David Hughes

[Archie Gordon]

2 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

Among their best crowds isn't really saying much though.  I checked London's SL crowd history from the stats compiled by Rugby League Project and found that in the club's history in SL their overall average home crowd was 3,431 and their average home crowd against Wigan only slightly higher than that at 4,885.  Yes Wigan is a slightly bigger draw than the other smallish, unfashionable northern towns but still not that big a draw.

So way bigger then.

You've just shown that London is the problem rather than Wigan.

[Big Picture]

8 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

So way bigger then.

You've just shown that London is the problem rather than Wigan.

3,400 is next to nothing in the world of major pro sport, and 4,885 is still next to nothing, so no London isn't the problem.

Edited October 19 by Big Picture

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

36 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

3,400 is next to nothing in the world of major pro sport, and 4,885 is still next to nothing, so no London isn't the problem.

It's all relative - it's approximately 44% bigger. Does Leeds count as a "smallish, unfashionable northern town"? If not and it's a fashionable big city, then presumably London's avge crowd versus them is far, far bigger?

[gingerjon]

58 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

3,400 is next to nothing in the world of major pro sport, and 4,885 is still next to nothing, so no London isn't the problem.

"These two low London attendances, in London, where the common theme is London, show that London is not the problem."

[Veridical]

Call me a cynic and an anti-expansionist if you will but I’m not sure that “Londoners who are disgusted by the mere mention of places in which professional rugby league is played and appalled to the point of physical discomfort by even seeing the names of northern towns (except Manchester and maybe Liverpool, I guess, but including Leeds and Sheffield for some reason)” are necessarily a key target demographic for professional rugby league.

[Worzel]

I’m surprised the NRL hasn’t considered running a London team in Super League, it could be the first step to taking over the competition. I can think of many advantages for them, from access to global sponsors, the ability to run it as a collective “farm team” for the clubs to develop new talent (if Super League allowed them more Aussies), to creating connections with Antipodean expats in London (still 100,000 of them, mainly current or future AB demographics) that they can monetise both now and later etc etc.

All that for only AUS$3m a season, from an organisation with an annual surplus 20 times that who are currently investing in property assets to store the excess funds they generate. 

Won’t happen though, it’s like that lottery win you hope for. Possible in theory, but very unlikely. 

[Big Picture]

57 minutes ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

It's all relative - it's approximately 44% bigger. Does Leeds count as a "smallish, unfashionable northern town"? If not and it's a fashionable big city, then presumably London's avge crowd versus them is far, far bigger?

I'd say that Leeds is a bit of both, which is reflected in London's crowds against them.  On the one hand Leeds is one of the country's biggest cities but on the the city's soccer team has spent more in the lower tiers than in the Premier League since that was created in 1990, 18 out of the 33 seasons.  London's average home crowd against Leeds is 3,971; in seven seasons they got bigger crowds against Leeds than against Wigan, in the others lower.

44 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

"These two low London attendances, in London, where the common theme is London, show that London is not the problem."

You're overlooking the other common theme: a steady diet of home matches against teams from places which Londoners have either never heard of, or have heard of but don't rate.

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

2 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

 London's average home crowd against Leeds is 3,971; in seven seasons they got bigger crowds against Leeds than against Wigan, in the others lower.

So this contradicts your point - the big city team isn't a bigger draw

[Click]

1 hour ago, Big Picture said:

I'd say that Leeds is a bit of both, which is reflected in London's crowds against them.  On the one hand Leeds is one of the country's biggest cities but on the the city's soccer team has spent more in the lower tiers than in the Premier League since that was created in 1990, 18 out of the 33 seasons.  London's average home crowd against Leeds is 3,971; in seven seasons they got bigger crowds against Leeds than against Wigan, in the others lower.

You're overlooking the other common theme: a steady diet of home matches against teams from places which Londoners have either never heard of, or have heard of but don't rate.

You're a bit strange aren't you.

[DoubleD]

2 hours ago, Worzel said:

I’m surprised the NRL hasn’t considered running a London team in Super League, it could be the first step to taking over the competition. I can think of many advantages for them, from access to global sponsors, the ability to run it as a collective “farm team” for the clubs to develop new talent (if Super League allowed them more Aussies), to creating connections with Antipodean expats in London (still 100,000 of them, mainly current or future AB demographics) that they can monetise both now and later etc etc.

All that for only AUS$3m a season, from an organisation with an annual surplus 20 times that who are currently investing in property assets to store the excess funds they generate. 

Won’t happen though, it’s like that lottery win you hope for. Possible in theory, but very unlikely. 

