London to go part-time from next year

[Scubby]

6 minutes ago, Damien said:

Yeah it doesn't. Playing part time for some pocket money on top of a day job in the games heartlands is very worthwhile and even preferable to some compared to full time. There are hundreds of players on your doorstep who'll take that. Doing so in London certainly isn't worth it. For northerners it isn't worthwhile and for many in and around London RU would be an easier and more lucrative gig.

You have just given the case for London to be given a weighting allowance in central funding to try and level up the playing field. We prefer to make it almost impossible for clubs like Coventry, London Broncos and NW Crusaders to compete on parity. Slashing funding to these arteries of the game is bordering on bonkers!

[Jeff Stein]

1 minute ago, Magic XIII said:

I don't think you are correct. Rugby League is an unforgiving sport on the field and if you aren't good enough, it finds you out. It has found out all the academy lads this year. Remove all the experience and you are left with a squad of under developed, under skilled players. Homegrown - yes; hungry - probably; good enough to compete - no. I and many others wont travel hundreds of miles for home games to watch a team 'trying'. Let's hope the locals are far more forgiving.

Absolutely. There are simply not enough players in London of a sufficient standard to replace those who will leave because they see playing as their job. Skolars players play for Skolars because lower league one is their level and I cannot say that any of the loan players I have seen at Skolars recently from Broncos have looked above that level.

Hughes would be better off getting rid of the academy and using that money to have one last blast at turning it around on the pitch. Tell the RFL who have time and again promised assistance but never given it, but have rather left the development of the sport in the capital entirely to a couple of underresourced clubs, a burden not put on other clubs, to get stuffed, as well as those clubs who have been happy to pick off London academy products for free without putting anything back into development there.

[Damien]

8 minutes ago, Scubby said:

You have just given the case for London to be given a weighting allowance in central funding to try and level up the playing field. We prefer to make it almost impossible for clubs like Coventry, London Broncos and NW Crusaders to compete on parity. Slashing funding to these arteries of the game is bordering on bonkers!

I've always thought that should be the case too.

[Man of Kent]

38 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

Brilliant! Why hasn't anyone thought of this before!

Seems the Broncos have realised most Londoners expect decent facilities for their twenty quid (or whatever) and, unlike the hardcore, aren't prepared to be ripped off. 

[crashmon]

12 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

Seems the Broncos have realised most Londoners expect decent facilities for their twenty quid (or whatever) and, unlike the hardcore, aren't prepared to be ripped off. 

I live in a 2 bed semi...   I would love to live in a 4 bed detached, but I don't because I can't afford the rent. If I was to do that I would soon have no home at all.

Yes we want better facilites than ealing, but we also have to be able to afford the rent.  PL is too expensive at 200K a year, and that will kill the club.  I see alot of responses from you about how great PL is, but it really does not matter. Its just not affordable for the Broncos long term, and will kill the club within the next 24 months, as I don't believe DH will fund London for much longer, and London without DH cannot afford 200K a year rent.

I really dont care how great PL is, because the base figures do not lie. London Broncos part time cannot afford 200K a year in rent and survive.

So when Wimbledon reduce the 2022 rent costs to take account of the reduced status of the Broncos then I might get more convinced of PL.  But how nice it is does not matter at 200K it kills the London Broncos club now there is no central funding.

[The Future is League]

I wonder if some unattached union players inthe London area who have good paying jobs would be interested in playing for the Broncos next season when then are part time? Just saying

[Damien]

If the 200K figure is correct then that would be a real struggle in SL never mind part time in the lower leagues. This is particularly so as I imagine they will have few revenue streams playing in a rented stadium. 

[gingerjon]

8 minutes ago, Damien said:

If the 200K figure is correct then that would be a real struggle in SL never mind part time in the lower leagues. This is particularly so as I imagine they will have few revenue streams playing in a rented stadium. 

I believe it was confirmed by the Dons Trust so we have to assume that this is the figure.

It was always a ridiculous idea. It's just got more ridiculous with the passage of time and the onset of reality.

[Barley Mow]

16 minutes ago, Damien said:

If the 200K figure is correct then that would be a real struggle in SL never mind part time in the lower leagues. This is particularly so as I imagine they will have few revenue streams playing in a rented stadium. 

On top of that figure there is also rent for Rosslyn Park as a training facility and Richmond Athletic Ground for the academy.

