London Broncos Moving Update

[THE RED ROOSTER 1,114]

From The Evening Standard

https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/afc-wimbledon-plough-lane-ground-share-london-broncos-b353445.html

Totally against this move which as the article makes clear acts as a soccer clubs revenue stream and yet again uproots the club.

 

[nadera78 2,785]

It's amusing to me that a RL club that repeatedly sidelines a supporters trust (except when it wants some money from them, of course) is keen to associate itself with a football club that is owned by a supporters trust.

On topic, though, I note that it is now four days since this story became public and the Broncos still have not seen fit to comment on it in anyway. But then, why should such an insignificant matter as where the club plays its home games be of any concern to the supporters?

[HawkMan 216]

As a Londoner I know the city well, and if this was a move from a nothing area to a groovy hip location it'll make sense. But it isn't and therefore it doesn't. Broncos rent money supplied in part by fans goes towards strengthening Wimbledon squad ......hmmm, not sure.

It's a long term plan and if Broncos establish themselves as a SL team and build a growing fanbase then it'll be okay,  a shrewd piece of planning,  but it's a big IF.

[The Phantom Horseman 2,398]

5 minutes ago, nadera78 said:

On topic, though, I note that it is now four days since this story became public and the Broncos still have not seen fit to comment on it in anyway. But then, why should such an insignificant matter as where the club plays its home games be of any concern to the supporters?

From an outsider, the lack of communication between London and their fans seems shocking. Have they even told the fans that Kieran Dixon, one of their most recognisable and high-profile players, is no longer at the club and was announced by York a month ago?

[Damien 13,250]

21 minutes ago, THE RED ROOSTER said:

From The Evening Standard

https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/afc-wimbledon-plough-lane-ground-share-london-broncos-b353445.html

Totally against this move which as the article makes clear acts as a soccer clubs revenue stream and yet again uproots the club.

 

Are London Broncos not currently a revenue stream for Ealing RU anyhow?

[langpark 1,319]

3 minutes ago, Damien said:

Are London Broncos not currently a revenue stream for Ealing RU anyhow?

Exactly.  I find it pointless even discussing who the money is going to (unless of course we are talking on ethical grounds - if it were owned by the mob, for example).  As if a financially stronger Wimbledon FC will somehow weaken Rugby League?  Get a grip people!

If the cost is not too high, and London Broncos are genuine in their aim to return to SL long-term, then I would say make the move now.  Don't delay the inevitable otherwise we'll be coming back to the same discussion every 12 months when they are in the SL playoffs.

[Man of Kent 8,060]

21 minutes ago, langpark said:

Exactly.  I find it pointless even discussing who the money is going to (unless of course we are talking on ethical grounds - if it were owned by the mob, for example).  As if a financially stronger Wimbledon FC will somehow weaken Rugby League?  Get a grip people!

If the cost is not too high, and London Broncos are genuine in their aim to return to SL long-term, then I would say make the move now.  Don't delay the inevitable otherwise we'll be coming back to the same discussion every 12 months when they are in the SL playoffs.

Or before some other sports club takes the Broncos' place at Plough Lane, yep. 

Edited December 17, 2020 by Man of Kent

[Hopping Mad 1,099]

29 minutes ago, Damien said:

Are London Broncos not currently a revenue stream for Ealing RU anyhow?

It's what happens to tenants. They're paying (at least in part) their landlord's bills. Broncos are no different, whether they play at Trailfinders or Plough Lane.

[Man of Kent 8,060]

52 minutes ago, THE RED ROOSTER said:

From The Evening Standard

https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/afc-wimbledon-plough-lane-ground-share-london-broncos-b353445.html

Totally against this move which as the article makes clear acts as a soccer clubs revenue stream and yet again uproots the club.

 

Point of order: the vote will not be held tonight. There will be more details about a possible groundshare, eg financial arrangements discussed tonight, but no formal vote.

[Hopping Mad 1,099]

2 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

Point of order: the vote will not be held tonight. There will be more details about a possible groundshare, eg financial arrangements discussed tonight, but no formal vote.

To be fair to the Standard, its story does say the proposal will be discussed this evening. Nothing more, nothing less.

