I don't give two fuicks about Rugby Union, why are you on here talking about that crap again!

You've just basically recycled what this and countless other threads have blindly said and its factually not true. If by 'bombard the screens' you mean RU is on TV a lot, that's because there are quite a few competitions worldwide both domestically and internationally, far more than RL, so it will get more coverage. As I said before, the bigger the sport the more coverage it gets. If RL doesn't get a lot of coverage it's not because of some worldwide conspiracy (RL isn't important enough for that), its because (brace yourself) not enough people like RL to go watch the game live or on TV. RU at club level gets roughly the same coverage as RL, as for its popularity its attendance figures have risen most years and its viewing figures have risen the last 2 years to overtake RLs (which have fallen). That's down to RL fans who have stopped attending and watching on TV, is that RUs/the medias fault too? And If there are more international RU matches on FTA TV then that means there's a demand for their sport (which is backed up by the viewing figures), and maybe the people who run soccer and RL should pull their fingers out eh?

What, the whole kit and caboodle, or just the early rounds (as this season)? Not so bothered about the early rounds being on Sky as long as the semis and Final are on BBC.

But if that's the thin end of the wedge...

I have just been to visit relatives in France. If you think the UK suffers from apathy you should have a look over the water. This is the time of year when we start to wonder which Elite teams will fail to make the first game of the season or which will fold part way through. I can never understand how, outside Catalan Dragons on Bein Sport, RL gets less national TV time than Pelota or even grass slope ski jumping. On some of the local channels there is reasonable coverage of local events like box car racing and I once spent a wet couple of hours watching Solex racing. What are we doing wrong?

And here you are once again blindly bleating on about the collective RL shoulder based chip whilst singularly failing to acknowledge that decades of institutional media and cultural bias in favour of RU have helped to create this situation. It's all well and good saying that RL doesn't deserve more coverage, but how about the fact that RU is worthy of significantly less than it gets. Game for game at domestic level roughly the same number of people care about both sports, but the coverage is hugely disproportionate in favour of the establishment game. You don't think that carries any significance?

You accuse others of being blinkered yet take no account of decades of RL being treated like a second class citizen, outlawed in the armed forces, ignored by the mainstream press regardless of popularity. A level playing field doesn't just happen after that sort of mistreatment, it requires decades of work. It's all well and good chastising the RL board, but the RFU and the establishment have, as a provable matter of fact, held RL back right around the world for a very long time, and to ignore that makes you look like an idiot.

and a cock!

Yet another recycled untruth, club RL does get the same coverage and press as club RU. Have you not been listening to BBC radio 5Live? (The same BBC that is part of the Establishment and ignores RL) I notice you didn't mention International RU and RL, I wonder why? You think that RU and RL should be considered as equals but they're not due to the international game and its wider geographical reach. Do you think RU and soccer should have the same coverage? Only an 'idiot' would think so, so only an 'idiot' would think RU and RL should have the same coverage. Outlawed from the armed forces? yeah, cos that's what stopped RL from global domination and would have made all the difference



I'd rather be a humble idiot than the self-pitying, bleating type that blames all my own failings and shortcomings on someone else.

The old Rugby Union restrictions aimed directly at RL have gone, by and large. But now RL falls into the trap set by the establishment. That of anything outside what the establishment deems to be "right" is either ignored or actively fought against with every weapon of the state, both public and private, that they can bring to bear.
Be it in politics, media, education, whatever. Hence the vitriol and lies directed at Jeremy Corbyn. Or the proliferation of public schoolboys in high positions. Or the criminalisation of as much of the working class as possible. Or, as an example of the vastly unequal system, the fact that London gets 24 times higher transport spending than the rest of the country.

I also guess it's just co-incidence that England Union are playing in the World Cup in the same city and on the exact same day, just 2 hours apart from the SL Grand Final.

And thick as two short planks, ignorance is no excuse

What a fool!

Clearly he doesn't understand British history, the history of RL or the history of sport and how/why British sport grew across the world.

