Go for it!!!!

Which ones, particularly the advertising/marketing part? The crowds ( growing expotentially ) and sponsors are queuing to the rafters for the game arn't they especially the Big brand names and blue chip companies (Barrs anyone?)

Is the same person at the clubs involved in media relations as well?

The player standard one is a good one, anyone got a GB passport? GOOD! sign here lad

i'll keep saying this till im blue in the face..SL/SLE cannot have more than four teams from lancs and yorks if its ever to be taken seriously.
there are far to many clubs in SL whos sole purpose is to survive at all costs reguardless of whats happening to the game as a whole.

Why stop there?

When one of our national sides are in action the press will always devote more space to them. The biggest mistake that was made after Super League was created was to completely neglect the international game and to give the rights to Sky. International games need the biggest exposure and for me that means going back to Saturday afternoons on the BBC for every England home game. If we can get more people attending and watching internationals on TV, even if they have no interest in the club game, sponsors and broadcasters will want to come on board and then the media will take notice.

Exactly, why RL gets less National media exposure:
1. The RFL do not invest enough in their media team
2. SL clubs do not work hard enough to get SL players and action on TV ads through 3rd party sponsorship deals
3. Int RL is not on FTA
4. Our players do not have enough public and media profile
5. We are very bad at actualy telling everyone what a great game we have
6. We don't do the work for the papers, as said unless its girly soccer they aren't going to spend resources covering it so we have to do it for them.
7. The media is run by RU types
8.SL and NRL are not on FTA TV

j.c wrote:the championship 'not long ago'was the fourth most followed league in europe,so i would say that leagues doing ok. by the way i didnt say RL was a dieing sport.i said two thirds of its member club were dieing on there booty and 7 or 8 clubs in SL are living from hand to mouth. Quote:yes, football,cricket and union. It's been posted on another thread that not one Football League club made a profit last year. This articleshows that in the 07/08 year, only 2 clubs in the PL made a profit. This article from 2009 says "with Gloucester, Leicester and Northampton the only Premiership clubs to make a profit last season". This article suggests that the only cricket clubs that make a profit are those that get Test matches. So in what way is RL any different to any other sport?

j.c wrote:the championship 'not long ago'was the fourth most followed league in europe,so i would say that leagues doing ok. by the way i didnt say RL was a dieing sport.i said two thirds of its member club were dieing on there booty and 7 or 8 clubs in SL are living from hand to mouth. Quote:yes, football,cricket and union. It's been posted on another thread that not one Football League club made a profit last year. This articleshows that in the 07/08 year, only 2 clubs in the PL made a profit. This article from 2009 says "with Gloucester, Leicester and Northampton the only Premiership clubs to make a profit last season". This article suggests that the only cricket clubs that make a profit are those that get Test matches. So in what way is RL any different to any other sport?

Billinge_Lump wrote:It's been posted on another thread that not one Football League club made a profit last year. This articleshows that in the 07/08 year, only 2 clubs in the PL made a profit. This article from 2009 says "with Gloucester, Leicester and Northampton the only Premiership clubs to make a profit last season". This article suggests that the only cricket clubs that make a profit are those that get Test matches. So in what way is RL any different to any other sport? i think the differance between those sports clubs and RL clubs is that there is so much more money slushing around in those sports that they can run at a loss without it affecting them to much.unlike most RL clubs.

Billinge_Lump wrote:It's been posted on another thread that not one Football League club made a profit last year. This articleshows that in the 07/08 year, only 2 clubs in the PL made a profit. This article from 2009 says "with Gloucester, Leicester and Northampton the only Premiership clubs to make a profit last season". This article suggests that the only cricket clubs that make a profit are those that get Test matches. So in what way is RL any different to any other sport? i think the differance between those sports clubs and RL clubs is that there is so much more money slushing around in those sports that they can run at a loss without it affecting them to much.unlike most RL clubs.

They survive for the same reason that RL clubs do, someone is willing to cover the losses. I think that most professional sport is in the same boat, whilst RL may not be run incredibly well, it isn't the complete basket case that some would make out.

Portsmouth? Birmingham RU?

i take it they've gone bust?