LeytherRob

I agree with that, which is why I personally would have voted Toulouse in the decision, although I can see why they picked Leigh as a safety stop gap. I'm not against expansion, except when it's seemingly done for the sake of it just to pacify our own insecurities about the game.

David Hughes has probably pumped more investment than any current owner into London, and they've played in bigger stadiums than Ealing. They've been fundamentally failing in most aspects barring a very good academy for a long time now. I'm not debating whether London have potential, rather how realistic that potential is and what actually is the benefits at what everyone seems to agree is a crucial time for the sport, to dropping them back in SL and hoping for the best.

RU has something far more valuable than city names though, something it shares with cricket and that is true power and influence in the highest echelons of society. You only have to look at members day at Lords at a test match, or Twickenham at an England game to see prime ministers, royalty etc. They're games that are bred into kids at the most expensive and exclusive private schools in the country that churn out the most powerful and influential people in the country. They don't need huge attendances, or fancy names to get multi million £ sponsorships because they can just call someone up in their network at a big company and pull in a favour. Our ability to compete with that died in Huddersfield 1895 when we decided to cut ties and go our own way.

I wouldn't even mind being in a league with that middle group if we did find those magic 6 teams that are capable of 5 figure crowds. I think the game would be in a much better place if that were the case. I think until that day comes though everyone should at least have the opportunity to try.

I get that, but how much fluctuation in TV viewing figures actually is there between seasons where London are in or out, does it go up or down or even just stay about the same? I understand that image in sport matters, but does it actually improve out image having London in SL if a sponsor turns on the TV and sees 1.5k rattling round a poor stadium?

Me too, I absolutely would love to see London doing great, I want every club to build. But whilst I do firmly believe in expansion, I'm also a realist. Tommy's summation of the state of affairs with club groupings was bang on and for me, it will be strong clubs getting big gates that will lend legitimacy to our sport(wherever that may be), not names for the sake of it.

Would they though? They've only topped 5k once since 1997 and they've not all been terrible seasons. They've had the lowest attendence in 13 or so of the years they were in and set the record for the lowest average in the year they went down. It's great that they might have found a solution to playing at a sub standard ground at Ealing, but it's yet another move across London of around 20 miles and every time they do it they seem to shed more fans than they collect at the new ground. I'm an expansionist and there is nothing I would love more than to see a London team competing for trophies in front of 5 figure crowds but it seems further away now than it did 20 years ago.

I'm going to hold my hands up first and say I've never ran a club or been involved in what discussions take place between sponsors, but I can't imagine a situation where one of the first questions they ask isn't about the numbers attending/watching on tv so they can understand what reach the sponsorship will buy them. Will 2k at London really be more attractive than 6k at a heartland club? If it is just a case of big names leading to big money, why don't other smaller sports like the BBL do massive numbers?

Even 5k would put them into the bottom 2 for attendances based on 2019, is that really that impressive? Their last 2 seasons in SL brought averages of 1,294 and 2,021. With London it's seems like some are hanging on to the notion that 'next time it will be different'. I see a lot of cases made for London and other big city teams, but they all seem to be on the assumption that a major sponsor will see the name London and open their wallets without digging any deeper into what sort of exposure they are actually getting in the city. If that were the case, why aren't the other smaller sports with big city names booming commercially?

How attractive actually are teams like London though? The name obviously lends a lot of weight to the competition, but surely even a passing glance from potential sponsors will see a team that averaged 2k in the elite competition. Is that really going to be changing our fortunes commercially? I feel at times people are making these observations based on our own insecurities about being a northern sport rather than any real evidence.

Good job I said austerity and not the global financial crisis then isn't it?

Very true and I agree with all those sentiments. I just think we need to cut ourselves some slack at times. We are a sport build on working class roots that is a decade into one of the longest periods of austerity and wage stagnation in recent times, with the cherry on top being an unprecedented global pandemic and subsequent financial hit before we even get to the potential no deal brexit in just under a month.

The article already covers the reasons for the spike in 2012 which is a pretty anomalous season when compared to those before and after. As for paragraphs 2 and 3, you exclude Bradford and then say they shouldn't be excluded. You can have one or the other, you can't have it both ways. I'm sure you'll try regardless though.

Doesn't have to be a new issue, an old issue is still an issue. Are you really so desperate for an arguement that you are going to say Thursday night fixtures don't get reduced crowds?

Which is pretty consistent with your original statement of crowds declining over the past 8-10 years is it not?

Bradford weren't in the data set available to me(I did ask if you could point me towards any good sources but you haven't been forthcoming as of yet) and considering they were in the championship rather than SL, it's not particularly comparable data anyway in the same way you've excluded Toronto and Bradford. Again you are looking for data to fit what you need it to say rather than the other way round. What would be really interesting to see would be the data for the full pro game so the data can be trended as a whole to counter things like relegations/promotions and new clubs.

There's plenty factors been mentioned already but one that hasn't has been the advent of Thursday night SL games starting in 2013 or 2014(can't remember exactly when and wasn't immediately available on the quick Google i did). They've been pushing down 1 fixture a week quite considerably for the past 5/6 years now so it's actually quite impressive that several clubs have either maintained or improved their averages in that time.

I'm not defending them, nor did I ever engage in any that you described on the TWP thread, so maybe you are getting me mixed up. Just pointing out hypocrisy when I see it just like you.

Where is Scotchy when you need him to come point out all the bad faith arguments and hypocrisy?

All but Newcastle were when the new grading system on academies was introduced. As for Newcastle, I'm not 100% on the details so would be happy to be corrected, but I assume they would've taken on what was the north east academy from when the RFL was actually funding the regional academies that competed vs super league clubs(Midlands was another one but that seems to have fallen away).

One of the criteria essentially boils down to being an established SL club. That's currently what we are trying to do.

It's not about ambition though, it's about being told whether or not you can realise that ambition by the RFL.

If you are going to place a criteria on promotion and want to maintain some semblance of fair competition, then it's probably best to drop the rule that prevents clubs from being able to meet that criteria beforehand. Unless you want a situation where only Widnes, Bradford, London and Newcastle are eligible for promotion.

No they can't. There are restrictions on what agre groups and levels clubs can and can't run, plus issues with access to the academy leagues.

That's fine, just need the RFL to change the rules so everyone can run a cat 1 academy then.