excepted, of course) There's a real story there for a Guardian reporter to investigate why that is. 

None of them has a circulation worth mentioning, hence why none of them do any more, and the Telegraph is a comic these days. No idea about the Times as it's behind the paywall.

Sports coverage in the UK is not in a particularly healthy spot, really.

[ATLANTISMAN]

2 hours ago, gingerjon said:

None of them has a circulation worth mentioning, hence why none of them do any more, and the Telegraph is a comic these days. No idea about the Times as it's behind the paywall.

Sports coverage in the UK is not in a particularly healthy spot, really.

Would agree Sunday Times still excellent though (Apart from coverage of RL)

[M j M]

4 hours ago, JohnM said:

"What irks me is the slavish coverage of Union in the so called quality papers of the Times, Telegraph, Express, Mail and yes Guardian."

I agree completely. I don't rate the Express or Mail as "quality" though, and the  Guardian has a trivial circulation of mainly Owen Jones/Melvyn Bragg-ish acolytes

Deary me John, I think you might be living in a lala land where print readership is what still matters.

In the real world where most people get their news online The Guardian is the UK's fifth most visited news brand with an audience of more than 21 million and a reach of over 40%. Miles ahead of The Times and the embarrassment that the Telegraph has now become.

[JohnM]

1 hour ago, M j M said:

Deary me John, I think you might be living in a lala land where print readership is what still matters.

In the real world where most people get their news online The Guardian is the UK's fifth most visited news brand with an audience of more than 21 million and a reach of over 40%. Miles ahead of The Times and the embarrassment that the Telegraph has now become.

Oh dear, M jM, I think it's rather you who is disconnected. Whilst what you say may be correct, it is by far not the whole story, as you know. The Times and the Sunday Times regularly print supplements dedicated to Rugby Union with lots of support from advertisers. On line or off line, the Guardian is still a miserable rag dedicated to complaining how bad things were, are and will be in England and deducated to providing  BBC News and Current Affairs  with it's content. In addition, it's on line presence is free, unlike the proper newspapers. Indeed, even the Mail is gradually going behind a payeall.  And you know what they say: something free is worth every penny you pay. The demographic of the Guardian is 86% ABC1. 54% of The Guardian readers are male, and the average age of the print reader is 54.18. What do they know if the life and leisure of the horny handed sons of toil that make up the mass of rugby league supporters? Answers on a pin head, please.

• 1.7billion minutes were spent on MailOnline's websites and app in July
• 909million for Guardian, 688million for Sun and 417million for Mirror
• Average dwell time for dailymail.co.uk site and app users is 75 minutes 
• 48 minutes on Guardian, 27 minutes on Sun and 16 minutes on Mirror 

Edited March 26 by JohnM

[Futtocks]

The Guardian's been pushing its foreign reach, especially in Australia which is why their NRL coverage is the best of the British newspapers.

Politically, it is reviled noisily by the Right and Left, both of whom think they thought of it first.

[meast]

Old men arguing over newspapers in 2024  

I've seen it all now  

 

[DI Keith Fowler]

23 hours ago, JohnM said:

Oh dear, M jM, I think it's rather you who is disconnected. Whilst what you say may be correct, it is by far not the whole story, as you know. The Times and the Sunday Times regularly print supplements dedicated to Rugby Union with lots of support from advertisers. On line or off line, the Guardian is still a miserable rag dedicated to complaining how bad things were, are and will be in England and deducated to providing  BBC News and Current Affairs  with it's content. In addition, it's on line presence is free, unlike the proper newspapers. Indeed, even the Mail is gradually going behind a payeall.  And you know what they say: something free is worth every penny you pay. The demographic of the Guardian is 86% ABC1. 54% of The Guardian readers are male, and the average age of the print reader is 54.18. What do they know if the life and leisure of the horny handed sons of toil that make up the mass of rugby league supporters? Answers on a pin head, please.