[Ivarr the Boneless]

43 minutes ago, The Future is League said:

I wonder if some unattached union players inthe London area who have good paying jobs would be interested in playing for the Broncos next season when then are part time? Just saying

Probably not. There are plenty of semi pro union clubs in the south paying shed loads. When Oxford RL were around one of their many challenges was a local non national league union side paid many of their players £1000 per game, they were bankrolled. Knock a zero off that for most Oxford southern based players. Broncos will probably hit the same issue.

It would also be a big risk next season to have a team of largely union converts. They will need at least most of the spine to be RL experienced. There are plenty of northern players willing to play down south. It will mean hiring a northern training base to add to the numerous locations but I fear for the club next season if that option isn't taken.

[crashmon]

Did Hemel try for a season with a northen based player base which only travelled down south for the games?  And we all know how that turned out for them

[Ivarr the Boneless]

More than one season at Hemel from memory. Fulham also based themselves up north for all but match days for a fair while.

The problem at Hemel wasn't that the players were northern but that collectively they weren't good enough.

Realistically the way it works is Broncos hire a northern coach with contacts. All the players come from the same geographic area and have to be paid a premium to do the traveling. It's sub optimal to put it mildly.

[Man of Kent]

1 hour ago, crashmon said:

I really dont care how great PL is, because the base figures do not lie. London Broncos part time cannot afford 200K a year in rent and survive.

So when Wimbledon reduce the 2022 rent costs to take account of the reduced status of the Broncos then I might get more convinced of PL.  But how nice it is does not matter at 200K it kills the London Broncos club now there is no central funding.

Is it that unaffordable? Let's say there are 14 games a year and 2000 people spend £40 on tickets, food and drink. That's £1.1m vs £200,000 pa (rent + share of ticket/food/drink) to AFC Wimbledon. 

[The Phantom Horseman]

5 hours ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

We already know that Miski and Fozzard are leaving and Aston and Richards are rumoured to be off. Whether they can keep any of the likes of Sammut, Walters, Curran, Egodo or Hankinson on part-time contracts remains to be seen.

 

 

Greg Richards the next on the conveyor belt as he's been confirmed as having signed for Hull KR this afternoon.

[crashmon]

Yes for a part time Club with <300 remaining followers yes its completely unaffordable, and I think your the only person on this forum who thinks 200K is affordable.

Most of the Super League teams would not be able to afford 200K rent.  This puts London out of business, as we all know it, and thats why you have so much resistance to the move
 

[Tommygilf]

26 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

Is it that unaffordable? Let's say there are 14 games a year and 2000 people spend £40 on tickets, food and drink. That's £1.1m vs £200,000 pa (rent + share of ticket/food/drink) to AFC Wimbledon. 

Publicly announcing you're going part time (all whilst not being certain over the move anyway less than a year out) isn't going to increase crowds to a 2000 average though is it?

[ATLANTISMAN]

2 hours ago, Damien said:

Yeah it doesn't. Playing part time for some pocket money on top of a day job in the games heartlands is very worthwhile and even preferable to some compared to full time. There are hundreds of players on your doorstep who'll take that. Doing so in London certainly isn't worth it. For northerners it isn't worthwhile and for many in and around London RU would be an easier and more lucrative gig.

And there is the problem my eldest Son was picking up 200 pounds a match 5 years ago at a rugby union club in Kent in what would have been around league 4 in the pyramid.

Kent league football some players are on 500 a week and I know of several fringe Kent cricket players picking up 400 pounds a game at various clubs in the county.

My own personal feeling is that next season will be a one off with extra money being stated as going to the academy thereafter we will be in SL 2.

P 

 

 

 

 

 

[Man of Kent]

11 minutes ago, crashmon said:

Yes for a part time Club with <300 remaining followers yes its completely unaffordable, and I think your the only person on this forum who thinks 200K is affordable.

Most of the Super League teams would not be able to afford 200K rent.  This puts London out of business, as we all know it, and thats why you have so much resistance to the move
 

You seem to be the only one assuming 300 would turn up at Wimbledon just because that's all can be bothered to go at Ealing. 

I just don't think some of the hardcore Broncos fans who would watch London almost anywhere truly get how unappealing a venue Ealing really is, particularly at £20-25 a ticket. I've been to better stadia in low levels of senior non-league football. 

10 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Publicly announcing you're going part time (all whilst not being certain over the move anyway less than a year out) isn't going to increase crowds to a 2000 average though is it?

I don't see 2,000 as that stiff a task in an agreeable and accessible stadium such as Plough Lane. Besides, we're talking a 10-year agreement. There's time for organic growth. It doesn't need to be a Paris SG-style 'Look there's 17,000 at the first game, let's pretend it was a big success' self-deluded one-hit wonder RL is prone to.  

