Click
-
Posts
12,787 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
57
Posts posted by Click
-
-
2 minutes ago, phiggins said:
Question for you out of genuine ignorance and curiosity, assuming from your username that you are from the south London area.
How feasible do you think it is for a single club to represent the whole capital? If targeting Aussie expats is a plan, how likely is it that a Wimbledon based club reaches those expats in areas like Camden?
I think people have really loved that PVL brought up the Aussies in London numbers so we can again go over it for the 200th time on this forum.
-
How much is this going to cost the RFL, £500k ?
-
It feels strange to talk about this upcoming WC with people when the answer to if they can watch any is "no, unless you want to pay for Premier"
-
9 hours ago, bt95 said:
Oh I do - far too much for my own liking!
I think anyone sensible would see the benefits of London being in. It's also true to say London has never been a real success story but there's caveats and reasons for it and it doesn't mean they shouldn't try to make it work.
But it's the principle of forcing them in for 2027 at the last minute, that I don't like. I keep saying, if the NRL were so desperate that it had to be part of the plan for next year, then they should have come to the table earlier.
FWIW, I believe this is more DAZN pushing for London than anything else, and NRL are tied to DAZN...
You clearly don't do much social media if you don't think there is any anti-London feelings about their entry to SL.
Go to any comment section of any post that mentions London and you'll get "40 years of the RFL pumping money into London for nothing, while they neglect the heartlands"
-
3
-
-
10 hours ago, yipyee said:
I agree, thats not my point, i am saying barrow who dont want to be promoted and are not in a position to are in a better place than London on the metrics set out by IMG so therefore London are in a worse place (other than in your head)
I've already said in gradings Barrow "are better placed" to be promoted but in reality they are not.
That isn't in my head that is what Barrow has literally said.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Dave T said:
To be fair, those things really arent the crucial things that have to be announced right now.
Why aren't they, when should they be announced?
Assuming we have them in place.
-
Just now, Tom F said:
I won't and I suspect many others as well, I've seen this growing and its reached a head in the last fortnight
Imagine if there was a high profile, top sporting competition, well publicised and easy to view starting next week as an alternative.
But it isn't really an alternative, the games are played in the early hours of the morning
-
30 minutes ago, N2022 said:
Do people think the SL and NRL and London thing will be wrapped up by the start of this competition? Will be a bit odd to have the RLWC starting and this question hanging around unanswered.
SL hasn't announced a title sponsor or a TV deal for next season.
It is all a joke.
-
1
-
-
12 minutes ago, Tom F said:
Just to emphasise, quotes after today, just from 1 page
- Last game I watched in the Premier League. And I mean it. Not a sport league in any sense of the word. I don't watch sports to see rules being rigged and broken without consequences.
- Turned off at 0-1 because the whole Sly sports show was glorifying cheating.
- Sums up the show that is now football in this country.
- but in the end I'm left feeling... what's the point? We're playing a team of cheats who shouldn't even be there, and in general I just can't be arsed with football these days.
- It's been fun but I'm done with this because we all know that all is going to happen to them.
- Peeked then went back to the Rugby.. an absolute farce from Sky etc..
- The league is an actual farce. Almost 20 years of corruption and the biggest sports scandal in sports history.
As I say, a lot of disenchanted football fans
They'll all be watching next week.
-
3
-
9 minutes ago, yipyee said:
The gradings are to grade how good the clubs are against a set measurable list
This has graded Barrow higher
Your opinion based on ???? has graded London higher
Which list should we go off?
Barrow has literally said they do not want to be promoted to Super League, perhaps that is the opinion you should base it off.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, yipyee said:
And yet they are better placed than London who are supposed to be parachuted in.. make it make sense
"Better placed" according to the gradings.
But not in reality.
-
2
-
-
2 minutes ago, N2022 said:
But not 15 with Barrow?
Barrow have said they are not ready for Super League.
They had to beg to pay for a bus this year.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, bt95 said:
I don't think anyone is against the Broncos being in. And I think the vast majority want NRL investment and know it can be a huge benefit.
