Quite an ironic post given the title of this thread

It's my ambition to be a Pie.
What's your explanation then Einstein? Perhaps it's the fault of them pesky Commies again? If, instead of trying to show off in front of your Peers, you took the time to read the thread you would see that the particular question was why, when RL & RU have similar club attendances & viewing figures, does RU attract massively increased sponsorship?

I don’t care how many watch RU; I know which is the better game. RU is a futile game because too much emphasis is placed on stupid pointless penalties, instead of what people want to see, TRIES! I’ve seen games with scores in double figures with no tries scored at all. So for me I’m not bothered if they do have a larger following, that is mostly for internationals anyway and not so much at club level, but you go if you want, but take a Philadelphia lawyer with you to let you know what’s going on. Most of their fans won’t come to see an RL game because they think it’s beneath them, and they know which is the better game; they just can’t bring themselves to admit it. So it’s pointless to stress over attendances they have the cash, the backing, and the publicity. WE HAVE THE BETTER GAME!!!

By the 'sound' of the some of the pies on this thread (pies-r-us and XBrettKennyX particularly), in order to realise your ambition may I suggest a frontal lobotomy, or a move to Cloud Cuckoo Land?

If I must........it attracts more sponsorship in the same way that Football attracts more sponsorship than Polo.

i.e. the sport has a wider following.

I appreciate we have a bit of thread drift here, but this is why it's not appropriate to compare just the attendances. It's about the exposure.

And yet you are here posting on our forum...........

I can only deduce therefore, that you have already had one.

I find try-fests in Rugby League boring nowdays.

why don't more people watch it? or attend? or even bother to sponsor the top league in the country?

we may have the better game, we've just got morons who run it

But club RU doesn't, in fact I believe RL gets much better TV figures for its club matches on Sky. Sponsors tend to pump money where their market group is. Football is slightly different due to its enourmous world wide appeal, but they don't attract the likes of Hackett, Jaeger-le Coultre, Verve Clicquat, Hello, Pimms, Gaucho, Barbour etc as polo does. When, literally, one man & his bichon frise watch polo it does beg the question as to why.

It is the easiest thing in the world to put the blame on the RFL but, up to the current lump of lard, they have had some people in charge who were not stupid, but still struggled.

I'm sure that the RFL are happy to get your endorsement..
If we take the current argument about whether ‘Sir Kev’ is the best player in the world, few have argued that he is not a terrific leader. So, is it not also fair to say that the RFL should also be seen in this same light? We all know damned well that it is all down to the RFL and their marketing of the game, they make the decisions on sponsorship, admittedly dependant on who they can attract, but in marketing it is your job to attract!! With the viewing figures that the game has, and the product they have, I would feel that it is safe to say that they are failures.

If the head of the RFU quit and took over at the RFL do people think their would be a noticeable difference?

Maybe we should look to getting in an Aussie to run it