The "Rugby League" option seems to have disappeared from the Telegraph's sport page today...

...and my point is, as it has been the whole thread, whilst it is good to see a fan of the game making a stance, it will not change a single thing in relation to the Daily Telegraph.
I posted an article (2008 I think) that was published in the Sunday Telegraph where the author, a Union fan, wrote that he'd watched the coverage of the RLWC and had been taken in by the passion, speed and everything else regarding the game. He finished the article with the comment "I'm hooked"
I wrote to the RFL & Harlequins RL pointing out that the game had a new ally.....and he should be lauded and invited to any and every event in the hope that he could continue to publish pro-league articles......as usual, I was told it was a good idea and then,........er.....nothing...nada.
RL will get no help from anyone other than itself and its fans.....as I have said, start getting 130k a week throug the gates and the papers will have no choice other than to cover the sport in more depth, but don't expect a placard and a disgruntledf letter to get anything......other than a tab on the website for a week.

3K gates at the BroncoQuins and 5k to see Australia v Wales isn't going to shift many Landrovers and that's what the Telegraph (and their advertisers) want......The Bradford Bull campaign in 2011 is the way forward for some clubs, whilst the approach of Wigan/Hull FC works for others....any club that struggles (London/Salford) needs assistance from the RFL (Advisory, not financial) to get their grounds full......the point is that as Huddersfield and now Bradford have shown in recent years, if you are willing to spend, as well as taking a hit on income, you will get the fans through the gates....8k average at Odslum in 2010.....14k a year later....both years saw them finish 10th, but with 75% more fans in 2011 because the spent/took a hit........and not a copy of the DT in sight

rlThe Telegraph Rugby League year in review... in the new rugby league section.rl

Good review IMO....but point of order, it's not a "new" RL section...it's always been there, just it briefly had its own tab on the front page to get to it......which it now hasn't.
rlhttps://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rl

It is good, isn't it? I was sure you had to go through the union section previously. Maybe I'm thinking of another paper.

The Standard?
DT always had a RL section listed under "other sports".....and it's worth remembering that only 4 short years ago, the BBC site had league listed under "other sports" and still did less than 13 months ago on their mobile site

How they assess interest. Surveys!
rlhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v

Ben Clissitt (Sports Editor) didn’t give any evidence to suggest that Boxing or Tennis were any more popular either. Strange how he didn’t have the results of many ‘surveys’ available.

You wouldn’t need to be particularly cynical to contemplate the thought that RL gets a disproportionately small amount of coverage in the sports section at the DT; I haven’t heard a convincing argument why that should be the case. Surely they can’t be biased against RL.

I don’t see there’s any harm in bringing this issue to the attention of the DT; as from the letter posted abovesomething for which we are very grateful.”

Merry Christmas

Good piece by Nigel Wiskar. blogs.people.co.uk/nigel-wiskar- ... -in-w.html

Good piece by Nigel Wiskar. blogs.people.co.uk/nigel-wiskar- ... -in-w.html