Don't forget, ours is a sport that sold the sponsorship of its top league for some painted lorries.

You want to know why we don't get coverage, look inside the sport not outside.

It's a mix of both.

The media that tell people what to go and see is all based in London and run by ex public school boys.
The major companies that sponsor and invest in sports are all based in London and run by ex public school boys.

Now that wouldn't necessarily be a problem (other than my utter disdain for the private school system) but unfortunately because they're ex public school boys (or generally come from that kind of world) they've been born, brought up and live in a world where Rugby League isn't relevant and so they don't report it or invest in it.

Unfortunately that is a vicious circle. The less RL is reported in the media the less relevant it becomes and so the less it's reported.
It's not all of RL's doing, just because RL happens in a different world to these "elite" doesn't absolve them of their responsibility to report on RL. It's why London (relevant) gets 24 times higher transport spending than the North (not relevant).

Where it is our fault is that we've not done enough to make ourselves relevant. We didn't get the international game sorted and are suffering from that now. And we persisted with the same old teams in the same old areas without realising the bigger picture. The likes of Sheffield & Newcastle should be receiving extra help from the RFL to expand the borders of our games as should London in the past.
Plus the retreat of the international game from Wembley to the KC/DW/John Smith's stadiums was a disaster.

BUT, it's not all our fault. Unfortunately, due to our unequal and imbalanced society, we aren't relevant to the right people.

I really dislike this "it's their faul" mentality.

If you want something to happen then make it happen. All this griping about public school boys is rather pathetic.

Our sport is a minority because like it or not it is a northern sport and always has been. Over the last 100 years what in roads have been made?

And Rugby Union is a southern sport that has made very little in roads north of Leicester.
Both domestic competitions get similar crowd levels.

Which gets significantly higher media exposure? The one based in the north (not relevant) or the one based in the south (relevant)?

I don't believe there are still people who think that this kind of bias doesn't exist, the evidence is all around in virtually every aspect of life. As I said, it's why London gets 24 times higher transport spending. It's why issues in the north and south-west, Wales & Scotland go un- or under-reported. It's why a significant proportion of Scotland wanted to break away and form their own country. They'd had enough of being treated like second class citizens by the London elite.

HIM for president!

There's going to be some changes when I'm in charge

What's the betting that the alleged racism at Wakefield vs the Bulls currently under investigation by the RFL gets mentioned in the national press?

Totally agree, its everyone else's fault. It's a conspiracy! Its just so unfair.

Here people are bleating on about blaming others for our shortcomings yet not two threads up we berate Wane for doing just that. Double standards?

The reality is that outside of the top league we have no support, no money, no marketing. Look at football and the support even conference level clubs achieve.

Then look at union and its coverage of international rugby.

We need to learn and innovate. Not gripe about the injustice of London's transport spending. Playing the martyr gets you nothing.

Really? Even by Southstander standards, that's one of the most ignorant of the facts posts I've read in a long, long time.

There are two established top flight clubs north of Leicester, both of whom draw 6,000 plus average attendances. When was the last time a UK pro RL club south of Sheffield or north of York could manage that?

According to the 2012 sports participation survey, 196,000 adults participate in the sport at least once a week as opposed to 57,700 in rugby league. The Yorkshire Rugby Union has been around since 1888 and the county have been County Champions on numerous occasions as have Lancashire.

There are dozens of thriving amateur clubs in West Yorkshire alone, who run a number of senior, veterans and junior teams.

While top flight professional rugby union may be at its strongest "south of Leicester", to dismiss it as a southern sport that has made very little inroads is ridiculous. In terms of participation and geographical spread, it is the most popular and widespread of the two rugby codes. Hence the reason it gets more media coverage than rugby league - which can't even sustain a successful full-time club in the UK outside the M62 corridor.

Where did I say it's a conspiracy or that it's all somebody else's fault?

We have problems of our own making, some of them aren't. I don't see why it's so hard to understand that. Are you seriously suggesting there isn't a London bias toward policy and media in this country? Seriously? I'm not quite sure how that's Rugby League's fault.

It's not ignorant. I've been involved in Rugby Union in Yorkshire for several years thanks.

I have absolutely no idea why you're asking me about RL's presence in the south? You seem to assume I'm somehow attacking RU. I'm not. Despite the huge media profile Union has had since the World Cup win and before, the only inroads Union has made is 2 relatively poorly supported clubs. This despite a much larger financial profile than League.

To suggest Union is somehow thriving up north is just bull.

Again, I have no idea why you're telling me how long Union has been going, it's totally irrelevant to its popularity in the north.

If Union were so popular then teams like Newcastle and Sale would get bigger crowds. They don't. They get roughly Widnes-sized crowds.