It might happen but only if the NRL took control of SL. They wouldn’t pump that money into London without having a say in how the game is run over here

[RP London]

3 hours ago, Veridical said:

Call me a cynic and an anti-expansionist if you will but I’m not sure that “Londoners who are disgusted by the mere mention of places in which professional rugby league is played and appalled to the point of physical discomfort by even seeing the names of northern towns (except Manchester and maybe Liverpool, I guess, but including Leeds and Sheffield for some reason)” are necessarily a key target demographic for professional rugby league.

Sorry, I dip in and out of this thread but where does that quote come from??

Having lived in London I don't recognise that at all..

[Big Picture]

4 hours ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

So this contradicts your point - the big city team isn't a bigger draw

Not really, Leeds is just an exception to the norm of big cuties usually being big sports towns.  I did point out that in 7 of London's years in SL they had biggir home crowds against Leeds than against Wigan.

In any case, their average crowds against the biggest draws among the traditional northern teams are under 5,000 which just proves my point that none of them are big draws for Londoners. 

[RP London]

8 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

Not really, Leeds is just an exception to the norm of big cuties usually being big sports towns.  I did point out that in 7 of London's years in SL they had biggir home crowds against Leeds than against Wigan.

In any case, their average crowds against the biggest draws among the traditional northern teams are under 5,000 which just proves my point that none of them are big draws for Londoners. 

Or it proves London is the issue... 

There is quite a lot more work needing to be done on reasons for people not turning up before any conclusion can be made.. for example have you ever spoken to anyone from London about why they aren't going but they will go to, for example, games against Burnley or Bournemouth in the football?

I think your theories are quite fundamentally flawed without some of this baseline informational.. especially when, form experience, it's quite obviously rubbish in the English sporting landscape.. 

But you are told this every time you bring it up but yet you still bring it up every time.. 

[JohnM]

8 hours ago, Big Picture said:

I'd say that Leeds is a bit of both, which is reflected in London's crowds against them.  On the one hand Leeds is one of the country's biggest cities but on the the city's soccer team has spent more in the lower tiers than in the Premier League since that was created in 1990, 18 out of the 33 seasons.  London's average home crowd against Leeds is 3,971; in seven seasons they got bigger crowds against Leeds than against Wigan, in the others lower.

You're overlooking the other common theme: a steady diet of home matches against teams from places which Londoners have either never heard of, or have heard of but don't rate.

"teams from places which Londoners have either never heard of, or have heard of but don't rate."

It may be true of certain segments of "Londoners" but I don't think that is true of "London" sports fans in general. Or London music fans for example (recent Oasis clamour and Northern Soul prom concerts).

My belief (trust in a proposition with or without supporting evidence) is the opposite is true. Indeed, I believe (because it's not my money or rep at risk) that had both Samoa tests been held somewhere  in London, the crowd would have been higher than in Wigan and Leeds. However, we're not touching the youth segment, where for example, the excitement of the NFL seems to attract the attention of non-playing youngsters.

In all of this, the use of social media is crucial, especially in the world of the adolescent and under 30s.  These are our old codgers of the future. It's more, much more, than posting a few tweets, Facebook posts etc.Its about the whole machinery that underlines the power, information sharing, where information is data that means something.  For example, search for something using Google and within minutes, your social media accounts are making suggestions, "you might like" etc. We ought to be all over it, a discuss8n for another topic 

Edited October 20 by JohnM

[Sports Prophet]

11 hours ago, Worzel said:

I’m surprised the NRL hasn’t considered running a London team in Super League, it could be the first step to taking over the competition. I can think of many advantages for them, from access to global sponsors, the ability to run it as a collective “farm team” for the clubs to develop new talent (if Super League allowed them more Aussies), to creating connections with Antipodean expats in London (still 100,000 of them, mainly current or future AB demographics) that they can monetise both now and later etc etc.

All that for only AUS$3m a season, from an organisation with an annual surplus 20 times that who are currently investing in property assets to store the excess funds they generate. 

Won’t happen though, it’s like that lottery win you hope for. Possible in theory, but very unlikely. 

Surely it would cost far more than $3m a season to run a London SL club?

I agree with the principle though and as I suggested, as a softly softly approach, running a club in League 1 or the Championship and being responsible for grass roots development and youth performance pathways could be done for $3m a year easy.

[Ivarr the Boneless]

I don't think we know for sure whether "Londoners" are happy to watch a sport involving relatively small towns 

Broncos absolute refusal to do any serious marketing means most Londoners remain totally oblivious of them. The lack of effort to assist / retain new fans who did uncover the hidden secret that top level RL took place in London, didn't help either.

