Which Two Clubs to Take SL to 14?

[GUBRATS]

6 hours ago, DI Keith Fowler said:

I think alongside this is the assumption that there would be some investment in say, London, rather than just picking them up and plonking them in SL. As they are yeah they'll get small crowds and are mostly unknown in London.

But historically they've had bigger crowds than this, at a glance in 96 & 97 over 5k average, near 5k again in 2006. 2k crowds is not their definite level it's possible to improve. People are looking at them in terms of potential rather than their actual state now that's the attraction. 

I'm not saying London can't work , but what cost and time frame do you think it needs ? , I'd say £ 100 million and 10 years 

[Tommygilf]

38 minutes ago, yipyee said:

Yep,

Leeds clearly wanted rid of them and got a few other clubs onside

Considering the excellent working relationship between us and Bradford, and Leeds arguably being the single club that lost out most from Bradford's decline, that's moronic

[GUBRATS]

5 hours ago, Gav Wilson said:

A winning London Broncos team in a brand new perfectly sized stadium would easily bring in regular crowds of 5-6k. Corporate capacity at NPL would be vastly improved too compared to Trailfinders, which sponsors would obviously prefer.

Same question to you Gav , what cost to achieve what you suggest ?

1st in Wimbledon being happy for them to play there for a reasonable rent , not forgetting they'd most likely not make income from the stadium ?

2nd in them finding either a half share with somebody else or building their own ?

[Oldbear]

48 minutes ago, yipyee said:

You mean both being thrown out of the league for no good reason.

The fact that they were given no funding is proof they were not welcome

Oh I remember, as a Thunder fan the day of the so called merger was a pretty devastating day. The truth is the damage was done at outset, by not giving Thunder full funding it was akin to trying to fight a boxing match with your hands tied behind your back. It just highlights that the RFL/SL don’t have any form of plan for any expansion, if someone approaches them and says they want to start a new club, then as long as it’s at little to no expense to the governing bodies, and no organizational or infrastructure support is asked for then they are happy to let the new venture in to sink or swim instead of asking what support is needed to make the venture stable and have a long term future.

[Oldbear]

17 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

I'm not saying London can't work , but what cost and time frame do you think it needs ? , I'd say £ 100 million and 10 years 

Sounds reasonable, however they need a competent off field operation so that the club doesn’t just burn through the money in a shambolic fashion (like they seem to have done for most of their existence). Ask any long standing London fan about the legendary lack of communication and organization which seems to have plagued the club for virtually their entire existence.

[Scotchy1]

14 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

I'm not saying London can't work , but what cost and time frame do you think it needs ? , I'd say £ 100 million and 10 years 

£100m and ten years would mean they would need to spend roughly as much as Leeds every single year and bring in about half of the SL tv funding and literally nothing else.

[binosh]

19 hours ago, Saint Toppy said:

Because the TV deal isn't increasing, so the pot will have to be divided more ways.

unless your suggesting that they add 6 extra teams and all those 6 extra teams don't receive a share of the TV money ?

The 6 teams already have a share for 2021, they have budgeted for this year already in the Champ, its not going to cost anymore than is already being spent.

Obviously they wouldn't be spending as much as the rest of SL but I bet all of those clubs would jump at the chance, season tickets would rocket, crowds would be bigger, owners would find extra revenue and sponsorship and the whole thing would improve.

All 6 teams would be confident of picking up a couple of big scalps and also wining games against each other.

The point I'm making is SL is stagnant anyway, there are 6 clubs chomping at the bit to be in SL and all 6 have a strong case different to the others, we have never had this before, its like having competition for places in a squad of players, sooner or later these clubs in SL who aren't interested in growing are going to be dropped for the ones knocking on the door.

[Saint Toppy]

2 minutes ago, binosh said:

The 6 teams already have a share for 2021, they have budgeted for this year already in the Champ, its not going to cost anymore than is already being spent.

Obviously they wouldn't be spending as much as the rest of SL but I bet all of those clubs would jump at the chance, season tickets would rocket, crowds would be bigger, owners would find extra revenue and sponsorship and the whole thing would improve.