Where it stinks for me is the NRL using the Broncos in 2027 as the be all and end all and, I have on pretty good authority, not really caring how that looks or impacts other teams or the structure of the comp next year.
It's nothing against London, or really even 15 teams as a concept (because there are ways to sort it and there are some benefits, like the bye round), but it's the fact that this is what has been sold to us as exactly what the NRL wouldn't do...
You clearly don't read much social media then
-
3
-
-
2 hours ago, Exiled Wiganer said:
There was some discussion around how we ended up with no BBC coverage a few pages ago. I know it’s a long thread but I think it’s a fascinating (and infinitely frustrating) subject.
Yes but it's all based off assumptions not known facts
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Sports Prophet said:
Because IMG were tasked with finding the best financial deal they could broker. That would mean running all scenarios.
I don’t think anyone at the IRL and/or IMG are thinking, “bloody hell we missed a trick this past 12 months. Why oh why didn’t we think about asking the BBC to cover the English matches only and then offer the remaining matches to another provider”.
So we "certainly" don't know then
-
7 hours ago, Sports Prophet said:
We certainly do know the BBC were offered partial coverage.
The IRL’s objective was to make a dollar and if a BBC partial coverage alongside a wider tournament coverage behind a paywall was financially better, then it would have been accepted.
Whether the BBC bothered to make a partial bid is only known by a select few.
How do we?
-
1
-
-
50 minutes ago, graveyard johnny said:
everywhere you look in the UK at the min its WC promotion - billboards - tv ads - the side of buses - celeb endorsements not to mention the media frenzy - oh hold on a min - might have got that wrong
If only we had Unions profile
-
2 hours ago, Taffy Tiger said:
Just to help our London friends reading this , Fev is short for Featherstone and lies between Wakefield and Castleford .
Ah sorry , I see the problem here . My mistake . I'll try again.
Fev is short for Featherstone and is a little village North of Watford that you won't have heard of
Don't worry, all London friends on here are well aware of Featherstone after breaking their hearts while they broke their bank account.
-
2 minutes ago, The Hallucinating Goose said:
I presume he's referring to one of world football's most high profile clubs potentially being expelled from the football league and stripped of previous titles.
Oh right, that doesn't affect football as a sport whatsoever.
-
Just now, Damien said:
I never said dont punish. You just dont punish like you do a club game. It is nonsensical just to punish someone for 3 international games because that's what you'd do in a club game. 3 games is like 15% of a club season, it could be a full international year or more. 1 and 2 game international bans seem about right to me with the calendar we have.
I personally don't agree with that - you are handing out lesser punishments just because they are committing them at a higher level, we have had incidents in games that deserve long bans.
-
1
-
-
17 minutes ago, Jill Halfpenny fan said:
Maybe we should design the league around places Londoner's have heard of.
You should just ignore him. He comes from a country that's massive while most people wouldn't even be able to name their capital, it is what it is.
-
4 minutes ago, Tom F said:
Rugby League is at a turning point, football has just had a hole blown in it, NRL are moving forward at a pace and the world of sport and TV is changing. If they #### this up because of a few 'local' difficulties and parochial interests in line with 'everything's fine' and 'Super League+ is great' it will be a crime.
Huh?
-
1
-
-
19 minutes ago, Damien said:
Thats where you have some common sense and bans should be proportionate to the season. You do t ban a player for 3 International games if it rules them out for a full international season.
But what do you do if it's serious foul play at international level? You can't not punish a player because it would rule him out for a year at international level
-
2 hours ago, Damien said:
Yeah its just a needless mess. Just dont let club bans count for internationals and vice versa and problem solved.
With our international schedule being as awful as it is, a player hit with a 3/4 match ban when playing internationally could be banned from playing for their country for 1-2 years before those 3/4 games happen.
-
1
-
London Broncos (Merged Threads)
in The General Rugby League Forum
Posted
Attendances are massively up compared to last season..
I hate this argument of "make them work under the championship cap for a season" We're already operating under that cap but the established 100+ year olds clubs that are run by PRLP can't afford to be anything but PT.
Is the RFL going to pay the contracts off that were signed before these new cap rules came into place?
The crab bucket mentality is real.