343 replies to this topic

[flyingking]

http://www.bbc.co.uk...league/21634020
Nigel Wood: RFL's London presence 'not right'
The chief executive of the Rugby Football League says the governing body needs to improve its strategy in London.

Edited by John Drake, 06 March 2013 - 11:17 PM.
Please don't copy and paste entire articles from other websites. A link and an intro will do.

[Saintslass]

Eh-up.

[Northern Sol]

Translation: We want Broncos in SL but they better sort themselves out or they will lose their licence. We will try to help them but we won't be giving them any money or take a stake in the club.

[Northern Sol]

Some interesting bits. My clips (pulled out of order and with deletions to try to make sense). To me this sounds like a "We'll do what little we can to help but if you don't sort yourselves out then you'll be playing in CC pretty soon"

London isn't working

"It is almost inconceivable to consider yourself a national sport without having a strong presence in the capital. We just have to make sure that we get that presence right. It is probably not right as it is and we need to work with all the stakeholders to improve that.

There needs to be a plan. The RFL will get involved with Broncos and others to try to sort things out.

"First and foremost, there needs to be a very easily understood plan."
"I think it is important we pull all the strands together to come up with a credible plan that the whole of the rugby league community in London can get behind and buy into.
"It's not any one person's problem. It's our problem.
"We will try and work with all of the key decision-makers within London rugby league and its environs to come up with a strategy that works."

Don't expect too much help though.

"The club is privately-owned and ultimately they are responsible for the destiny and direction of the club.
"The League will seek to assist and support and, where possible, provide counsel and advice.
"But at the end of the day we have to stop short of being the people that make the decisions as we are just a governing body."

"Fundamentally as a governing body, we have got an obligation to invigilate the rules and adjudicate between the clubs on an impartial basis. That is our first and foremost requirement.
"We have tried over the last decade to work with clubs - as we have in London and Wales and as we will do so with Hemel, Oxford and Gloucester - to understand that they have slightly different challenges. "We try and work with those clubs without over-stepping our mark of impartiality."

London not guaranteed a SL berth. They had better start winning some games and their attendances aren't good enough.

"But that is not a licence to occupy a place in Super League indefinitely.
"There are standards that have to be maintained.
"On-field success is one of those, as are other issues such as making sure there is a decent attendance so that everybody who engages with the club has a positive impression.

We're expecting results on the attendances and the team's results. If they at least go up we'll probably back off.

"Most people would settle for that and an understanding they are making progress off the field with attendances and revenues that go with it.
"The development side and the production of young talent has made remarkable strides over the last decade.

"People judge the progress the club will make with what happens on the field with the first team. That's where we need to see some improvement if we can.

Sort the stadium issue out now guys.

"The Broncos had have a concern over where they should be located in the capital," Wood said.

"We need to make sense of that and within the club they need to work out where their location is best served.

Edited by Northern Sol, 06 March 2013 - 11:59 PM.

[back to the future]

Sadly floggin a dead horse

[The Future is League]

Be aware as has been mentioned in the past. The sky deal will be less if there is no Super League club in London. If London is cut, Super League will have to be cut to 12 teams. That way with the reduced sky money the remaining clubs still get a the same amount as they are now. You have been warned.

[steef]

Be aware as has been mentioned in the past. The sky deal will be less if there is no Super League club in London. If London is cut, Super League will have to be cut to 12 teams. That way with the reduced sky money the remaining clubs still get a the same amount as they are now. You have been warned.

Why? Broncos games must be some of the lowest viewing figures superleague gets and they're hardly ever on Sky anyway. How much difference to Sky does having the Broncos in SL make? I honestly reckon Featherstone matches would get better viewing figures than the Broncos and if they did wouldn't that be better for Sky? I'm not being awkward honest questions. For me the biggest reason we need Broncos to succeed is to give London kids a route to top level SL and for that reason, I hope they can improve.

[The Parksider]

1. For me the biggest reason we need Broncos to succeed is to give London kids a route to top level SL.

2. I honestly reckon Featherstone matches would get better viewing figures than the Broncos and if they did wouldn't that be better for Sky?

1. That's a big reason and the one that is used the most and makes the most sense. London as an SL club with ties to Hemel and Skolars gives a clear pathway for young southern people to take up a career in RL.

2. Ah now that's another question. Abandoning London for Featherstone is fundamentally a terrible move, A retreat to the north will leave our game looking like it's regressing back to being a regional game.

That's perhaps only an Image? But these things can count. SKY's negotiations with RFL/SL seem to be based on get it for as little as you can so TFIL has a point. However the proof of the pudding is in the eating and we shall see.

After London we can get rid of Catalans too, then we can look back at Paris, Gateshead and Wales as well and be really pleased how things have gone since we tried to break out of the north.

Edited by The Parksider, 07 March 2013 - 07:10 AM.

[Northern Sol]

The words you are looking for Parky are:-

"I am sorry I talked utter b##### about a 2nd London SL club for so long. I now realise that this was foolish".

"I have also come to accept that there won't be any central funding and I will stop going on about how this is the RFL's plan"

Edited by Northern Sol, 07 March 2013 - 11:07 AM.

[Northern Sol]

Be aware as has been mentioned in the past. The sky deal will be less if there is no Super League club in London. If London is cut, Super League will have to be cut to 12 teams. That way with the reduced sky money the remaining clubs still get a the same amount as they are now. You have been warned.

This was said of Crusaders. They pulled out and one week later, we get an improved Sky deal.

Broncos games aren't televised very often. That tells you that they don't get good ratings. That should tell you that they add little to the TV deal.

