BristolUK

See, now there's another reason for the paper not to do that. The article was perfectly fine but you were put of reading it.

Shard

One thing I find interesting in this 'internet age' is how the Guardian and BBC are now regularly quoted in the North American media (especially the NY based media).

BristolUK

The latest thing is giving a ridiculous amount of coverage to women's football and often not differentiating it from the men's game.

Fair enough to promote and report it, of course, but anything not the premier league is generally signposted as something different.

But Sunday...big game for the England men's team. Repeat of the world cup semi final. Winner takes all. Front page dominated by coverage of a women's club match. It completely eclipsed the piece on the England match.

24 hours later, 15 reader comments on the women's match. 1600 on the men's game. Priorities?

I'm back 'subscribing' again though. But I'v chosen a lower rate than suggested. That's my compromise.

Shard

Didn't read it, but there was some article on how the Guardian's funding model is starting to work for it.

Far too much sports in the online Guardian, why on earth they devote limited resources to that I don't know. Sports news is available everywhere.

BristolUK

It's clickable though. And clicks seem to count (but not for women's football )

And they keep getting sports website of the year awards

Shard

Well, they finally got to me, made a one-off small contribution to The Guardian website to support their open funding model. It is my primary news source these days, even if I don't always agree with all their views.

Novocastrian

There already is one. Not that I've bothered to read it.