All 6 teams would be confident of picking up a couple of big scalps and also wining games against each other.

The point I'm making is SL is stagnant anyway, there are 6 clubs chomping at the bit to be in SL and all 6 have a strong case different to the others, we have never had this before, its like having competition for places in a squad of players, sooner or later these clubs in SL who aren't interested in growing are going to be dropped for the ones knocking on the door.

None of what you said changes the FACT that if they add 6 extra teams into SL then those 6 extra teams will want a share of the SL TV money, and in doing so they will put additional (and potentially fatal) financial strain on several existing SL clubs, who have already had massive hits due to Covid.

Promoting extra teams now just creates a high probability of destabilising the whole league.

If those 6 clubs want to get promoted but without the TV funding then yes maybe, but how many would be willing to accept that ?

[binosh]

Just now, Saint Toppy said:

None of what you said changes the FACT that if they add 6 extra teams into SL then those 6 extra teams will want a share of the SL TV money, and in doing so they will put additional (and potentially fatal) financial strain on several existing SL clubs, who have already had massive hits due to Covid.

Promoting extra teams now just creates a high probability of destabilising the whole league.

If those 6 clubs want to get promoted but without the TV funding then yes maybe, but how many would be willing to accept that ?

That's the question, how many would accept that? your first line states that its a fact that those teams would want a share of the SL TV money when it isn't a fact because it hasn't happened yet its just a theory.

I bet if you said to Toulouse, York & Fev you can go into SL now but your on the same funding as you would have been in the champ they would all accept and do a great job.

[Damien]

14 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

Considering the excellent working relationship between us and Bradford, and Leeds arguably being the single club that lost out most from Bradford's decline, that's moronic

It's a really odd narrow mindset that doesn't realise that a club can only benefit from other clubs being strong. 

[Scotchy1]

Just now, Damien said:

It's a really odd narrow mindset that doesn't realise that a club can only benefit from other clubs being strong. 

Its a strange transactional relationship whereby there are only winners and losers 

Its same with discussions of franchising where most of the argument against is borne from this incredible idea that SL clubs would run this strange conspiracy against themselves to deny entrance to clubs that would grow SL and make them more money.

[yipyee]

20 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

Considering the excellent working relationship between us and Bradford, and Leeds arguably being the single club that lost out most from Bradford's decline, that's moronic

How so?

Bradford had the best academy best team and dominated the area.

Without Bradford Leeds get first pick of the talent, can push their support wider and are peerless in the area.

Its not moronic its good business from Leeds.

[yipyee]

19 hours ago, Oldbear said:

Oh I remember, as a Thunder fan the day of the so called merger was a pretty devastating day. The truth is the damage was done at outset, by not giving Thunder full funding it was akin to trying to fight a boxing match with your hands tied behind your back. It just highlights that the RFL/SL don’t have any form of plan for any expansion, if someone approaches them and says they want to start a new club, then as long as it’s at little to no expense to the governing bodies, and no organizational or infrastructure support is asked for then they are happy to let the new venture in to sink or swim instead of asking what support is needed to make the venture stable and have a long term future.

Didnt they finish 4th or something and Hull were bottom.

Sean mcrea and a good few players help turn hull into the semi sucsessful club of today

[Oldbear]

7 minutes ago, yipyee said:

Didnt they finish 4th or something and Hull were bottom.

Sean mcrea and a good few players help turn hull into the semi sucsessful club of today

You know I can’t actually remember (signs of age I know), but we did a lot better than Hull. We also built a respectable crowd average despite not being lucky with the weather sometimes (Gateshead Stadium was not a comfortable venue in bad weather, I remember the Leeds home opener), the problem was that the entire venture was undercapitalized, plus the decision not to allow full TV funding, meant that the club was a little like a drowning man, fighting hard but still going under. It is my biggest issue with expansion, every time the RFL seem to fall for extravagant sounding plans without actually doing due diligence to see if they are realistic. Then to make matters worse they decide to impose restrictions on the new club, like no or a smaller TV share and then look all surprised when the venture fails. Our sport has a long history of this kind of thing, which anti expansionists use as their evidence to say that expansion is pointless when the reality is that we don’t expand properly with actual plans in place. The worrying thing is that you can see it happening all over again, I’m not sure where, or even when but I guarantee that another half assed proposal will come along at some point in the future and the RFL will fall over themselves to accept it, then put measures in place that will hamper it.