[Dave T]

Why? Broncos games must be some of the lowest viewing figures superleague gets and they're hardly ever on Sky anyway. How much difference to Sky does having the Broncos in SL make? I honestly reckon Featherstone matches would get better viewing figures than the Broncos and if they did wouldn't that be better for Sky? I'm not being awkward honest questions. For me the biggest reason we need Broncos to succeed is to give London kids a route to top level SL and for that reason, I hope they can improve.

I agree. I think there is real potential for benefits through a successful London team - a sustained top team there could be more attractive to broadcasters and sponsors, but as things stand, I would suspect they bring little value.

I still believe they are very important, but as things stand it is wasted potential.

[Ackroman]

Sadly floggin a dead horse

b-dum tish.

They tried to resurrect it first!

Edited by Ackroman, 07 March 2013 - 11:54 AM.

[Blind side johnny]

Of course if we had P&R................................

[hindle xiii]

... and the 5m rule. And a rectangular Odsal.

[Maximus Decimus]

London in its current state is failing, there's little doubt about that and it is inevitable as long as they continue as they are that they will eventually fold.

However, symbolically the final failure of the London club would be disastrous for RL. It has gone on so long now that they are the symbol of the expansion dream, of an outward looking RL. Whilst they still exist, they still represent the sports desire to be more than just a northern sport. Their chances of success are slim but there is always hope.

The day they finally fold will be the end of that dream and almost a final acceptance that professional RL will never break free from the confines of the M62. It would make little difference to the league and Fev/Leigh/Fax would easily average more attendance wise but I wonder what damage this symbolic failure would do to the image of the sport in an increasingly global world.

I'm in favour of a move away from where they are, to where I do not know but they need heavy RFL support and a long term plan wherever they move to.

Edited by Maximus Decimus, 07 March 2013 - 02:28 PM.

[superten]

london is important but I would not say we need a team.Teams like wigan , leeds saints ect should set up london supporters group even have a past famous player as there london ambassador. Marketing there club with in london aranging trips to matches, having there team holding training sessions in london organising functions ect.When I lived just out side london I would still travel north each week end to watch my team as did several others I knew . There was also alot more interest from people where I worked about my team rather than london. Supporters group could be given a welcome pack say with a bagde membership card fixture chart a club guide book discount on tickets and club merchandise .

[THE RED ROOSTER]

The problem lies with the ownership of the club

Without David Hughes there would be no present but with David Hughes there is no future.

We have not had a fans forum this year, I suspect it is because David does not wish to subject himself to criticism from ingrates and to a degree considering the eye watering sums he had spent on the club this is a point of view I have sympathy with. But as I have argued on here previously, those of us who pay our money to watch David's product and indeed travel up north to see the club on the end of a hiding DO have the right to hold the Chairman to account for the sale of a shoddy product. If the fans cannot hold the club to account who can ?

Like John Wilkinson, David has taken the club so far but will ulitimately lead it to its demise unless a new owner can be found which should be an RFL prority, if they are actually commited to retaining the club in Super League. Otherwise if David walks at the end of this year and the club goes out of super league then IMO it's no longer with sadness as much as relief that the club is out of its agony.

We cannot go on like this as the club, as I have argued in a different thread, is doing the game of Rugby League no favours in its current state..

[The Parksider]

The problem lies with the ownership of the club

Like John Wilkinson, David has taken the club so far but will ultimately lead it to its demise unless a new owner can be found which should be an RFL prority, if they are actually commited to retaining the club in Super League.

We cannot go on like this as the club, as I have argued in a different thread, is doing the game of Rugby League no favours in its current state..

I suggested on the other thread that if your going to kick out an alleged strategically important club just on sub 2000 crowds and losing performances, then goodbye Salford.

Salford's proximity to BBC Sport was supposedly it's importance. They could showcase Rugby League for the good people of BBC sport.

That the showcase is an empty stadia and recurring defeats (ironically the last one to London) doesn't seem to occur to those who now call Salford the most important club in the game.

But IF (BIG IF) these two clubs are so strategically important then they must go down on the top end of the list for 2015 with such as Catalans, and the powerhouses of the north Hull, Wigan and Leeds.

What doesn't fit for me is throwing strategically important clubs out of SL because their coach and players are ineffective.

I watched on as Wakefield went bust and their playing roster was picked over. Watched the same before that when Crusaders nearly didn't start the season. This year HKR lost players and dropped their playing budgets.

But all three clubs did well despite the massive setbacks London have not had.

You of course take the stance that the owner has to sort out the "product", and despite my Salford analogy I recognise that of course Koukash is doing just that with a nice touch of ruthlessness.

London should ideally be sorted out, and I have no doubt that Mr. Wood has been courting anyone he can find for the unenviable task of bankrolling London to the level they need bankrolling at. Whether he's time to attend race meetings in London I don't know. But it is probably the case he will live in hope until the inevitable question of central funding comes up.

[CANETMAN]

The chances of someone else bankrolling London (If and when DH packs it in) are very thin indeed.

I am pretty certain that IL had to write of his shareholding a couple of years after he bought Wigan as there was simply no interest.

Unless there is some central funding then the club will simply die the statement from NW in my opinion is the RFL lining up for the clubs demise,SL is already suffering from lack of sponsors and decreasing crowds and the RFL seems to be hell bent on taking the sport downmarket the demise of London would be the end of any chance of the game being taken seriously as a national sport.

CM

[Northern Sol]

Certainly their demise as a SL club but I wouldn't write them off a semi-pro club.