How can you take away a "real" game?

Sorry but did those people turn up or not?

Talk about bitter!!

Was just about to say the same

That has nothing to do with the relative numbers of people attending games. It is all about the type of person attending, which should be rather obvious.

We should except that rugby League is dying in Great Britain and the more we look at Rugby Union the more depressed we will get. Also lets stop calling Union as it makes us look stupid. Saying we have the better game makes no sense now. If it’s so great why are people stopping watching it.
Why do we play with 1 ref and Australia have 2.
Why do we put players on TV giving interviews that can hardly talk.
Why do Stevo and Co always dwell on any mistakes in the game by players and the ref. how is this promoting the game.

We certainly should 'except'(sic) that Rugby League is dying as it clearly is not.

Union is a bigger game internationally and always will be. That helps their domestic game. Cricket is a huge game internationally but in the UK the county game is watched by few people, but you don't see the ECB planning to end it . Even the great satan soccer struggles to balance its books financially.

For all its flaws, I've loved RL since I first saw a match in 1968 and frankly I'm not bothered by what happens to other sports.

I know that, but which game is recieving bigger sponsorship payments?

I'm not 'taking it away' - But surely I can make the point about it being counted TWICE as home games for BOTH teams, and also that it vastly distorts the figures.

There's 10 pages on here which is largely much to do about nothing, and has only come about due to distorted union averages quoted.

Just have to point out that despite first appearances, our league gates and union league gates are pretty much the same - We are essentially talking about one fixture at wembley being the difference leading to the distortion and so no need for 10+ pages on here decrying the death of rugby league!!!

The one with the wealthier fans.

Once more you come onto our board and spout utter tripe.

By your reckoning Football would therefore receive less sponsorship money than Polo.

But that's just it, the Wembley fixtures are part of their overall gates. You cannot simply exclude them. They took place. They happened.

I also think we are missing the point if we focus purely on attendances.

I don't think that Tigertot is talking utter tripe on this occassion TBH. I think that RU as a sport does attract a different level of sponsorship because of the type of fans that watch it. No disrespect to any of our clubs or their fan's (I am one myself) but we aren't as a group an attractive business proposition by comparison..similar numbers different demographic.

Football has some wealthy operators and for sheer numbers world wide can't be beaten even by polo or were you just being particularly obtuse?

Quite an ironic post given the title of this thread