With the noble art of journalism in the spot light right now I got to reflecting on the quality of RL journalism. Id be interested in people's thoughts. It strikes me that there are several untold stories being hidden by 'single RL establishment narratives' here are 3 that spring to my mind over the last week Im sure other people have their own

Number 1 - expansion is good for the game. Which journos are exploring the evidence for this? The people in my RL circle seem to think this is the RL equivalent of The Kings Invisible clothes - most of us commoners can see that the king is in fact completely starkers (40 ys of RL in London and still no following to speak of despite the largest potential potential population to draw on of any RL club in the world!) but the higher ups and establishment media churn out the glories of the kings beautiful robes without question.

Number 2 - licencing is working. Again where is the evidence that licencing is working? I do not dispute the recent improvements in the game just that I don't see how the licencing system is responsible for it. Who in the RL media is questioning the capacity of the the system to identify and select those clubs sufficiently robust and capable to compete in super league. The evidence is surely that 2 of the clubs they awarded a francise to last time were not sufficiently financially robust.

Number 3 - Crusaders withdrawing their licence aplication saved Wakefield whilst I accept that this is the received wisdom, nowhere have I seen any evidence for this. BBC led their national sports coverage with this headline throughout Tuesday (see also George Riely's blog) yet as far as Im am aware there is no intelligence in the public domain to back up this assersion. Indeed the Trinity higher ups have gone on record saying that they were told by the RFL that their bid was one of the better grade C licence clubs.

Im sure there are other examples. My point being that Im not sure that we are being well served by the RL media - these are issues that deserve robust and critical enquiry yet I contend we are served up with copy that is self and establishment serving.

Thoughts anyone.

Number 1 - expansion is good for the game. Which journos are exploring the evidence for this? The people in my RL circle seem to think this is the RL equivalent of The Kings Invisible clothes - most of us commoners can see that the king is in fact completely starkers (40 ys of RL in London and still no following to speak of despite the largest potential potential population to draw on of any RL club in the world!) but the higher ups and establishment media churn out the glories of the kings beautiful robes without question.

Are humans different in the south to the north-Why is RL liked in the M62 region but not in the M25 region- Its a marketing and culture/perception thing.
The game needs to shake of this thick northern working mans tag- We sell the game as a family sport. I get embarrassed by some of the fans that come to the Stoop-The language & behaviour of some of the away fans is appalling-(I'm no snob having lived and worked up north for half my life). The game needs to change-The new stadiums, Sky's presentation is great but more needs to be done.
Ive taken friends to games and come away red faced- Its not much differnet to football where people believe the law doesnt matter in sports grounds.

I think you hit the nail on the head that the reason for RL success in one part of the country rather than the other is culture. I simply don't accept the 'thick northern sterio type' stuff as being either a) true or b) a perception responsible for the failure of RL as a pro spectator sport in the south. I agree with you about poor behaviour.

I don't accept that the game needs to change to expand beyond the M62 corridor. I understand that the RL higher ups have expansion as a strategic objective but that does not make it a need so to speak. I contend that 130 years in the M62 corridor is evidence that failure to expand hasn't damaged the game. 50 or so years of trying to expand the game has not produced one example of a sustainable top flight club.

The point I am hoping we can explore however is how well served are the RL community by journalism. Where are these issues being explored in an intelligent, evidence based critical fashion. I think the point of journalists is to hold a mirror up to the establishment to help them see the wood for the trees. I fear that those who report on RL are either former RL pros who's role is to sell their former player expertiese (I have little gripe with them) or pro journos who are so invested in the RL establishment that any investigation they do is attracted to the evidence that reinforces the establishment but ignores the evidence to the contrary. My evidence for this is that no one in the RL media seems to question this need to expand despite the many and continuing failures over 50 years.

I contend that 130 years in the M62 corridor is evidence that failure to expand hasn't damaged the game

That depends on what it is the leaders strive for- What is the measurable

50 years no expansion- Catalans, Im assuming you are taking London as a complete failure

On the criteria of successful and sustainable SL club yes I do contend that London is a failure, especialy when one consider the many consessions they have enjoyed. Are not Catalan in an already established RL area? (genuine question).

I agree that success or failure of expansion depend on criteria set. Now if expansion of the professional game at the top level is measured by increasing numbers of people playing the community game in the area in question one could argue that London has indeed been a success. However the growth of the community game in the south west without a pro top flight team seems to undermine the neccessity for the pro club. Perhaps the growth of the community game in London could have been achieved without a pro club.