[nadera78 2,785]

32 minutes ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

From an outsider, the lack of communication between London and their fans seems shocking. Have they even told the fans that Kieran Dixon, one of their most recognisable and high-profile players, is no longer at the club and was announced by York a month ago?

No, that one slipped by unannounced. The poor communication is just taken for granted these days.

[Man of Kent 8,060]

Just occurred to me...do we know what the maximum capacity of a socially-distanced Ealing Trailfinders would be? Might be minute given the layout.

[gingerjon 16,951]

43 minutes ago, Damien said:

Are London Broncos not currently a revenue stream for Ealing RU anyhow?

If you think Trailfinders will cost the same as Plough Lane then either one is too high or one is too low.

[gingerjon 16,951]

8 minutes ago, nadera78 said:

No, that one slipped by unannounced. The poor communication is just taken for granted these days.

Don't worry. They did remember to tweet about some new tracksuits a couple of weeks ago.

Can't think why.

[gingerjon 16,951]

20 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

Or before some other sports club takes the Broncos' place at Plough Lane, yep. 

Yes, there must be loads of ... who, exactly?

[Damien 13,250]

1 minute ago, gingerjon said:

If you think Trailfinders will cost the same as Plough Lane then either one is too high or one is too low.

I never said it would but its not really the point I was replying to.

Whether it is affordable or profitable only London would know. If it doesn't cost much more but provides more than that increase in income its a good move.

[Man of Kent 8,060]

1 minute ago, gingerjon said:

Yes, there must be loads of ... who, exactly?

The chief exec of AFCW has said he's been in discussions with more than one club about Plough Lane (without naming them). I would imagine that includes higher level football clubs for their reserves/ladies teams.   

[gingerjon 16,951]

Just now, Damien said:

I never said it would but its not really the point I was replying to.

Whether it is affordable or profitable only London would know. If it doesn't cost much more but provides more than that increase in income its a good move.

We've rehearsed this. It's an awful move seemingly only supported by people who don't know London, don't follow London, or who are active members and supporters at Wimbledon and thus somewhat compromised.

[gingerjon 16,951]

Just now, Man of Kent said:

The chief exec of AFCW has said he's been in discussions with more than one club about Plough Lane (without naming them). I would imagine that includes higher level football clubs for their reserves/ladies teams.   

I thought one of the things they were dribbling on about when it came to purity of Plough Lane (or whatevs) was that they didn't want to share with another football team.

[Man of Kent 8,060]

2 minutes ago, Damien said:

I never said it would but its not really the point I was replying to.

Whether it is affordable or profitable only London would know. If it doesn't cost much more but provides more than that increase in income its a good move.

There's a few miserable feckwits following London, sadly. Possibly why there are so few of them.

[gingerjon 16,951]

2 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

There's a few miserable feckwits following London, sadly. Possibly why there are so few of them.

Nah. The reason there’s so few of them is the constant and pointless moving.

[Man of Kent 8,060]

1 minute ago, gingerjon said:

I thought one of the things they were dribbling on about when it came to purity of Plough Lane (or whatevs) was that they didn't want to share with another football team.

There's a fair bit of ignorance about AFC Wimbledon. It's run by boring accountant types who know how to run a business. It's not a bastion of socialist purity by any means. 

[Man of Kent 8,060]

1 minute ago, gingerjon said:

Nah. The reason there’s so few of them is the constant and pointless moving.

Good luck growing crowds at Ealing!

[Damien 13,250]

1 minute ago, gingerjon said:

We've rehearsed this. It's an awful move seemingly only supported by people who don't know London, don't follow London, or who are active members and supporters at Wimbledon and thus somewhat compromised.

Most London fans on here seem quite positive about this move as far as I can see. They realise its what is needed for London to progress and grow into a club that is capable of being a Super League club again with the capability to stay in the top flight. I'll admit I'm an outsider looking in but I see no future for London beyond what they currently are at Ealing.

[gingerjon 16,951]

2 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

There's a fair bit of ignorance about AFC Wimbledon. It's run by boring accountant types who know how to run a business. It's not a bastion of socialist purity by any means. 

I may have used colourful language but I did think I saw something about not wanting another football team involved.