• 1.7billion minutes were spent on MailOnline's websites and app in July
• 909million for Guardian, 688million for Sun and 417million for Mirror
• Average dwell time for dailymail.co.uk site and app users is 75 minutes 
• 48 minutes on Guardian, 27 minutes on Sun and 16 minutes on Mirror 

My takeaway from this is that the Mail's online readership can't read fast and/or leave lots of tabs open. Also they dwell a lot much like trolls do under bridges. 

[RP London]

9 hours ago, DI Keith Fowler said:

My takeaway from this is that the Mail's online readership can't read fast and/or leave lots of tabs open. Also they dwell a lot much like trolls do under bridges. 

its all the angry banging on the keyboard in the comments sections!

[RP London]

9 hours ago, meast said:

Old men arguing over newspapers in 2024  

I've seen it all now  

 

I cannot believe that so far with all this discussion they've missed the very real worry in the UK.

with the changing pattern of "readership" what is going to wrap our 382 million portions of Fish and Chips per year (source: https://www.croftstreetfisheries.co.uk/fishy-facts/fish-and-chip-facts/#:~:text=We know you love to,make a balanced%2C nutritious meal.) (Sauce: Gravy)

[gingerjon]

9 hours ago, meast said:

Old men arguing over newspapers in 2024  

Stand by for the forty-year-old quote from Yes, Prime Minister as if it could possibly be true now.

[M j M]

8 hours ago, RP London said:

I cannot believe that so far with all this discussion they've missed the very real worry in the UK.

with the changing pattern of "readership" what is going to wrap our 382 million portions of Fish and Chips per year (source: https://www.croftstreetfisheries.co.uk/fishy-facts/fish-and-chip-facts/#:~:text=We know you love to,make a balanced%2C nutritious meal.) (Sauce: Gravy)

If that's right and the first fish and chip shop was in London what has happened so that they nowadays simply don't appear to know how to cook it properly?

[RP London]

6 minutes ago, M j M said:

If that's right and the first fish and chip shop was in London what has happened so that they nowadays simply don't appear to know how to cook it properly?

If I may be allowed to channel Nigel Farage... its the because of all of them there foreigners especially antipodeans that live in that there london.. 

[N2022]

On 26/03/2024 at 22:43, JohnM said:

Oh dear, M jM, I think it's rather you who is disconnected. Whilst what you say may be correct, it is by far not the whole story, as you know. The Times and the Sunday Times regularly print supplements dedicated to Rugby Union with lots of support from advertisers. On line or off line, the Guardian is still a miserable rag dedicated to complaining how bad things were, are and will be in England and deducated to providing  BBC News and Current Affairs  with it's content. In addition, it's on line presence is free, unlike the proper newspapers. Indeed, even the Mail is gradually going behind a payeall.  And you know what they say: something free is worth every penny you pay. The demographic of the Guardian is 86% ABC1. 54% of The Guardian readers are male, and the average age of the print reader is 54.18. What do they know if the life and leisure of the horny handed sons of toil that make up the mass of rugby league supporters? Answers on a pin head, please.

• 1.7billion minutes were spent on MailOnline's websites and app in July
• 909million for Guardian, 688million for Sun and 417million for Mirror
• Average dwell time for dailymail.co.uk site and app users is 75 minutes 
• 48 minutes on Guardian, 27 minutes on Sun and 16 minutes on Mirror 

I don't get how the average age of the Guardian reader being 54 impacts on ability to connect with a working-class sport, whether or not I am right to guess that's close to the average age at some RL games. The gender split, with the %age of males slightly above that in the wider population - what do you mean by that? OK, ABC1 (particularly the AB bit) is a bit different from 'horny-handed sons of toil', but so is long-term unemployed. Do you view people in the latter bracket as equally unable to connect with the culture of the game?

[daz39]

Well this has drifted a little bit....just a little bit!!

[meast]

1 hour ago, daz39 said:

Well this has drifted a little bit....just a little bit!!

For a change