[Dr Tim Whatley]

1 hour ago, Ivarr the Boneless said:

More than one season at Hemel from memory. Fulham also based themselves up north for all but match days for a fair while.

The problem at Hemel wasn't that the players were northern but that collectively they weren't good enough.

Not good enough AND they alienated their (small) local fanbase in to the bargain. An absolute disaster.

As for London - another step closer to total obscurity. Such a shame.

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

15 hours ago, Niels said:

If city size was the only factor then London would have progressed further.

I think the problem is the casual fans who like expansion, have now switched allegiance to Toulouse and Catalans as they are doing well. There is no committment to any one team so in London's case they are left with only the core fans now.

 

Toulouse is a rugby city, and OlympiqueXIII are a well organised business with great commercial partners. Very different to London’s context 

 

Regardless; my point was that whilst Sky will need X geographic footprint in the north from a subscriptions perspective, at the same time they will also see the merit in what Toulouse will bring to the overall product Value Proposition. It’s not as sime as “away fans”, or “UK regional viewers” as some people seem to think. 

 

[EssexRL]

3 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

You seem to be the only one assuming 300 would turn up at Wimbledon just because that's all can be bothered to go at Ealing. 

I just don't think some of the hardcore Broncos fans who would watch London almost anywhere truly get how unappealing a venue Ealing really is, particularly at £20-25 a ticket. I've been to better stadia in low levels of senior non-league football. 

I don't see 2,000 as that stiff a task in an agreeable and accessible stadium such as Plough Lane. Besides, we're talking a 10-year agreement. There's time for organic growth. It doesn't need to be a Paris SG-style 'Look there's 17,000 at the first game, let's pretend it was a big success' self-deluded one-hit wonder RL is prone to.  

I love RL, want it to thrive including in London where I live but honestly: what strategy is there to grow the match attendees to that sort of number? I remember the move to Barnet was meant to lead to a boost in attendance as football fans and local people gave RL a go. They didn't. Why will it be different in Wimbledon? When Skolars moved to Enfield for a season I was hoping some of the footie fans would give the game a go. There were a few at our first game there (against All Golds I recall) but almost none came back (because their loyalty was to the footie team).

I would love to see 2000 at PL but cannot see how that will happen. 

[nadera78]

1 hour ago, Man of Kent said:

Is it that unaffordable? Let's say there are 14 games a year and 2000 people spend £40 on tickets, food and drink. That's £1.1m vs £200,000 pa (rent + share of ticket/food/drink) to AFC Wimbledon. 

Every single post of yours is brilliant.

2,000 people! Generating £40 each! You are absolutely clueless.

[Spidey]

7 hours ago, Bulls2487 said:

If the 2 teams of 10 is implemented for 2023. London will have to finish in the Top 8 of next year's Championship, it would certainly make for an exciting 2022 in the Championship.

Only if it’s decided by league positions. Anything is posible

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

11 minutes ago, nadera78 said:

Every single post of yours is brilliant.

2,000 people! Generating £40 each! You are absolutely clueless.

Having done a few things for the club back then, I can tell you we were barely doing that volume (in real sales), and certainly still not that £/person, at The Stoop when we had a squad on the edges of the playoffs with people like Scott Hill and Henry Paul in it…

 

The idea a side struggling in the Championship (or more likely getting mullered, with an academy-heavy squad…) could get anywhere near it is one of the funniest things I’ve seen on here in ages 

 

Plough Lane will be the final suicidal act of an organisation that’s previously only made a habit of shooting itself in the foot. This time; it’s a head shot…!! 
 

 

 

[Magic XIII]

13 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

You seem to be the only one assuming 300 would turn up at Wimbledon just because that's all can be bothered to go at Ealing. 

I just don't think some of the hardcore Broncos fans who would watch London almost anywhere truly get how unappealing a venue Ealing really is, particularly at £20-25 a ticket. I've been to better stadia in low levels of senior non-league football. 

I love the way you use words to get a rise!

I, like a lot of other folk don't bother as you put it not because its Ealing or because of the cost, but because the quality on the field is diabolical, the club is a law unto itself lacking ambition and any direction and have been thoroughly put off the club they used to love. Its a simple as that.

Keep banging on about how good Plough Lane is compared to Ealing  how its potential is incredible, how the masses will flock to watch an academy side get flogged every other week. You are coming across as clueless.

And what makes it most amusing is you don't even support the Broncos, but yet have so much to offer on them as a club.