I’m fairly sure that cheer leaders can be journalists. And vice versa. On the other hand they don’t have to be. It’s quite hard to take this whole conversation seriously. So I won’t. Sexism, on the other hand, is serious. Which is Stephens point I think. Welcome to the 21st century.
Different deals. BT paid £200m for another 6 years of Premiership RU (so less per season than the Sky SL deal), with C5 also showing 5 live games and weekly highlights.
BT also have live rights to Heineken Cup and pay extra for that, with C4 showing a live game FTA from every round up to and including the Final. So RU are getting 4 income sources, with 2 large lots from BT and two smaller ones from C4 and C5.
We on the other hand get the Sky money plus a bit from BBC for Challenge Cup and internationals (inc. 2021 World Cup). I'm sure Sky would love CC exclusivity but because the Final had to be FTA they've accepted a secondary role and the BBC won the rights to the first pick games.
We're very lucky to have the challenge cup final as part of the 'crown jewels' when you consider what events we're alongside.
The worry is like test match cricket, that could easily be changed
Wouldn’t mind an attractive male presenter for a change
You have no idea whether I’m repressed or a weirdo. I doubt that you actually know what repression is. Also I didn’t accuse you of anything. I just pointed out that sexual differences and sexism isn’t the same thing. I’m not going indulge in insulting you personally. Having read your posts I just plan to ignore you and I don’t mind if you do the same
I'll try this one more time, then you can all argue the case as you wish. I was trying to put the case that our game is marketed as ENTERTAINMENT. If you look for example at any local TV weather presenters (male or female), despite there being an ongoing obesity crisis (especially in the NW), they're all built like female/male models. That's because although they're all qualified to do what they do, it's ENTERTAINMENT. Look at the presenters of NW tonight, anyone overweight there? No. The national news? No. Attractive sells, it just does. The media is full of attractive people, whom I guess are good at their jobs. Nevertheless in the vast majority of cases these people appearing on the visual medium are attractive. I criticised Powers for her presentation and then said it would be nice to have an attractive presenter. Somehow I'm a sexist? How does that work? I'm thinking of ways of promoting our game. Should we ban the Saints Angels from performing because that's degrading and that little kids dancing at half time is demeaning and sexist? It's done to promote the game! Is the NFL sexist to have cheerleaders, it just goes on and on. The sport needs competent media presenters and if they're attractive, well that's a bonus, so why not have the bonus? It's all rather daft that some on here are deliberately trying to spin my argument in a different way. Tanya Arnold is far more professional than Powers and in my opinion better looking, does that make me sexist? Look at how people argue on our site regarding the aesthetics of our team shirts, they all have different opinions on what they like to look at, but at the end of the day it's just a bl**dy shirt and doesn't help us win or lose matches. But we like the most attractive ones don't we? And before anyone says it, I'm not comparing people to shirts, I'm illustrating a point that people like attractive things. It's what sells in advertising and ENTERTAINMENT, which just happens to be the game we're in. If anyone has been offended about my opinions, then I'm truly sorry, I took part in this thread to try and get a debate about how to sell the game. I've seen no conclusive argument put forward that having competent attractive presenters (male or female) wouldn't help. Along with the other things I've said, a magazine show, going behind the scenes at clubs , etc, etc. I will not be cowed in my opinions by having a label pinned on me which I don't deserve.
Re the female presenters: When Clare Balding started she didn't know the first thing about league, but she made an effort and learned. She managed to make her post match interviews interesting, and though we were always a distant second (pardon the pun) to Horse racing she did show enthusiasm for the game, and Paul Sculthorpe's legs.
It's not a fact, your 'evidence' is to 'look around' and you expect that to be taken seriously?
Rugby league has a large proportion of females who follow and watch the game, it isn't and never should be marketed to men only
If people challenge your view your only come back is to plead PC brigade, you know you have run out of sensible arguments when that happens
And that is a fair point. But you didn't just make that point. Stephen07 asked whether a woman needed to be attractive to be good at her job and in response you bafflingly accused him of being a man-hater. You then proceeded to reject a number of points that neither he nor anyone else had made (e.g. that there's something wrong with attractive people or that attractive people are too stupid to be journalists).
Again, if you had just said that instead of imagining that there was a lynch mob at your door then I don't think this thread would have ended up where it has.
What did I miss?