Jump to content





Photo
- - - - -

Broncos


  • Please log in to reply
139 replies to this topic

#121 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 17,307 posts

Posted 25 July 2013 - 12:02 AM

Just to be clear, are you saying you would be happy if Sky bought Super League and could decide which teams were in it?

Because that was the situation with Melbourne. News Limited created Super League and created the Storm to play in it. Following the merger with the ARL, News Limited continued to co-own the competition and so retained a vested interest in its success and expansion, losses at the Storm would be offset by profits in other parts of their business. Following the ARLC taking over the running of the NRL it no longer made any sense for them to finance the Storm, hence them selling the club.

If BSkyB were to finance a club they not gain the same benefit without share of league profits. While success could lead to increased subscriber numbers, those would be offset by increased rights costs as well as the risk of losing the sport to a rival broadcaster.

Also in 1999 BSkyB tired to takeover Manchester United but it was blocked by the government for being anticompetitive, this lead to NTL abandoning their plans to takeover Newcastle United. While rugby league is considerably smaller than the Premier League, the same arguments could be made, that a broadcaster owning a sports club would distort the market for sports rights. If so an attempt by BSkyB to own the Broncos or Crusaders could be similarly blocked anyway.

Could be but probably wouldn't be. RL doesn't have the same profile so fewer people care about its "issues".

 

I think the real issue is that Sky aren't interested in Broncos or Crusaders. There was a reason why they bidded for Manchester United and not Accrington Stanley. Wigan would probably interest them but Broncos / Crusaders is unlikely to.



#122 RugbyLeagueGeek

RugbyLeagueGeek
  • Coach
  • 739 posts

Posted 25 July 2013 - 01:28 AM

To be pedantic. London has the same share as every other club so it's not "relatively smaller". It is true that money doesn't go as far in London but that doesn't mean that they are getting less cash than other clubs.

:huh: To be pedantic, London's share is "relatively smaller" - i.e. they are getting the same 'absolute' share as everyone else, but - 'relatively' speaking - this share is smaller because "money doesn't go as far in London"...



#123 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 17,307 posts

Posted 25 July 2013 - 03:24 PM

:huh: To be pedantic, London's share is "relatively smaller" - i.e. they are getting the same 'absolute' share as everyone else, but - 'relatively' speaking - this share is smaller because "money doesn't go as far in London"...

The share is the same, its value to Broncos might be the less but it is the same share. Relative and absolute don't make sense in this context. It would make more sense to use "nominal".



#124 RugbyLeagueGeek

RugbyLeagueGeek
  • Coach
  • 739 posts

Posted 25 July 2013 - 04:04 PM

The share is the same, its value to Broncos might be the less but it is the same share. Relative and absolute don't make sense in this context. It would make more sense to use "nominal".

Maybe 'share' is the wrong word then. Perhaps 'value' is the better word? Either way, London get shafted.



#125 westlondonfan

westlondonfan
  • Coach
  • 519 posts

Posted 25 July 2013 - 05:07 PM

Whether SKY are.interested in Broncos or Crusaders is not the point. Rugby League has to decide what is the best way forward for it's long-term future.
I think it would be loss to rugby league if London went out of the Super League in my view.

#126 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 17,307 posts

Posted 25 July 2013 - 05:50 PM

Maybe 'share' is the wrong word then. Perhaps 'value' is the better word? Either way, London get shafted.

Do they?

 

I'd say that Leeds and Wigan have a better case for saying so. They create more value for the contract than most clubs but they get the same TV money.



#127 nadera78

nadera78
  • Coach
  • 3,053 posts

Posted 25 July 2013 - 06:03 PM

Do they?

 

I'd say that Leeds and Wigan have a better case for saying so. They create more value for the contract than most clubs but they get the same TV money.

We can say exactly the same thing in 2015 when money generated entirely by SL clubs (or even just the big SL clubs) is given to half a dozen teams in the Championship.


"Just as we had been Cathars, we were treizistes, men apart."
Jean Roque, Calendrier-revue du Racing-Club Albigeois, 1958-1959

#128 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 17,307 posts

Posted 25 July 2013 - 06:13 PM

We can say exactly the same thing in 2015 when money generated entirely by SL clubs (or even just the big SL clubs) is given to half a dozen teams in the Championship.

I agree. There isn't a "right figure" for a club to be awarded. Some distribution of cash are manifestly unfair but there isn't a distribution of cash that everybody is going to agree is "fair".