In the Stoop era, walking down to the ground I heard a female southern English 20 something say to her Aussie boyfriend "if I hadn't met you I would never have heard of London Broncos." A horribly plausible scenario.

[Deadcowboys1]

26 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

Surely it would cost far more than $3m a season to run a London SL club?

I agree with the principle though and as I suggested, as a softly softly approach, running a club in League 1 or the Championship and being responsible for grass roots development and youth performance pathways could be done for $3m a year easy.

To quote John Heywood, there are none so blind as those who will not see. The most deluded people are those who chose to ignore what they already know.

What the hell do you think has happened for most of the last 10 years or so? London players have been cherry picked by SL teams going back to the days of McCarthy-Scarsbrook, Clubb & Dan Sarginson. That continues to this day & would therefore never allow a London team of predominantly London & South East players to build a SL club unless they are in SL. There would be no future for a team just of Aussies though.

We already know from bitter experience, that on the whole, players brought up in the North struggle to stay in the capital & one having signed, ran back home before the season started, he missed his mother's apron strings so much. Or, another who said he needed to be nearer his family to get a release, then signed for Toronto. Not many have the character shown by Rob Purdham or Danny Ward. That is why our team needs to be built around Londoners & Aussie/Kiwi/PNG players. 

London of course, particularly under Hughes' ownership have never bothered much with marketing & the results are clear for everyone to see. That is not how you go about building a following. 

[gingerjon]

13 hours ago, Worzel said:

I’m surprised the NRL hasn’t considered running a London team in Super League, it could be the first step to taking over the competition.

Your curiosity is answered by the second half of your sentence.

The NRL has shown no interest in running a competition outside Australia.

[BadlyOverdrawnBoy]

35 minutes ago, Ivarr the Boneless said:

In the Stoop era, walking down to the ground I heard a female southern English 20 something say to her Aussie boyfriend "if I hadn't met you I would never have heard of London Broncos." A horribly plausible scenario.

So true. In the Ealing era I met someone who lived round the corner from Trailfinders but had never heard of London Broncos.

[The Future is League]

13 hours ago, Worzel said:

I’m surprised the NRL hasn’t considered running a London team in Super League, it could be the first step to taking over the competition. I can think of many advantages for them, from access to global sponsors, the ability to run it as a collective “farm team” for the clubs to develop new talent (if Super League allowed them more Aussies), to creating connections with Antipodean expats in London (still 100,000 of them, mainly current or future AB demographics) that they can monetise both now and later etc etc.

All that for only AUS$3m a season, from an organisation with an annual surplus 20 times that who are currently investing in property assets to store the excess funds they generate. 

Won’t happen though, it’s like that lottery win you hope for. Possible in theory, but very unlikely. 

There is zero chance of the NRL taking over the running of Super League and why would they.

They would see a competition that puts bumps in the road for any team from outside the M62 like the Catalans and Toulouse if they was to win the Championship grand final and what have they done for the London Broncos.

Look at the RFL itself. Quite happy to let South Wales and the London Skolors more or less go to the wall, and didn't give a 2nd thought to let Manchester Rangers into league 1.

[M j M]

9 hours ago, Big Picture said:

Not really, Leeds is just an exception to the norm of big cuties usually being big sports towns.

I don't even understand what it is you're trying to say (I suspect it's completely wrong) but approve of the description of Leeds as a big cutie. We're generally somewhat maligned by other Rugby League fans so it's nice that you at least see a positive.

[Gomersall]

 

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

10 hours ago, Big Picture said:

Not really, Leeds is just an exception to the norm of big cuties usually being big sports towns.  I did point out that in 7 of London's years in SL they had biggir home crowds against Leeds than against Wigan.

In any case, their average crowds against the biggest draws among the traditional northern teams are under 5,000 which just proves my point that none of them are big draws for Londoners. 

I compliment you on some outstanding mental gymnastics...

[17 stone giant]

2 hours ago, Deadcowboys1 said:

We already know from bitter experience, that on the whole, players brought up in the North struggle to stay in the capital

That's on the Broncos, not northerners. If playing for London Broncos isn't enticing enough, you won't get northerners coming down to play - not when they can get the same or better in their home towns. Why would you bother?

It's absurd to turn it into a question of character. Have you seen how many northerners of all ages play in football clubs all over England and beyond. They're quite happy to move away from their mother's apron strings, when the money and opportunities are right.

[Hopie]

2 hours ago, M j M said:

... approve of the description of Leeds as a big cutie...