It must take you to a different link to me, the one I open is about the Challenge Cup semi-final at the Keepmoat in Doncaster.
And Rovers are hoping to 'break into the top eight' Which is impossible and the it's a top eight of twelve clubs. So they are in the bottom four and have been all season. Much closer to relegation then 'reaching the top eight' The local media act like ticket salesmen for the eggchasers. They do the exact opposite for football and Hull City.
You've just perfectly demonstrated my point. Taking your above statement at face value for a moment, my response is... This bothers you why? In the rugby league world Super League IS the equivalent of the Premier League. It's the top tier of that sport in England. Your other point is a bit more debatable, but FC probably could be considered the Liverpool of that league. A strong team, but probably underachieving in recent years. It's all relative isn't it. For the popularity of their league and its general following their support isn't bad, even if it is less than ours. They probably have a bigger 'share' than us though within that sport... it's all relative.
Football teams cost more to run... a larger (paying) fan base is required to compete at the top levels. 16,000 turnout isn't bad for a city with two teams and a generally less followed sport. Even if the local media seems to support the rugby more, there aren't that many places in England you can live where you can have this almost niche sport on your doorstep. This will appeal to fans, potential fans and local media alike. Besides, with less following, the rugby teams rely on that support more than we would.
It is describing a stadium as packed that is only 65% full as packed that is the point. Poor journalism for one thing and typical HDM hyperbole concerning rugby league. This doesn't happen elsewhere. Of course there aren't many places where you can have this almost niche sport on your doorstep, it isn't widely played in comparison.
The stadium capacity is irrelevant. What irks you is the spin put on the attendance figures for two sports played within the same ground. Still not sure why this is however, as previously stated it's all relative to the popularity of the sport in question.
It isn't that, it is the pathetic reporting. 16,000 in a 25,000 capacity stadium whether football, rugby, lacrosse or shove ha'penny are being played ther is not ""packed". Maybe you and Lambo are happy to see the HDM accentuate the positive and eliminate the negative with one sport we whilst doing the opposite with the other sport, others aren't, Doesn't happen in Leeds, with a lot more successful rugby league team, or in Leicester, home of the best supported rugby club in the country. Of course they have proper journalists employed by the local paper,
The HDM employ football and rugby reporters, the two are separate. The football reporter is very good (IMO) and accurately reports on what's going on at City. The rugby reporter bigs up the minority sport he covers. The suggestion that there's some sort of conspiracy at the HDM to talk up rugby and talk down football is complete bollocks as far as I'm concerned.
And that makes it FACT then, despite the years of evidence across both broadcast and print media in the area supporting the contrary. But if we're specifically talking the HDM, what about the editor and sub editor that have been overlooked here? I might be wrong but I don't think anyone was criticising the City reporter.
For years the HDM was negative towards City and football in general, especially under Meehan. Can give numerous examples as could others. Of course a lot happened when your interest in City had waned so you might not have noticed.
It's true, when I lived in London, before the advent of the internet, I wasn't a regular reader of the HDM.
It's a forum pal, people post their opinions and I couldn't have made it more clear that what I posted was just my opinion.
Glad to see you acknowledge the fact that you know about what was happening in something you didn't read. The well known Lambo psychic powers in evidence again.
Says someone who decries other people's opinions if they don't coincide with his. At least some of us have never deleted or locked anyone else's opinions.