#129 mick wilson

mick wilson
  • Coach
  • 4,484 posts

Posted 25 July 2013 - 06:33 PM

Genuine Question to London RL fans here, What do you personally do to get more people attending games & is it successful ? and what feed back do you usually get when you drag someone alone to a Bronco's game vs a newbie watching a top game on telly with you ?



#130 Bleep1673

Bleep1673
  • Coach
  • 3,430 posts

Posted 25 July 2013 - 07:04 PM

Genuine Question to London RL fans here, What do you personally do to get more people attending games & is it successful ? and what feed back do you usually get when you drag someone alone to a Bronco's game vs a newbie watching a top game on telly with you ?


When I was playing in London we tried our hardest to encourage players to attend games when we weren't playing, or after a game, however as we played Sunday Mornings, and London Crusaders (as they were)* played in Division 2 on a Sunday Afternoon, we couldn't do much to get them down there (wherever they were playing that week).

*Pre Superleague, yes there was Rugby League before 1995 for our less intelligent younger posters.

Edited by Bleep1673, 25 July 2013 - 07:06 PM.

Swinton RLFC est 1866 - Supplying England with players when most of your clubs were in nappies

#131 westlondonfan

westlondonfan
  • Coach
  • 519 posts

Posted 25 July 2013 - 09:13 PM

Genuine Question to London RL fans here, What do you personally do to get more people attending games & is it successful ? and what feed back do you usually get when you drag someone alone to a Bronco's game vs a newbie watching a top game on telly with you ?


Good question and I am going to think about it and post an intelligent reply.

#132 westlondonfan

westlondonfan
  • Coach
  • 519 posts

Posted 26 July 2013 - 08:52 AM

I have taken my family to the stoop on a sunny day and everyone enjoyed it. The disappointment was the heavy defeat. Unfortunately it is rare to go to the stoop and actually experience a victory. I feel that is a significant factor. I honestly believe that if London were where Huddersfield are now the attendances would be higher than they are in Huddersfield.
I find that working class football fans often prefer league to union. There is a certain kind of union fan that really dislikes league.
Going to a half empty stadium (or worse) can also lead to disappointment when people just come along to see what it is like.
The atmosphere at Wembly for the last international double -header on 5.11.2011 was a bit disappointing for someone who had never been before because in their words 'there is no-one here'. In contrast the Australia v New Zealand match on 24.10.2009 at the Stoop which finished 20-20 was fantastic which also shows also that the aus and nz RLfans are still out there).
To be honest I have a friend from London who is league through and through and who also follows the NRL who virtually never goes to the stoop in part because he doesn't like it because it is a union ground.
The above is not any kind of scientific approach. Just a few personal observations.
Anyone else?

#133 nadera78

nadera78
  • Coach
  • 3,053 posts

Posted 26 July 2013 - 10:21 AM

I've stopped haranguing people about going. Mainly because the team is so poor, and the atmosphere even more so, that it's hard to get the enthusiasm to go myself. In fact, I've only been a handful of times this season. What's worse is that I don't even feel that bad about missing games anymore whereas it used to be the end of the world.

 

That said, I'm dead keen on the RLWC and have a big group going to Wembley. Lots of casuals and a few first timers too.


"Just as we had been Cathars, we were treizistes, men apart."
Jean Roque, Calendrier-revue du Racing-Club Albigeois, 1958-1959

#134 latchford albion

latchford albion
  • Coach
  • 384 posts

Posted 26 July 2013 - 11:32 AM

I agree with pretty much all Westlondon fan said, although I did enjoy the Wembley double header and felt that the crowd was decent, at least for the England Australia game. I would go to watch Broncos much more if they were more local, even in their present state, but I can't be bothered to make a three hour round trip from East London to see them get thrashed. I have no problem with the Stoop as a ground other than it is three quarters empty: the atmosphere there always reminds me of A team games at Wilderspool on a Friday night in the 70s, and because of that I wouldn't go out of my way to encourage non RL supporting friends to go along.

There must be many people living in London who grew up watching Rugby League and then moved to London and stopped but I don't think that we can be the solution. I will always remain a Warrington fan; Broncos need their own support not neutrals with at best a soft spot for them.