I really can't believe that people think that rugby and the bbc are out to undermine and destroy rugby league. The bbc by having the rights (which they don't have to have) and broadcAsting to tens of millions of potential viewers is not the mark of a corporation trying to destroy a game. If they wanted to they would just relinquish the rights and give them to channel 5 or something. No wonder RL in this country is a laughing stock when 99% of the fans are paranoid idiots

Regards

King James

On the subject of Union keeping League down. If one of my staff decided to 'go it alone" and I felt that he/she might nick some of my clients or other staff, I'd crush their business without a moments hesitation.
Rugby League broke away from Union and as such, Union would have seen the new governing body as direct competition......and in every competition there are winners and losers.
Whining about losing makes us look like small minded fools with chips on our shoulders.

Union trying to put League down in the past is fine. The state backing Union up isn't.

If I need a favour from someone in my attempts to crush my ex-employee's new business that threatens my own, I would probably start with old school mates. It's just unfortunate for League that the Union lot went to school with the people in power and as I say, its a competition and we were never gong to win, especially with the odds stacked against us.

As for Public Schools..... I was taking to my boss recently, thoroughly decent chap who went to Malvern... I was stunned to learn that they did sports every afternoon, let me repeat, EVERY afternoon. So, all they know is Union.

My feeling is that it's deliberate from the point of view of the RFU. But they just use, as is stated, people who know no better, the people who will be running the media.

www.newstatesman.com/politics/sp ... -parochial

www.newstatesman.com/politics/sp ... -parochial

Good read.

Does nt tell us anything we don't already know, but always worth repeating to a wider audience.

So after pages of 'all the media is against RL' someone posts a link to a pro-RL article in the media?



Another recycled article blaming someone else for RLs failures (so that's now the RFU, the old school tie, the Vichy govt, the Establishment, the media and the Dubai govt), no wonder it got a round of applause. It's all part of having a victim mentality, it's never your fault.

Are you suggesting that the facts detailed in that article are untrue?

Yes, The New Statesman, that well known establishment media outlet. It quotes Gramsci ffs!

No-one has mentioned the 'establishment media' (apart from you to suit your argument), everyone has been bellyaching about no coverage in the media, would you not class the New Statesman as being in the media? What about the BBC who are showing the CC final live on BBC1. Only an 'idiot' would not count both outlets as being in the media (ffs)

You're making an even bigger fool of yourself!

Your ignorance of how historical events have shaped the way the modern sporting landscape appears today is either staggeringly imbecilic or you're pathetically ignoring it just to be a tw@

Now now son, don't spit your dummy out. There are various flaws in your argument so I'll just do a quick point by point:
- The establishment thing is implicit. Rugby League Express is the media. So is The Telegraph and Argus. Both have lots of rugby league in them. To argue that that means 'Rugby League has media coverage' in any way beyond the childishly literal is a bit silly.
- Given that, the fact that The New Statesman is not establishment is entirely relevant. It's a weekly magazine with a tiny circulation of 30k, almost exactly the same as Rugby League Express.
- Nobody thinks there is literally zero coverage of rugby league. If they are they are seriously deluded. Your comment about the final being on the BBC is irrelevant.
- My argument? I don't feel particularly strongly about media coverage of rugby league. If anything I like its underdog nature, and if I'd grown up in Sydney I'd probably find RL as irritating as I find soccer here.
In summary I just thought you were being a bit of an so I bit. I will get bored soon and will stop biting at your inane bait. You, however will remain an .

Now now son, don't throw your dolly out of the pram. I'll point out your contradiction, going by your first point you're implying that RL doesn't get any coverage from the establishment media yet when I point out to you that it's getting plenty of coverage from the BBC today (and plenty of airtime over the last few days on BBC radio) you say it's irrelevant? Don't you consider the BBC as establishment media?





And going by the fact you typed in 'an booty' twice, you will remain a semi-illiterate booty