If I need a favour from someone in my attempts to crush my ex-employee's new business that threatens my own, I would probably start with old school mates. It's just unfortunate for League that the Union lot went to school with the people in power and as I say, its a competition and we were never gong to win, especially with the odds stacked against us.

As for Public Schools..... I was taking to my boss recently, thoroughly decent chap who went to Malvern... I was stunned to learn that they did sports every afternoon, let me repeat, EVERY afternoon. So, all they know is Union.

My feeling is that it's deliberate from the point of view of the RFU. But they just use, as is stated, people who know no better, the people who will be running the media.

www.newstatesman.com/politics/sp ... -parochial

www.newstatesman.com/politics/sp ... -parochial

Good read.

Does nt tell us anything we don't already know, but always worth repeating to a wider audience.

So after pages of 'all the media is against RL' someone posts a link to a pro-RL article in the media?



Another recycled article blaming someone else for RLs failures (so that's now the RFU, the old school tie, the Vichy govt, the Establishment, the media and the Dubai govt), no wonder it got a round of applause. It's all part of having a victim mentality, it's never your fault.

Are you suggesting that the facts detailed in that article are untrue?

Yes, The New Statesman, that well known establishment media outlet. It quotes Gramsci ffs!

No-one has mentioned the 'establishment media' (apart from you to suit your argument), everyone has been bellyaching about no coverage in the media, would you not class the New Statesman as being in the media? What about the BBC who are showing the CC final live on BBC1. Only an 'idiot' would not count both outlets as being in the media (ffs)

You're making an even bigger fool of yourself!

Your ignorance of how historical events have shaped the way the modern sporting landscape appears today is either staggeringly imbecilic or you're pathetically ignoring it just to be a tw@

Now now son, don't spit your dummy out. There are various flaws in your argument so I'll just do a quick point by point:
- The establishment thing is implicit. Rugby League Express is the media. So is The Telegraph and Argus. Both have lots of rugby league in them. To argue that that means 'Rugby League has media coverage' in any way beyond the childishly literal is a bit silly.
- Given that, the fact that The New Statesman is not establishment is entirely relevant. It's a weekly magazine with a tiny circulation of 30k, almost exactly the same as Rugby League Express.
- Nobody thinks there is literally zero coverage of rugby league. If they are they are seriously deluded. Your comment about the final being on the BBC is irrelevant.
- My argument? I don't feel particularly strongly about media coverage of rugby league. If anything I like its underdog nature, and if I'd grown up in Sydney I'd probably find RL as irritating as I find soccer here.
In summary I just thought you were being a bit of an so I bit. I will get bored soon and will stop biting at your inane bait. You, however will remain an .

Now now son, don't throw your dolly out of the pram. I'll point out your contradiction, going by your first point you're implying that RL doesn't get any coverage from the establishment media yet when I point out to you that it's getting plenty of coverage from the BBC today (and plenty of airtime over the last few days on BBC radio) you say it's irrelevant? Don't you consider the BBC as establishment media?





And going by the fact you typed in 'an booty' twice, you will remain a semi-illiterate booty