London moving again?

[Hela Wigmen]

6 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

 

So paying for three stadiums then?!

Possibly. If there’s a call for it. Having the option is better than not. 

[gingerjon]

2 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Having the academy set ups and reserves etc based in one place, but the pro team exclusively in another is hardly revolutionary.

No, it's not revolutionary. But for a shoestring club like London it's absolute insanity.

[Hela Wigmen]

3 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

If they could have the new plough lane at ealing it would be fantastic, but that sort of stadium is never going to happen.

They missed the boat with Brentford and in any case the ground is too big.

This is as good as it is likely to get in the next decade.

In fairness, there’s a fair chunk of land at the Ealing site, so it’s possibly that you could, over a period build a bigger stadium there. But that’s too slow for some. Much like it took them 30 years to have a functioning Academy or Toronto weren’t picking those mythical Canadians from day one or didn’t have an Academy at less than 4 years old. 

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, nadera78 said:

 

You think they've created a business case for the move to Plough Lane! That's very amusing. 28 years of supporting the club tells me what happened is that someone said "Trailfinders is the main negative in our SL application, Wimbledon have a new stadium, it's not far on a map, let's move".

I agree with that assessment, but what are the alternatives?

[gingerjon]

2 minutes ago, nadera78 said:

Barely in London? Ask any real Londoner and they'll tell you Wimbledon is the a*se end of nowhere. 

You think they've created a business case for the move to Plough Lane! That's very amusing. 28 years of supporting the club tells me what happened is that someone said "Trailfinders is the main negative in our SL application, Wimbledon have a new stadium, it's not far on a map, let's move".

And Wimbledon would be absolute fools not to take us TBH. Nice steady cash cow for them.

I can understand why Wimbledon fans would be keen.

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, gingerjon said:

No, it's not revolutionary. But for a shoestring club like London it's absolute insanity.

Perhaps they're being told something we aren't, regarding 2021/2

[Man of Kent]

1 minute ago, nadera78 said:

Barely in London? Ask any real Londoner and they'll tell you Wimbledon is the a*se end of nowhere. 

You think they've created a business case for the move to Plough Lane! That's very amusing. 28 years of supporting the club tells me what happened is that someone said "Trailfinders is the main negative in our SL application, Wimbledon have a new stadium, it's not far on a map, let's move".

From central London, as mentioned, Plough Lane is 12 mins Waterloo to Earlsfield then a 15 mins walk down Garrett Lane. Trailfinders is tube, train and a bus. 

Plough Lane would be a good move as it’ll attract new fans. The hardcore could stand behind the sticks and others can go in the £25m stand with the best views, the pub and the ‘club level’ posh seats etc. Lots of space for away fans too. 

[Mumby Magic]

How can a semi pro club introduced to that level in 2002, London Skolars, Stay there for that length of time but The Broncos/Fulham etc cant?

[gingerjon]

Just now, Tommygilf said:

Perhaps they're being told something we aren't, regarding 2021/2

I'm not about to be toys out of the pram about it but if London are going up on the back of an unconfirmed move to yet another untested area then you have to marvel at the stupidity.

[gingerjon]

Just now, Mumby Magic said:

How can a semi pro club introduced to that level in 2002, London Skolars, Stay there for that length of time but The Broncos/Fulham etc cant?

Is a good question.

There's no answer that puts the Broncos management in a good light.

[Tommygilf]

Just now, Hela Wigmen said:

In fairness, there’s a fair chunk of land at the Ealing site, so it’s possibly that you could, over a period build a bigger stadium there. But that’s too slow for some. Much like it took them 30 years to have a functioning Academy or Toronto weren’t picking those mythical Canadians from day one or didn’t have an Academy at less than 4 years old. 

The fair chunk of land is taken up by other rugby pitches and the club house though. Its a fantastic example of what so many union clubs have around the country, but nothing more than that and realistically silly to want to be more than that.

Ealing serves (and has served) a purpose, but it offers virtually zero growth.

[Tommygilf]

2 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

I'm not about to be toys out of the pram about it but if London are going up on the back of an unconfirmed move to yet another untested area then you have to marvel at the stupidity.

It might not be that they are going up, but that they won't be allowed up or considered for 2022.

[nadera78]

3 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

From central London, as mentioned, Plough Lane is 12 mins Waterloo to Earlsfield then a 15 mins walk down Garrett Lane. Trailfinders is tube, train and a bus. 