So I don't see it as unreasonable to describe Union as a southern based sport.

Nor do I see it as unreasonable to point out glaring inconsistencies in the reporting of RL events and other sporting events, including Rugby Union.

For instance, the recent Leeds v Wigan game. Unreported by BBC Sport on at least some of their outlets including BBC News and BBC Breakfast the next morning. What was reported you may ask? The Man Utd game, something about England Union's squad for the next warm up game and the Netball. Now you might think the biggest sports club in the world (or very close to) would have generated the most discussion, but no it was England Union's squad. Why? Because the presenters were going to the game.

That's just the latest example of what happens all the time to issues and sports that aren't relevant to those in the media.

If you can't recognise there is an issue with a London-based media pushing London relevant issues then I would seriously question whether you actually look at what's going on around you.

BBC Breakfast is based out of studios at Salford now. Isn't the news more generally based out of Salford now too? Maybe if / when a RL fan presenter or producer gets involved it might change and get more coverage as they bring it up more?

Eamonn Holmes back in the day on GMTV used to peck my head as he always used to bang on about Man Yoo after they were mentioned at the end of the news. Like he thought that because he had a camera on him that meant we all wanted to listen to anything he decided to talk about without being scripted to do so. Incidentally it was because of that I stopped watching that and switched to Breakfast, but do you think having someone like that would help the 'bias'?

Two professional sides averaging over 6k in the North, but it's a southern based sport. Hundreds of other junior clubs in the north (probably more than RL when you include ones in East/North Yorkshire, Durham, Tyneside, Northumberland etc) but it's a southern based sport.

A southern based sport that only gets reported on by southern based journalists, despite the BBC Sport department being based in Salford.

Aye, alright then. Whatever you say. No point attempting to argue with that logic.

Historically the 'establishment' practised a sporting apartheid in respect of RL, not only in England but more widely as a sport in Europe and the former colonies. Corruption, snobbery and self interest condemned RL to the North of England it is only through sheer opportunistic entrepreneurial chance did RL gain such prominence in Australia.
Undoubtedly the 'establishment' which would include the BBC a London centric mediia ably assisted by the RU were instrumental in the marginalisation of RL nationally.

All history now! RU has adapted to professionalism and have marketed their game, it seems irrespective of its attraction as a spectacle! at an international level, adopting a strategy of taking all the positive aspects of RL in terms of training techniques,core skills and technology
RL ,it seems, wallows in club self interest,comedic TV presentation, poor leadership at a national level and a disconnected management in the guise of the RFL.
To use club attendance as a measure of success proves very little, just take a look at club/county cricket attendances and the prominence of cricket at an international level in the media.
It's difficult to see past football (premiership at least) as an national obsession perpetuated by the 'new' media establishment ? Which TV/Radio presenter does not support a premiership team (no doubt adopted when attending uni) whist this imbalanced myopic perspective of sport persists I'm afraid the only column inches RL will attract will be largely negative.

I'm not quite sure why you keep repeating the 2 sides in the North with average 6k crowds as if it's somehow a sign of "success". 6k crowds are poor for professional sides. Especially for a sport with the financial and media clout of Rugby Union. It's also not unreasonable to describe Rugby Union as a southern based sport since its a southern based sport.

I'm also not sure what you're on about with your second paragraph. I've never said that. It seems as if you want to jump straight to a position ie anti-Union that I've never stated. I don't have a problem with the amount of coverage Rugby Union gets. I have a problem with the lack of coverage Rugby League gets. I also have a problem with the undue prominence given to certain events/sports/issues. Things like netball, dressage etc or the huge, monumental push Women's Football has and continues to receive.
I also have a problem with other events/sports/issues that don't get the prominence they deserve.

Do you honestly think the media in this country isn't London-centric? Because the current editor of BBC Breakfast thinks it is.

Do you think the policy-makers in this country aren't London-centric?
The decision makers in this country, be it in policy, media, business etc generally come from a similar background, often from public & private schools, and as I said, they come from areas where RL isn't relevant. But that doesn't mean they should ignore RL just because it wasn't relevant to them. As I said this isn't an RL specific issue. It affects all areas of life that aren't relevant to these people. Hence economic policies that benefit the "relevant" people and areas. Hence the transport policy I mentioned earlier that is inexcusable. Hence "non-relevant" issues and events going unreported in the media and "relevant" issues and events going regularly reported.

As I said, it's a vicious circle. The more something is reported/covered the more people take interest and so the more justification for reporting it. And of course the more something goes unreported the more it is ignored by the public. That's why it's imperative our media and policy makers are fair in their decisions. Sadly they aren't, they push the agendas that are important to them.

I don't see that as an unreasonable point to make about Britain in 2015, especially with the ever increasing power and centralisation of the media.