No , just Super League

Don't think it really matters, the NHL and NBA both have canadian teams competing. No one refers to the National Rugby League or whatever, just NRL.

I'd get rid of the word Super, because it isn't super it's a below average league.

The Below Average League. Great stuff

For all his faults Maurice Lindsey kept Rugby League in the newspapers with positives stories.
We need more forceful people at Red Hall pushing out positive stories.

I don't think a rebranding is needed. But stronger and more aggressive marketing is.

I noticed one of the ad's on the side of this message board for a gambling site that was using the hashtag #differentleague.

That would be a perfect advert for RL. You show some footage of RU either muted colour or black & white with slow, boring, kick n clap action. Then you have a flash of vivid colour followed by footage of fast running, hard hitting, quick passing rugby league with the legend "A Different League"

Looks like England RL have rebranded/got a new badge.

If RFL/SL rebranded would they be any good at telling anyone?

[urlhttp://www.rugby-league.com/article/39231/new-look-for-the-rugby-football-league[/url

Full re-branding explained here

Did he? Or was it just a different time? There's been a significant centralisation of the national media in London at the same time as local media has been marginalised.

Leeds and Wigan etc were no more relevant to the rest of the country as they are now it's just there were only 3 or 4 TV channels (with more local content), more local newspaper editions and no internet which automatically pigeon-holes content.

I've no doubt Red Hall isn't good, sadly it appears as if we need to move the HQ to London and spent top money on top people, but we'll still struggle to make an impact in the media until we make ourselves relevant to more people in the country. By the existing clubs growing themselves at local level and the RFL expanding the amateur game at national level. And we have to use internationals better. We always get reasonable coverage when England play and people sit up and take note. It has to happen regularly, on a set and consistent schedule and at consistent venues, especially in London.

Leigh getting 6k instead of 3k, or salford getting 4k, or Wakefield getting to 7k will not mean a jot to people outside those areas. It will contribute next to nothing to making us relevant to the rest of the country. Expanding the amateur game at a national level will not only be nigh on impossible, but make very little difference when outside a small enclave, the rest of the country is at best, represented at a level barely above amateur.

The atomisation of media is not a threat, it was an opportunity.

What was the scouse swine with the black book brought in for?

I never said it would.

It will however increase local media attention and enable clubs to further invest in areas such as stadia, facilities, higher qualified and quality backroom staff, youth and junior production and commercial and marketing departments



Youre wrong. The amateur game is an entry point to a sport (When I say the amateur game I am including schools and social rugby in this too) and it's a way of tying people to a sport for, possibly, the rest of their lives. Both RU and football's amateur/schools/social game is a major factor behind their popularity.
This is even more important when you are struggling for a national media profile as this will be the only way many people are exposed to the sport.


It may well be an opportunity in the future as the media market starts to change. It certainly has not been helpful up until this point.
A centralised national media, in an area of the country where the sport is weak, combined with a decline in local news/editions was a huge blow to a reasonably-sized but regional sport that hadn't invested in its infrastructure.