Plough Lane would be a good move as it’ll attract new fans. The hardcore could stand behind the sticks and others can go in the £25m stand with the best views, the pub and the ‘club level’ posh seats etc. Lots of space for away fans too. 

You're doing the exact same thing the club always do; just making stuff up because it sounds good. 

[gingerjon]

1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

It might not be that they are going up, but that they won't be allowed up or considered for 2022.

That's a fair observation.

[gingerjon]

1 minute ago, nadera78 said:

You're doing the exact same thing the club always do; just making stuff up because it sounds good. 

The Valley was going to attract all those Charlton fans. Working class area, bound to go for a northern working class sport, because of the working class ness. If you play it, people will come ...

[Tommygilf]

3 minutes ago, Mumby Magic said:

How can a semi pro club introduced to that level in 2002, London Skolars, Stay there for that length of time but The Broncos/Fulham etc cant?

Because they're trying to achieve different things. New River is to Skolars what Ealing is to Trailfinders to some extent. Skolars are never going to try and overtake the Broncos or become fully professional, not in the next 10 years certainly! The pressures of a fully professional side have never really come near the Skolars set up on top of the professional outpost nature of the Broncos.

Comparing apples with oranges I think to an extent.

[Man of Kent]

Just now, nadera78 said:

You're doing the exact same thing the club always do; just making stuff up because it sounds good. 

Common sense tells you more people will want to watch at Plough Lane than Trailfinders. There’s plenty of evidence that  good/modern facilities boost crowd numbers. 

[gingerjon]

1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

Because they're trying to achieve different things. New River is to Skolars what Ealing is to Trailfinders to some extent. Skolars are never going to try and overtake the Broncos or become fully professional, not in the next 10 years certainly! The pressures of a fully professional side have never really come near the Skolars set up on top of the professional outpost nature of the Broncos.

Comparing apples with oranges I think to an extent.

You're being very kind to a club that failed at the Valley, went bust at Brentford, cocked up a gift horse at the Stoop (twice), was bewilderingly inept at Barnet, and is now just about tolerable at Trailfinders.

[Hela Wigmen]

6 minutes ago, nadera78 said:

You're doing the exact same thing the club always do; just making stuff up because it sounds good. 

Bang on the money. This is the London cycle. Take it somewhere, don’t tell anyone about it, hope they come and then pack up and try again somewhere else a few years later. 

t

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, gingerjon said:

The Valley was going to attract all those Charlton fans. Working class area, bound to go for a northern working class sport, because of the working class ness. If you play it, people will come ...

Tbf they got decent crowds at the Valley for a time.

As I see it, a 9k capacity Plough Lane sits where the Broncos currently need it to be. Small enough to maintain the intimacy and not be 90% empty, large enough to offer growth potential with excellent facilities at a range of price points. With the best will in the world you'd struggle to sell Trailfinders as a top class sporting fan experience, no wonder the Broncos are so quiet on it, and that is a major downside on top of general RL problems.

The location isn't fantastic, but beggars can't be choosers.

[Hela Wigmen]

10 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

The fair chunk of land is taken up by other rugby pitches and the club house though. Its a fantastic example of what so many union clubs have around the country, but nothing more than that and realistically silly to want to be more than that.

Ealing serves (and has served) a purpose, but it offers virtually zero growth.

London Broncos have spent the last few years at Ealing telling people it’s the perfect site for them and how it’ll help them grow and how they can grow the site, which in some way they have with the addition of a stand behind the sticks. Whatever your opinion of the stadium, London seemed convinced this was the site. 

The move asks more questions than it answers. 

[gingerjon]

Just now, Tommygilf said:

Tbf they got decent crowds at the Valley for a time.

Lower than Brentford, broadly in line with The Stoop. Higher than now, obviously. And, crucially, at the time, not too far behind a few other teams in the league who have now pulled away in terms of averages.

[Tommygilf]

5 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

You're being very kind to a club that failed at the Valley, went bust at Brentford, cocked up a gift horse at the Stoop (twice), was bewilderingly inept at Barnet, and is now just about tolerable at Trailfinders.

I've not got time to whine about the history of London Broncos.

[Tommygilf]

Just now, gingerjon said:

Lower than Brentford, broadly in line with The Stoop. Higher than now, obviously. And, crucially, at the time, not too far behind a few other teams in the league who have now pulled away in terms of averages.

So decent then? Thank you.

[Damien]

26 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

 

So paying for three stadiums then?!

And he doesn't argue for the sake of it, apparently