If free-to-air tv coverage as its presented now worked we would have thousands more at our games than we do now.
The Beeb's coverage is so bad it probably does more damage than it does good and the game would be better served if it was moved to a platform that gave a chuff about the sport.
The game see a boost if it started getting prime time coverage on any channel rather than the afterthought and schedule filler it is now but it needs to create something worth watching, which for most of the season it frankly isn't.

Why do you keep harping on about Rugby League been given poor slots and only being schedule filler? What times and days should it be on?

As Moe said, there are many more channels available now than in the golden days of listening to Eddie Waring, and having our sport on the best Sports network in the UK is a fantastic thing.

long time lurker, first time poster here....
I think that the BBC dont really give a fig about RL but do think it does bring people in if they can see it on terrestial. I know loads of blokes who like sport - many of them floating rugby fans - but dont have Sky Sports. They watch RU because it's on and they'd watch RL for the same reason. I shudder at the production values ITV would bring to the table though. C4?
Anyway, after years of being a Super League Sky Sports viewer and attending the CC Final and Grand Final and nothing else I've had a damascene conversion and decided it's time to lend my real support to this glorious game. Have been to 1 'old' Broncos game at GP and 2 Harlequins RL games in their first season but I'm going tomorrow night for the curry (and roping in 3 other blokes with an eye to conversion) and will be taking my daughter to the Dewsbury game. Also off to the Skolars this Monday. I've got RL fever! There's a lot more like me out there in the South East - we just need to grab them. Somehow. How to do that though...

RL is on terrestrial tele, probably more times per year than England RU are on. They play 5 6N games and the BBC must show more than 5 games during the RL season thanks to the Challenge Cup.

I dont think the BBC put any thought or effort into it. They could have bigged up Fev v Cas but I doubt whoever did the choosing has even heard of Featherstone so went down the list until they found an all SL fixture. Anyone tuning into Widnes getting, most probably, shellacked isnt going to get hooked - a passionate derby with a chance of a possible upset would be a different matter. Let someone show the sport who gives a toss about it - unfortunately apart from Sky nobody seems to.

This has happened year-in year-out with BBC coverage of the CC. I've lost count of the times a fixture which was likely to be close was ignored by the Beeb, who instead opted to show an all SL tie that involved a team dominating the SL at that point in the season and one at the bottom of the table with a shed load of injuries who couldn't beat an egg.
Cue inevitable tonking which even I as a die hard RL fan got bored with.

I still maintain that free-to-air coverage is good advertising for the game, but clearly with the caveat that there has to be a contest.

Because it is.



Times when most of its target market aren't out doing other things? or when it can form the central part of those things.

Come evening time the party's in full swing and watching the telly isnt really on the agenda of most pub guests

Because it is.



Times when most of its target market aren't out doing other things? or when it can form the central part of those things.

Come evening time the party's in full swing and watching the telly isnt really on the agenda of most pub guests


An example of when all the best time slots would be is when they tend to show the big soccer matches.

I'm gonna take a swipe at the whole of RL for a lack of investment in marketing. We seem to rely on the product, and in London we seem to tow the party line of the game will sell itself, for it is an exciting game to watch. We seem to have got ourselves into thinking we have an inelastic product that people will want, they just need to know they want it. There is a lack of investment to properly do that, but as others have said there is little point in advertising a weak team.

The other point is that RL is an elastic product as the market is not as simple as RL or RU, it is obviously much more diverse than that as London has a myriad of options for the sports enthusiast. Furthermore there is the social angle where the sport itself matters little, it is more the experience and the event that is of importance. Anyone who attends rugby union fixtures will tell you of the event nature of the sport, that fixtures mean something and that they are varied. People want to sit in big crowds, and feel like part of something big, even if they don't fully understand the sport.

Having attended many games of RL, football cricket and a few RU games I can safely say that you can have a conversation throughout two of those sports and keep up, but for two of those you will have to wait until half-time. Union can be encapsulating, and league certainly is, but the social angle is one that hits London hard; we are not attracting the 18-25 demographic anymore, and whilst that may not be a major issue now, it will harm long-term growth. It is though a worrying example of how why have become a social leper, as no-one wants to be associated with a club who was outwardly dying a death, fielding a weak team, decreasing crowds, increasingly poor post-match entertainment, younger and younger cheerleaders for costs purposes (in no way sexist, just bad business), dull tactics, demoralising defeats, etc.

I believe we have bottomed out, and with a better team, with key recruits we have showed signs that we can challenge on the field, but there we cannot truly be expected to go from basement to anywhere near the penthouse inside a year. If we can spread the word then we can increase the desire to want to go to the Stoop for RL fixtures. The rot has stopped, but it has some way to go, and IMO the Wakey game would have been perfect to make the game look socially acceptable to people who aren't northerners. We could have targetted this game or a future SKY home game as a Help for Heroes day (insert any other idea that benefits the club) and have the ground filled by whatever means, and that includes papering the house for that one fixture. Get the free tickets out thru SKY, local radio, paper, internet, whatever and get the image of the club back towards where it should be. We changed the name of the brand or product because our last name was tainted, and that move was IMO not expected to yield immediate, but long-term results, ones that we would ONLY have seen with a truly competitive team, one that is challenging in the play-offs, not one challenging for play-offs.

We are selling what is percieved as an inferior product in a competitive marketplace. We have already have low prices to increase market share, and operating at a loss is not a problem, and one that DH should continue to do as long as he can, not for our sake but that we are at the beginning on the rise, not falling further into the slump. Our product as London RL lost credibility with our continually low crowds, and our name change to escape the low consumer credibility was the first step, addressing the people's need to feel part of something big, exciting and important is next.

People are massively underestimating how much the proles or pretty much everyone wants to be liked, feel part of something big and important. RL has largely missed this in its entirety and is paying the price for letting the game sell itself. Game has to address this or a less interesting game will continue to dwarf us because of the ourobos cycle that we are in; we can't afford to market and can't see if we are growing, they can afford to market, take hits on holding fixtures and marketing them to fund further growth, all while making the slower code look more socially acceptable.

Agree 100% If we could combine a winning team with an owner who had enough money to market the game I think we could do it. We almost have the team now if we can shore up the defence. Unfortunately DH needs some help with the marketing. If we do keep winning then we should all be trying to bring people along. At least RL seems to be getting more exposure on Sky

Exactly. Rugby League is on far more often, and domestic Union is hidden away on that ghastly Pay TV, a lot of it on a channel where you have to pay another tenner on top of your offensive Pay TV subscription.

So your suggestion that is better than the current arrangement? still waiting. I also look forward to your analysis of the 'target market' and your thoughts regarding the viewing figures that Super League somehow pulls in its dreadful time slot.

You do a really good impression of a bitter Northerner who thinks the sport is being screwed all the time by the way.

I don't quiet understand the first par but the second one made me lol

It wasn't the RFU who marketed the Sarries game or the Big game at Xmas.

they gave away 5,000 pairs of free tickets in the standard......4,128 turned up