Should there be just one semi pro team in London?

[steve oates]

21 hours ago, Damien said:

But even then what mechanisms are there to exploit it? The RFL should be looking to capitalise on any boom but that will require investment and effort. It needs development officers, schools playing the sport and amateur clubs that people can play at to capitalise on that. This can then feed into the professional clubs in terms of fans and players. I dont think a wildly successful World Cup will translate to big crowds for League 1 or Championship Rugby League 

I've been around a very long time, and have been to Cup finals and internationals in London. Many Londoners have been there, indeed many Londoners may not have been there but have watched these games on the BBC, and what few Londoners I have seen or heard comment, have been impressed.

But the reality is we have been taking games to London since 1908 when Great Britain played New Zealand at Chelsea. It's a fact that RL is nothing new to London. It's a fact RL has no infrastructure in London, but Rugby Union has. I am in total agreement with you that if we want to capitalise on London's admiration for Rugby League then that would need a gigantic regular investment over decades, in which we would need Rugby Union to crumble.

I hate the idea that union is boring and talentless and all people have to do is see a Rugby League match and  they will be hooked..............  It's just not reality.....

 

 

 

[The Future is League]

Actually we need 4 in all seriousness.

We have West and North London covered and now we need semi pro teams in East London and South London which will create interest and local derbies.

We must never give up on London like we have Manchester.

[steve oates]

16 hours ago, wiganermike said:

Skolars had been making steady progress

Mike, London Skolars have been around for 27 years.

Their benefactor has packed in, Broncos have nicked their better players and their last crowd was 130.

[Smudger06]

12 minutes ago, Damien said:

I think history shows that scattergun approaches to expansion don't work as either the funding dries up or volunteers move on. Clubs working in geographic isolation have an almighty battle as is it is but trying to do this stuff in isolation with no real competition or even teams to play against is nigh on impossible. Informal matches, festivals etc have their place but there becomes a point were people want more and other sports usually easily provide that. It all becomes too difficult for any volunteer and costly too.

Teams need proper competitions and clubs to play against to provide anything fulfilling to potential players. I've always thought that the game should be looking at targeted specific areas, hubs so the speak and building out from there. Aim to create 12 clubs in 1 hour travel time and a proper league. Don't try and develop the country poorly and with little resources, use what we have in much smaller areas and in places where clubs can link into existing infrastructure. I think the development officer being here today and gone tomorrow approach is pretty useless really.

1st you've gotta get individuals working together within a Club, turning up for committee meeting at least once a month. Then almost simultaneously you've gotta get Clubs working together and for each other, not letting each other down for fixtures. 

Yeah ideally an hour, or 2 max drive, but even 6 Clubs would be good 12 brilliant........

[steve oates]

2 minutes ago, The Future is League said:

Actually we need 4 in all seriousness. We have West and North London covered and now we need semi pro teams in East London and South London which will create interest and local derbies. We must never give up on London 

I don't see that as serious, that if you create "local derbies" it will "create interest"? What does that mean? Does it mean kids will start playing the game regularly in numbers with schools adopting RL, Broncos and Skolars crowds will start going up, rich Londoners will start investing in RL??  

42 years of history and reality says different...........

[Smudger06]

9 minutes ago, The Future is League said:

Actually we need 4 in all seriousness.

We have West and North London covered and now we need semi pro teams in East London and South London which will create interest and local derbies.

We must never give up on London like we have Manchester.

Ideally yes......

[Smudger06]

With semi pro that includes the prospects / rewards of ever higher promotion and glory it's all about tiers of investment. League 1 seems you'd want 8 or 10 equal shareholders and reach a point where one or two have slightly more money available and take over the others shares to invest in a promotion......then these two know people with more money to bring in so the Club can be competitive in the Championship.....all the while club shop picks up trade.....ticket office picks up trade.....bigger sponsors start coming in.....on and on.......ideally gotta get the train moving.......

[The Future is League]

9 minutes ago, steve oates said:

I don't see that as serious, that if you create "local derbies" it will "create interest"? What does that mean? Does it mean kids will start playing the game regularly in numbers with schools adopting RL, Broncos and Skolars crowds will start going up, rich Londoners will start investing in RL??  

42 years of history and reality says different...........

We have given up on Manchester we mustn't give up on London

[steve oates]

5 hours ago, bazza_merged said:

Good point about the Skolars having been around for a while (think they have been in the semi-pro ranks for just shy of 20 years) If there is any community around the club then that is plenty of time to build roots in the community and have a large pool of former players bringing up the next generation of juniors and fans

It's 27 years. Their continued existence is entirely down to the SKY money.

[Smudger06]

1 minute ago, Smudger06 said:

With semi pro that includes the prospects / rewards of ever higher promotion and glory it's all about tiers of investment. League 1 seems you'd want 8 or 10 equal shareholders and reach a point where one or two have slightly more money available and take over the others shares to invest in a promotion......then these two know people with more money to bring in so the Club can be competitive in the Championship.....all the while club shop picks up trade.....ticket office picks up trade.....bigger sponsors start coming in.....on and on.......ideally gotta get the train moving.......

Before you know it, and a half century passed.....club is full time. 

[gingerjon]

36 minutes ago, Damien said:

Teams need proper competitions and clubs to play against to provide anything fulfilling to potential players.

Agreed.

And, to stick with Brighton.

Go and find it on a map.

Now, work out how far you can drive from there in an hour (clue: you probably won't reach Hastings).

Now, see how many actual, genuine, existing opponents there are for a nascent Brighton RLFC in that radius.

Realise the mountain of the task facing so many prospective clubs right now without development officers or structural support.

