Whilst not a SkySports subscriber I do find their website more upto date than the BBC.

Again, is it the RFL's fault that the BBC don't have enough journalists?

The BBC have plenty of staff....21,000 or so. The fact that the clubs and RFL have been asked by a journalist to do more (read the bloody letter) is damning on them and not the BBC.
I repeat.....#1 at what they do, so regardless of your opinion, the FACT will always be stronger.....they publish enough of the right stuff to be head and shoulders ahead of the rest.

I've read the letter, it's just excuses. If the RFL replied saying they haven't got the staff numbers to do more marketing would you be excusing them or asking why they don't have the staff?

Nope....it's an example of what opinion a media outlet holds of the game and its media management.

Indeed I would. The media don't need RL.........the opposite can't be claimed. It is 100% the role of the clubs and RFL to MAKE THE MEDIA pay attention....there is no god given right to coverage.

No it's laying the blame from people struggling to do their jobs. Number 1 ranked websites shouldn't need 'minority sports' to help them out doing their jobs.




There isn't a god given right to coverage, but that doesn't excuse the BBC from not covering as many sports as they can, as well as they can. They should try and cover as many Sports as good they can, if they take the attitude of you and say it's "that sports problem" then they'll probably stop being number 1 or at least not be number 1 by as far a margin as they should be. Maybe that's why media are laying staff off????