For all these reasons I prefer to go to Skolars: their ground is under half an hours drive from home, the ground doesn't look depressingly empty, and I can give them genuine support. If London is to grow its own fans rather than trying to target exiled northerners or ANZACs, I believe it needs more teams at CC1 level making it accessible to more people and creating local rivalries.

#135 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,721 posts

Posted 26 July 2013 - 11:42 AM

 

The disappointment was the heavy defeat. Unfortunately it is rare to go to the stoop and actually experience a victory. I feel that is a significant factor. I honestly believe that if London were where Huddersfield are now the attendances would be higher than they are in Huddersfield.

 

Just a personal observation.
 

 

When London were top four in SL for two years their attendances were 5250 with limited away support.

 

When Huddersfield were bottom of the league just after that for two years their average attendances were 4400 with far more away support.

 

Apparently "nobody is interested in SL in London" a ridiculous and baseless comment. Just as the comment "expansion has failed" applied to London is equally ridiculous.

 

On here for literally years 2,000+ SL crowds at London were derided whilst clubs like Salford, Halifax and Wakefield were never mentioned when they got the same crowds.



#136 Tre Cool

Tre Cool
  • Coach
  • 481 posts

Posted 26 July 2013 - 12:40 PM

I took my brother in law (a soccer fan) to a game recently, he loved it, he mentioned to some of his mates that he'd been and he was shocked at the level of abuse he received for watching RL.  He'll probably come back.  I've got another mate who I introduced and has had a season ticket until this year when he moved away. In my experience people like it immediately and see huge potential but often if they do commit they get very frustrated and often turn their back blaming the club for not realising the potential.  In reality these people that turn their back on the club are responsible as much as the club for London never realising their potential.  Our turnover of fans must have been huge over the years. 

 

If we're winning and entertaining crowds can be up around 5k average no problem.  We need some investment and a permanent home most of all.

 



#137 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 17,307 posts

Posted 26 July 2013 - 01:16 PM

When London were top four in SL for two years their attendances were 5250 with limited away support.

 

When Huddersfield were bottom of the league just after that for two years their average attendances were 4400 with far more away support.

 

Apparently "nobody is interested in SL in London" a ridiculous and baseless comment. Just as the comment "expansion has failed" applied to London is equally ridiculous.

 

On here for literally years 2,000+ SL crowds at London were derided whilst clubs like Salford, Halifax and Wakefield were never mentioned when they got the same crowds.

Selective use of stats again.

 

Broncos crowds as a top 4 side vs Huddersfield as a bottom of the league side. Hardly fair.

 

I daresay that a Broncos side that was doing well on the field would do much better than the sub-2,000 crowds they get now. The state of Broncos is partly a function of the way the club has been run as much as "no interest in RL in London". But it has to be said that the foundations for a SL side were never there.



#138 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,721 posts

Posted 26 July 2013 - 09:35 PM

Just to be clear, one of the games oldest and most famous RL clubs in one of the country's biggest "towns" in which RL was born is currently struggling - despite being TOP of the league and winning games - to get much more than 5,000 local fans to turn up. When London were in the TOP four they got 5,000 yet were miles from the RL heartlands, and were up against a very very strong RU presence.

 

If nobody is interested in RL in London then nobody is interested in the birthplace of the game either.


Edited by The Parksider, 27 July 2013 - 06:01 AM.


#139 westlondonfan

westlondonfan
  • Coach
  • 519 posts

Posted 27 July 2013 - 10:14 AM

Selective use of stats again.
 
Broncos crowds as a top 4 side vs Huddersfield as a bottom of the league side. Hardly fair.
 
I daresay that a Broncos side that was doing well on the field would do much better than the sub-2,000 crowds they get now. The state of Broncos is partly a function of the way the club has been run as much as "no interest in RL in London". But it
has to be said that the foundations for a SL side were never there.


If you had been running the club how would you have done things differently?

#140 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 17,307 posts

Posted 27 July 2013 - 11:32 AM

If you had been running the club how would you have done things differently?

 


Tbh I don't think a SL side was ever sustainable with the lack of infrastructure. There is a pattern in RL of sides going into terminal decline once they lose their home stadium. The club then moves, adopts a new name, new look and tries to win over new fans - inevitably they struggle onfield can't pay the rent and move again. This is the history of Bronquins but it's also true of Highfield, Blackpool Borough and possibly somewhat true of Oldham and Swinton.

 

I think the club needs to find a suitable level, choose one stadium and stay there. I don't think a name change and a move have ever improved a club's situation.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users