Jump to content


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

Rugby league in London, what next?


  • Please log in to reply
251 replies to this topic

#241 Ackroman

Ackroman
  • Coach
  • 1,829 posts

Posted 05 June 2014 - 12:45 PM

Far better to feed your kids than pay to preserve your grandfathers dead body in a glass case.



#242 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,975 posts

Posted 05 June 2014 - 12:48 PM

The thing is the support is lost forever. London Broncos lose every week with 1000 crowds and no sign of things ever improving. There were days when they were alright but they've lost that forever. One day a better London club may cone along but it's not the Broncos

 

Why do you blame the Broncos for their own demise. Who on this planet could ever have made London Broncos work under the conditions they had to compete under? Not even Richard Branson could do that.

One day a London club may be subsidised for the sake of maintaining the player pool. That the SL chairmen don't want to do that (or invite Toulouse) and SKY won't push that is the real reason.



#243 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 17,148 posts

Posted 05 June 2014 - 01:13 PM

Why do you blame the Broncos for their own demise. Who on this planet could ever have made London Broncos work under the conditions they had to compete under? Not even Richard Branson could do that.

One day a London club may be subsidised for the sake of maintaining the player pool. That the SL chairmen don't want to do that (or invite Toulouse) and SKY won't push that is the real reason.

There is a difference between blaming the Broncos and accepting that they have lost their mojo.

 

Though finally you've admitted that Sky aren't interested in the Broncos and the RFL aren't committed to "pins in the map".



#244 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 17,148 posts

Posted 05 June 2014 - 01:18 PM

 The tiresome accusation from the London Broncos hate squad that the SKY money was wasted on London is so biased from that hatred that the equal ¬£millions wasted on Salford and Wakefield to go nowhere but administration for instance, is never mentioned. This gives their game away. They used to complain about London's sub 3,000 crowds when Wakefield and Salford were attracting the same.

 

That's why I find the ignore button so useful and would ask them to use it on me as well.

The ignore feature seems to be there so that you can repeat untruths and never have to account for them.

 

Nobody ignored the low crowds at Salford or Wakefield but many people pointed out that London's decline seemed rather more serious.

 

You, as ever, played the "ignoring poor performance at M62 clubs" and "nobody will ever invest money in Salford" line.

 

Subsequent events seem to be biased against you.



#245 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 17,148 posts

Posted 05 June 2014 - 01:34 PM

What supporters of the "whole game approach" seem to overlook is that it isn't a whole game approach.

 

Essentially they are hoping that the RFL will tell the M62 clubs that they have to accept less money so that London can be kept afloat and oh one less place in SL since London needs to be guaranteed one. Now for many clubs that means abandoning any pretence of competeting with Leeds and Wigan and quite possibly a bankruptcy in a year or two's time.

 

In return the RFL say that this *might* help stimulate the game nationally and create a stronger SL that the smaller clubs won't be part of - unless they accept a merger. Back in 1995 the RFL got some, but not all, of its own way but they had the big carrot of a TV deal with Sky and the fact that Sky wanted Broncos.

 

Now Sky don't seem to care about Broncos and there is no carrot. Why do we imagine that they will succeed this time?

 

Even if the board of Wakefield wanted to accept these terms, how would they convince their fans that this was "the way forward"? It would simply cause people to walk away from the club in droves.

 

I simply cannot see this circle ever being squared. Expansion has to proceed bottom-up or not at all. I know which I prefer.



#246 zorquif

zorquif
  • Coach
  • 1,403 posts

Posted 05 June 2014 - 04:18 PM

You didn't answer my question parky. Are you saying that withdrawal of the benefactors you mention would not have a detrimental affect on our game?

#247 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 5,216 posts

Posted 05 June 2014 - 07:38 PM

You didn't answer my question parky. Are you saying that withdrawal of the benefactors you mention would not have a detrimental affect on our game?

 

It's a case of selective amnesia. Leeds and Wigan are stars in the firmament so Lenegan and Caddick are not detrimental to the game but money men at lesser constellations are to be scorned and derided.



#248 EssexRL

EssexRL
  • Coach
  • 103 posts

Posted 05 June 2014 - 08:08 PM

Whats next for RL in London for me? Skolars v South Wales at Enfield FC on Saturday. Hoping to see a few more newbies there.
London Skolars

#249 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 5,216 posts

Posted 05 June 2014 - 08:25 PM

Whats next for RL in London for me? Skolars v South Wales at Enfield FC on Saturday. Hoping to see a few more newbies there.

 

This is the truth about RL in London and Wales for that matter. This is true expansion. Such a fixture would have been inconceivable when I was a youth. Doncaster was as afar South as we went except for the Cup Final.

 

Skolars v Hemel, a home counties derby was not even in our dreams.

 

A thriving youth team in Medway. No way, no how.



#250 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 17,148 posts

Posted 05 June 2014 - 08:53 PM

This is the truth about RL in London and Wales for that matter. This is true expansion. Such a fixture would have been inconceivable when I was a youth. Doncaster was as afar South as we went except for the Cup Final.

 

Skolars v Hemel, a home counties derby was not even in our dreams.

 

A thriving youth team in Medway. No way, no how.

Quite. When expectations have already been surpassed, it is churlish to put down the achievements and make it all out to be a waste of time. We have no way of knowing how far the new sides will get. There hasn't been a precedent for today's situation.



#251 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,975 posts

Posted 06 June 2014 - 05:35 AM

You didn't answer my question parky. Are you saying that withdrawal of the benefactors you mention would not have a detrimental affect on our game?

 

No I am saying a re-organisation of the Superleague away from each club is an island and each other SL club can raid the others regardless of the detrimental effect of the game is a positive option for the game.

 

You make some sort of a gross assumption all benefactors will leave, it may be the case that a well considered set up will make benefactors want to stay. It may well be the case that clubs like London would find benefactors more easily if the rest of the game didn't make running them an utterly poisoned chalice, in which the benefactor just gets Pelters all the time..

 

It may also be the case that if benefactors get fed up and walk away - Wilkinson's walk left Salford for dead, Hudgell nearly walked - the initial detrimental effect would help force change.

 

But you may note you speak of a detriment to "the game", so I think not. A detriment to "The club" certainly but one of the problems is for instance Koukash and Nahaboo trying to prop up clubs with little resources and nobody in at Castleford or (until recently) Bradford, to drive much better business options.

 

It's a massive detriment to the game when we allow rich men to buy a place in Superleague.


Edited by The Parksider, 06 June 2014 - 05:39 AM.


#252 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 17,148 posts

Posted 06 June 2014 - 01:10 PM

I can see a long line of people waiting to invest Wakefield when their main purpose is to provide opposition to Leeds and then hand over the money to Broncos to pay for a nationwide league that they won't be part of.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users