[Tommygilf]

7 minutes ago, yipyee said:

How so?

Bradford had the best academy best team and dominated the area.

Without Bradford Leeds get first pick of the talent, can push their support wider and are peerless in the area.

Its not moronic its good business from Leeds.

Because no other league game pushed capacity at Headingley, and I believe Hetherington said at the time that giving Bradford half the money was wrong. We lost our biggest game of the season.

Bradford's academy didn't "dominate", Leeds' did. Obviously Bradford's was stronger when in Super League, but even when they were, there were far more ex Leeds academy products running around the divisions. 

That's before we get to the loan arrangements Leeds have come to with Bradford - both ways such as this year with Leeds taking Rhys Evans. 

If Leeds wanted to destroy Bradford Bulls we could have done a lot better at it.

[yipyee]

34 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Because no other league game pushed capacity at Headingley, and I believe Hetherington said at the time that giving Bradford half the money was wrong. We lost our biggest game of the season.

Bradford's academy didn't "dominate", Leeds' did. Obviously Bradford's was stronger when in Super League, but even when they were, there were far more ex Leeds academy products running around the divisions. 

That's before we get to the loan arrangements Leeds have come to with Bradford - both ways such as this year with Leeds taking Rhys Evans. 

If Leeds wanted to destroy Bradford Bulls we could have done a lot better at it.

Its not destroy its to keep them at a lower level.. similar as toulouse london etc..

[Scotchy1]

1 minute ago, yipyee said:

Its not destroy its to keep them at a lower level.. similar as toulouse london etc..

I'm fairly sure Leeds would be delighted to swap Bradford for Salford or Wakefield or Huddersfield. 

[yipyee]

Just now, Scotchy1 said:

I'm fairly sure Leeds would be delighted to swap Bradford for Salford or Wakefield or Huddersfield. 

I doubt it, wakey, hudds and salford will never challenge to knock leeds off their perch

[Scotchy1]

2 minutes ago, yipyee said:

I doubt it, wakey, hudds and salford will never challenge to knock leeds off their perch

They also won't provide 20k+ attendances 

[yipyee]

4 minutes ago, Scotchy1 said:

They also won't provide 20k+ attendances 

A one off game of away fans is financially a p*iss in the ocean

See the away fans thread for more info

Its the same old nonesense rolled out by deluded fans

[Scotchy1]

27 minutes ago, yipyee said:

A one off game of away fans is financially a p*iss in the ocean

See the away fans thread for more info

Its the same old nonesense rolled out by deluded fans

They aren't away fans. 

[The Blues Ox]

I would say theres a lot more chance of it been reduced to 10 teams rather than extended to 14 teams.

[Gooleboy]

On 17/12/2020 at 19:37, Scotchy1 said:

They also won't provide 20k+ attendances 

Neither will Bradford. Those days are over, they have probably a hardcore of 4 - 5k if that. They had great day's with big crowds, but those 10k additional fans they had were glory hunters, debatable if half of them knew what the ball was blown up with.

[Scotchy1]

1 minute ago, Gooleboy said:

Neither will Bradford. Those days are over, they have probably a hardcore of 4 - 5k if that. They had great day's with big crowds, but those 10k additional fans they had were glory hunters, debatable if half of them knew what the ball was blown up with.

Their money is worth exactly the same as yours. 

 

[Damien]

1 hour ago, Gooleboy said:

Neither will Bradford. Those days are over, they have probably a hardcore of 4 - 5k if that. They had great day's with big crowds, but those 10k additional fans they had were glory hunters, debatable if half of them knew what the ball was blown up with.

There is so much snobbery in Rugby League when it comes to types of fan. So what if they were glory hunters? Either way it was great to see huge crowds at Odsal and another big RL club. I think history tells us that the hardcore fan base is quite low outside the bigger clubs. We need the floating fan to boost attendances and we need them to attend as often as possible.