Him wrote:
Ah so you're not interested in what the actual discussion was about are you. You just want to drone on and on about a different argument that is only playing out in your head.
It's sad you've decided to become this ridiculous figure. You used to have a point behind your posts. Ah well.
First up. I responded to your error. I call it an error, because it isn't like you to blatantly lie to make a point, but it is a rather obvious error:
You said:
For the 2013/14 season it attracted an attendance of around 62k. In Union they count that as 62k for game 1 and 62k for game 2. They do that for both the total AP season & average attendance and also for the "home" clubs averages too. Hence Harlequins one year having an average crowd well above the capacity of the Stoop.
Fact is that on December 28th 2012 Harlequins attracted 74,827 to a stand alone game across the road from the Stoop and it was this game that pushed their average attendance up past the actual capacity of the Stoop. The Double header some 3 months earlier benefitted the average attendances of London Irish and London Wasps that year, with both claiming the 62,637 as their home attendance, given it was they that gave up home advantage to take part in it.
That season, the Aviva claimed an total attendance of 1,721,729 over 135 games....if you remove the 62,637 and the second game from this, then the average for their season is 12,381 for stand alone games only.
You assertion that RL should count Magic weekend attendances as home game attendances is hardly in the same league really, given it would treble the average for London Broncos 2014 season to 3,756
I am all for massaging figures if it is done well, but simply claiming 145,356 attended day 1 and another 84,639 on day 2 would leave the game open to ridicule in the press........given the record attendance at the Ethiad is 48,000
Secondly, the point behind my posts on here remains the same. That RL is a far superior product to any other team sport I can think of, but is probably the worst administrated professional sport I have even known. And that includes in Australia, where the main reason they managed to achieve a massive TV deal is because of a pointless pissing comp between the Aussie media and an imaginary "code war" with the AFL....and even with their mega bucks deal, 12 of the 16 are still financial basket cases.
Because I respond to inane comparisons with Union, which regardless of its stodgy and fractious style on the pitch, is a global mammoth beside league, you feel the need to "pity what I have become"? Get a grip.......even the most ardent Rugby League zealot would sell a kidney to have 25% of the intelligence displayed at the RFU/IRB at red hall.
As for the topic under discussion, Sky use RL as a filler. That may well change in the future, if they need to replace some content that has been lost to another broadcaster, but whilst our main competition is basically 11 teams from 1 northern enclave and a token french outfit, is shown on Pay TV with highlights shown at odd times nationally and continues to let the broadcast partner lead it around by the nose, then the game will receive the exposure it deserves.
I can't be sure, but I suspect that the NZ part of the NRL deal included a massive amount of free exposure for the club, because not only do Sky promote the booty out of the NRL here......the Warriors run TV adverts for their games promoting ticket sales and memberships. No way we are paying for these ads......it's the sort of thing the RFL should have asked for when they sold the family silver for a pittance.
Lastly....on the topic of getting what we deserve. As RL fans, we automatically look for news about our sport and it sometimes can feel like we don't get the attention or exposure we deserve. In reality, we get a pretty fair amount of exposure for the size and reach of the sport.
