It's hardly trying to kill the game off when they're trying to get a new audience for the game and you're talking about a handful of games. I'm sure there are bigger threats to the game's existence than MNF. I agree that Wig-Wid is a non-event but I think it's a bit too early to be throwing the idea out of the window this early even though I'm not that big a fan of it myself.

Some media types were tweeting earlier that our profile in the hard copy newspapers has disappeared almost entirely since the Monday RL started up. Not that there was a great deal of printed stuff about our matches to start with but if that is true then that is a negative result.

Think it is about time we started billing ourselves as "Not the Greatest Game in The World any longer" telling those out there the truth!

Some of the stupid score lines we are seeing week in week out are a total joke, witnessed that this afternoon, wish I had not bothered.

Time that someone looked real serious at Super League and Rugby League in this country, know Hanley takes some stick at times but we are now so far behind Australia, not even playing games on a Monday for Sky is going to sell the game to new viewers and last week Leeds got a game just over 12,000? is it worth it?

Are people still reading the sports sections of newspapers? You might find anyway that the reason for that drop is linked to some of the papers getting rid of their RL correspondents which took place before the Monday games were announced. I'm not 100% on this but I thought both Dave Hadfield and Chris Irvine's roles were reduced on the Indy and Times before the season started. That leaves the Guardian, Torygraph (ha) and tabloids. We've done okay without decent press coverage for over hundred years so I don't think that's a major issue.

Yes. Quite a few actually. Me included.


It was Chris Irvine who tweeted!

Chris Irvine lost his job at the Times two years back. He still appears in the sports pages though but works on a freelance basis (he is also a lecturer at Hudds Uni). The guy at the Telegraph lost his job the year before Irvine (although Beth Ashton, student, sometimes posts online) and Hadfield lost his job at the Independent last year although he has now been reinstated. The Mail's correspondent is weekends only. Andy Wilson was told to put RL second behind cricket earlier this season (or else he would lose his job) and that has shown because he used to do a great Set of Six online but now he only does it when the cricket is rained off. The People is probably the best bet and both the Sun and Mirror still have their RL correspondents, but I suppose that says a lot about who the media types think watches rugby league.

I know this won't fit in with some RL supports' way of thinking but we did actually have very good press coverage in previous eras, in the north anyway when there used to be northern editions of the various papers. So unfortunately it isn't a question of us suffering at the hands of the press for 100 years.

I am more worried about the RFL than Sky when people talk about killing off our game. Clueless buffoons run our game.

Me too.

That must have been before I was born because press coverage (and media coverage in general) has been a big issue in RL over here for at least thirty years.

Let’s face facts, blame the RFL and true they could do a lot better, but it would be hard for anyone to promote our game when the whole of the people who control terrestrial TV are committed to making sure that RL stays were it is, in the back alleys and cobbled streets of the North. They are forced to give top billing to football because it’s fashionable and most popular. What they would like, and try their best to do, is promote Rugby Union. You see, it’s the suits with the old school ties that run the show and love to see the chaps in the scrimmage get more than their share of air-time. Why else would they keep putting up Ray French to commentate? They don’t care about entertainment, which is obvious if you’ve ever tried to watch a game of RU (too many players, too many rules, too many stops, too many kicks, and not enough tries!) No they don’t care, that’s rugger! We don’t want what those northern Jonnies watch. “ it’s not cricket!”. This is what Rugby League is really up against. It’s not Sky, the papers, or our game, it’s the ties, that have RL by the short ‘n’ curlies..

Rock 'n' Roll.

Rugby League is the nearest thing to Apartheid in Sport. A lot of well sponsored sports are semi static ones with plenty of stoppages, gives the sponsors plenty of viewing exposure for there product. Union is a sponsors dream, probably only see about 15mins of running play in an 80min game.
The RFL have failed on expansion which means we are imploding back into a regional sport, something global sponsors are not interested in.

I think sky has made a mistake in not having super league on Saturday. The amount of people I've spoke to over the years that are non rugby league people that have told me they was in pub Saturday and watched the game.

Those people stay fans of the games and might even start going some games.

They will be showing Superleague on a Saturday though, just not during the so-called soccer off season. Monday nights is just experimental as the viewing figures for a Saturday were poor. Much prefer Sky's viewing figures to remain high otherwise we might find our coverage cut to one match a week (Friday).

I don't think we have anything to worry about from Sky. It's the RFL that is the problem.

As I predicted a compleat miss match, and although I'm more than aware that all teams must play each other. YOU do not need to feature them on t.v. Sky and the RFL. Should be more selective with the games they Televise if you must watch the Vikings, broncos, reds, ect, film them playing each other. Show the top clashes more on t.v. like union do.

Super League needs a global company to get on board and fast. I remember reading about how they were looking into sponsorship from Emirates when the branding was up for sale. What balls that turned out to be.

A company like that however would revolutionise our game and would make it appeal to other cash rich companies and newspapers and websites. There would be a huge change in the perception of our game if a company like that came on board. RL has been ruined under sponsorship from Tetleys, Engage, Carnegie, Stobart, Irn Bru and more. those companies might as well be corner shops compared to Emirates, Aviva, Barclays et al. No big multinational will look at us and go "Eh! Look at that, Stobart is on board, why arent we?!" It is a long shot to get a big company to invest but bring them to games, give them the VVIP treatment, let them meet the owners. Just try! At worst, ask the Aussies for a little bit of advice?!

Sky are doing all they can with their coverage to promote the game but its the marketing and sales side of the RFL that needs to be looked at and quickly or else potential sponsors will start to fall away fast.

Tbh I only watch the Saturday night games if it's a reasonable match up i.e. a competitive fixture. My old man doesn't watch the Saturday night game because he's usually going out with my mum.