I stress again that whilst debate on expansion is clearly going to follow my post my primary intention in my OP was to see if others share my contention that RL journos are not doing the RL community justice by fawning to the RL establishment.

I suppose you could say it was - It was judged better than Halifax and Crusaders and possibly better than London.

No neither Crusaders or Fax were awarded a grade C licence

Seems odd that you think the press should be slating the RFL for wanting to have the game played outside the three counties. Other than good governance, surely the raison d'etre of the RFL is to have the game played and supported by as many people as possible in as many places as possible? While one might argue over the methods, why on earth would anyone think this is a bad thing?

Sarf essex taff you have a good point - I have not been sufficiently precise in my arguement. It would have been a more accurate representation of my view had I said expansion of super league (or indeed the top flight prior to that.). I agree more people playing the game is very desirable and Im personally involved in that with an amature club in a none traditional RL area, Im just not convinced that a pro club in SL in an area is a pre requisite for the development of a community base.

Im not seeking the RL media to slate the establishment just hold a critical lense to their activities.

Consider all the resource poured into expansion clubs over the past 15 to 20 years (some would argue 50 years), consider the consessions allowed to these clubs. These things have happend to the expence of established SL clubs and speccies - the sports core customers. Now it is in the gift of the RFL to do these things as they are the governing body, I can actually paint a reasonable rational as to why they do so.

My gripe is that these issues are not considered in the round by the RL media. See my OP this was not the only example I cite in my contention that the RL media serve the RL establishment rather than robustly appraise their activity etc... Why for example has the RFL not been called to account in the media for their poor performance in appraising clubs capacity. Celtic Crusaders first financial meltdown took place within a short time of the RFL approving their first franchise bid. Crusaders failure (if indeed that is what is about to take place) took place within 12 months of the RFL allowing them to form from the ashes of Celtic. Were I the CEO of the RFL I'd be asking some serious questions of my officers who approved both these decisions.

Were I a RL journo I'd be foaming at the mouth at the prospect of getting answers to these questions. BUT I don't see this form of reporting amongst the RL press.

Just a small point - the BBC didn't lead with a headline saying that throughout Tuesday - the headline in place for most of the day was [url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_league/14189659.stm'Crusaders withdraw application for Super League place'[/url.

The only place they make mention of the reason for Wakefield's inclusion was at the bottom of the article: "However, their survival in the top flight was assured by the withdrawal of the Crusaders and Halifax's failure to make the grade."

George Riley only seems to be posing a few questions based on the "anticipation" of Wakefield's bid failing. Now we know theirs was apparently not the weakest of the applicants.

BBC radio 5 live most certainly headlined wakefield saved by crusaders withdrawal all day and riley goes as far as saying that its a blow to RFL that wkefiled are awarded a licence!

Irrespective of this, still 3 days later there is nothing in the public domain that supports this. Were the BBC making it up? guessing? recycling received wisdom as fact? Or do they know something that the rest of us don't?

Again my query is one of the quality of RL journalism.

I'm not sure what you're expecting them to do here. Firstly you are simplifying things immensely. Every expansion club has different issues and different problems and there is no one size fits all solution.

Every expansion club that is a constituent member of the RFL has the right to an equal share of the resources (and many would argue should receive more due to the difficulties of running a club in new territories). As such complaining about them receiving resources they have a right to is daft. Why is there a difference between Quins wasting resources by having financial troubles and employing too many antipodeans and, for example, Wakefield having financial troubles and employing too many antipodeans?

In fact in some ways some expansion clubs have shown good management of resources. Out of the present CC1, if one excludes Scorpions, during the eight years Skolars have been in the league only one of those clubs has not gone into a form of administration and that is Skolars. They haven't wasted resources by needing to involve lawyers and insolvency practitioners. I believe the RFL has had to divert resources to save one of those heartland clubs' ground. Unlike Crusaders' ground, this is rarely mentioned because it does not suit the line of argument that expansion clubs are a waste of money whereas heartlands clubs are shining examples of corporate governance.

To use a scattergun approach based on supposition and myth will hardly put anyone on the spot. To suggest
it has been going on for 50 years is laughable. The Fallowfield "tumbleweed" era was a period of retraction not expansion. It also shows a misunderstanding of the governance of the game. While in the super league era, decision making has moved for good reason to an independent board of directors, for most of those 50 years it was in the hands of the RL Council, which only comprised representatives of the clubs. It always used to bemuse me how the RFL would get blamed for everything when it was actually the clubs making the decisions.