[Smudger06]

It seems a problem we have is small businessmen should be sponsoring and helping organise a community RL Club but the dream of glory brings them into League 1.....when a few of them should club together and go for League 1 after some involvement in the Community Clubs rather than one going for it with his own empire then relying on the RFL handouts to merely complete a fixture list, limping along signing players willy nilly and only paying matchdays, training sessions been voluntary

[steve oates]

1 minute ago, The Future is League said:

We have given up on Manchester we mustn't give up on London

Salford remain a competitive Superleague club in the soccer mad conurbation. How have we "given them up"

What do you mean by "we" and "give up on London". The Broncos are the responsibility of David Hughes and he has not given up. The Skolars were Hector McNeils and he has given up??

I'm not anti-so called expansion at all, but I am a financial realist and there is a much much greater return to be had by supporting clubs like Oldham. If the game disappears from Oldham after 146 years that will be a titanic disaster.

[Templegreen]

12 minutes ago, steve oates said:

It's 27 years. Their continued existence is entirely down to the SKY money.

If you took the SKY money away from all of the clubs in the pro/semi pro pyramid the vast majority would fail to exist as well.

[Smudger06]

5 minutes ago, Templegreen said:

If you took the SKY money away from all of the clubs in the pro/semi pro pyramid the vast majority would fail to exist as well.

I'm not sure the clubs would cease to exist but pretty much all of the full time players in Championship squads would vanish and the vast majority of full time playing opportunities in most SL clubs as well......

[Smudger06]

8 minutes ago, Templegreen said:

If you took the SKY money away from all of the clubs in the pro/semi pro pyramid the vast majority would fail to exist as well.

And that's the case with all sports. 

[steve oates]

4 minutes ago, Templegreen said:

If you took the SKY money away from all of the clubs in the pro/semi pro pyramid the vast majority would fail to exist as well.

"The Vast majority" is over egging the pudding. There were times when there was not much TV money and 30 clubs actually existed. It's easier to exist as an RL club if your along the M62.  Your statement doesn't ring true for me.  

[newbe]

The chairman of Hemel Stags had the foresight to pull the plug on the League 1 adventure, when they changed the paramintures of the league. He obtained some land over 40 years at Pennine Way, built the club. Now back in the amateur league the club are in the middle of a major refurbishment project, and self financing. Chairman of all clubs should be realistic were there clubs belong. Dreams and aspersions are great, but can prove costly. 

[OriginalMrC]

42 minutes ago, steve oates said:

It's 27 years. Their continued existence is entirely down to the SKY money.

Comments like this do a great disservice to the people involved with Skolars over the years who've kept the club going. 

[The Future is League]

29 minutes ago, steve oates said:

Salford remain a competitive Superleague club in the soccer mad conurbation. How have we "given them up"

What do you mean by "we" and "give up on London". The Broncos are the responsibility of David Hughes and he has not given up. The Skolars were Hector McNeils and he has given up??

I'm not anti-so called expansion at all, but I am a financial realist and there is a much much greater return to be had by supporting clubs like Oldham. If the game disappears from Oldham after 146 years that will be a titanic disaster.

Have we given up on Manchester? In my eyes yes.

We need to be in the big cities and not just towns

[Smudger06]

1 minute ago, The Future is League said:

Have we given up on Manchester? In my eyes yes.

We need to be in the big cities and not just towns

Yeah but Manchester wasn't allowed to happen because Oldham, Rochdale, Swinton, Salford, Leigh & Wigan consider themselves Manchester Clubs or at least don't want to share that regions market with another club actually named Manchester that could end up taking a bigger share of that market. If everything went well they'd potentially face a situation exactly like Manchester United, Wigan Athletic, Rochdale & Oldham football clubs, a real giant could emerge

[Smudger06]

Hunslet could be well within their rights to rename themselves Leeds Hawks or whatever Leeds (they used Hawks at one bit in the past) that in itself would possibly generate more credibility for the sport and sooth the big city dreamers....but I doubt Leeds Rhinos and certain allied clubs would let that rebrand happen at the RFL.....even if the fans didn't mind......same goes for Swinton Lions ~ Manchester Lions simple rename but keep Swinton in the small print on the badge, its a no brainer but fans will not let it happen either. 

[crashmon]

Part of the problem is also that the superleage is well not really super outside of the M62.  The Superleague is the primary competition for Rugby League in the northern hemisphere, but has less awareness in London, than other sports. Its probably equal to BBL or EIHL or Netball Super League in awareness. It is far behind NFL or NBA.

A NFL Franchise in London would have far more chance of succeeding than say a SuperLeage franchise like Broncos or Skolars

[Eddie]

54 minutes ago, Smudger06 said:

Yeah but Manchester wasn't allowed to happen because Oldham, Rochdale, Swinton, Salford, Leigh & Wigan consider themselves Manchester Clubs or at least don't want to share that regions market with another club actually named Manchester that could end up taking a bigger share of that market. If everything went well they'd potentially face a situation exactly like Manchester United, Wigan Athletic, Rochdale & Oldham football clubs, a real giant could emerge

Seems unlikely. What the parochial Greater Manchester clubs didn’t realise is that very very few people from Manchester itself are going to watch them so any fans the new club had were likely to be new fans - there would have been no competition with Swinton, Oldham et al and having a Manchester club is anything would h e helped them gain more exposure. 

[Smudger06]

34 minutes ago, Eddie said:

Seems unlikely. What the parochial Greater Manchester clubs didn’t realise is that very very few people from Manchester itself are going to watch them so any fans the new club had were likely to be new fans - there would have been no competition with Swinton, Oldham et al and having a Manchester club is anything would h e helped them gain more exposure. 

Yes it's unlikely but Clubs won't take that risk however remote and then on top of that the way the clubs see it is that they ain't gonna let another club create new fans because they think they can bring in these new fans themselves and are entitled to that opportunity and potential.....