David Hughes

[The Daddy]

54 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

I'm not going to chastise you, for your lack of sympathy but surely from all the ''evidence'' we've had presented on this forum over the years, it's clear to see that Hughes had complete control of everything.

The fact that he wasn't sanctioning signing new players for next season is an ominous sign that he was going to withdraw but he's withdrawn in the most damaging way possible.

Perhaps those left behind suspected he was going to do it but were unable to prepare for life after him (Hughes) without his approval. They may also, have been paralysed with fear of the consequences, if their suspicions proved to be well founded. 

I suggest that no-one else at the club, had any license to act (in recruitment) without his permission or had any idea he was going to completely eviscerate the club on his withdrawal rather than make reasonable provision for the continuation of the club. I think ''they'' are just as shocked and upset as we are and as such are completely blameless with regard to your accusations.

How did he leave in the most damaging way possible when the club is debt free?

[Click]

9 minutes ago, The Daddy said:

How did he leave in the most damaging way possible when the club is debt free?

Ok, there was one other thing he could have done to make this hurt more for the club. 

Happy now?

[Gav Wilson]

16 minutes ago, The Daddy said:

How did he leave in the most damaging way possible when the club is debt free?

Now list what else he's left... 

[The Daddy]

8 minutes ago, Click said:

Ok, there was one other thing he could have done to make this hurt more for the club. 

Happy now?

So yr statement was incorrect then

[crashmon]

He could have made the announcment at the start of the season.  As for a while it looked like Hull would finish bottom, and by now we might have investors.  Although tbh I doubt it

Edited October 23, 2024 by crashmon

[fighting irish]

41 minutes ago, The Daddy said:

How did he leave in the most damaging way possible when the club is debt free?

Those liabilities were created by him.

They are his debts.

If he hadn't paid them off, his personal financial ''reputation'' would be tarnished by default.

That is the very least he could possibly do, but he's done nothing else, when he could have done so very much more.

I'll say it again, he's withdrawn with the deliberate intention to do as much damage to the club, cause as much disruption to the league and the maximum embarrassment to the RFL/IMG as possible.

He couldn't have done this carelessly, its not some random misfortune, it's deliberately contrived with the intention to cause the maximum harm possible.  

[OriginalMrC]

45 minutes ago, The Daddy said:

How did he leave in the most damaging way possible when the club is debt free?

They have 3 players and have to find £350,000 to be able to start the season. Hardly debt free.

If he had anything about him he'd have announced he's standing down when a successor is found. Instead he's condemned Broncos to oblivion.

[Pen-Y-Bont Crusader]

Could his last act be to donate 250k to the club? It’s still peanuts for him after everything else he’s chucked in 

[nadera78]

4 hours ago, gingerjon said:

I mean, it's so magnificently simple there is no need for any debate.

David Hughes has never had a plan, let alone a succession plan, and, whilst being the sole funding source for the Broncos, has also lunged from disaster to disaster around any aspect of it as a sustainable club for a decade.

And, yet, some people still don't see this.

[fighting irish]

4 hours ago, DI Keith Fowler said:

He has in effect spent an awful lot of his own money to slowly kill the club. 

Yes indeed and more, he's gone a long way to demolish the esteem in which the whole game is held in London.

[Gomersall]

 

[Londonbornirishbred]

I posted an "opus" on RLFans.com back in 2009, prior to leaving blighty for the Shaky Isles.

In it was a marketing brief on how I believed the then Quins RL could strive to reach a 5,000 average the following year, by using community engagement, local free volunteer marketing and social media.

15 years later, I refuse to speak with a Kiwi twang , support the All Blacks and applaud David Hughes.

Yes. The London Broncos are debt free, but I won't give them a bean of my cash whilst the CEO Loubser is still there, because he is as guilty as Hughes in that he has taken a wage for a decade and yet only seemingly earned it this year.

As for the 2009 Marketing brief? I have implemented it down here twice now, with the first club now selling out all their games and the second at 80% capacity. It wasn't and isn't that my plan is genius. It just involved hard graft, long nights and a lot of footwork.....but whilst Hughes was paying for everything, Loubser and co were happy to just sit back and do nothing.

Thanks for nothing Hughes.

[THE RED ROOSTER]

Reading between the lines here, the RFL is trying to entice an investor to the London club

https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/discussions-start-over-14-team-9657470

London are currently in that 14th spot. So If you have the spare cash and commercial savvy to build two teams one on the field and one off it. Then the chance is there to obtain and retain Super League status.

And in doing so the RFL / IMG can go to SKY and say "yes" we have expanded our appeal - We have a club in the capital and maybe two in the South of France (though Frewnch teams do not sell SKY subscriptions). Give us more TV Money

So if as we are told, the London Investors were waiting for the IMG grading before taking the plunge on putting money in, now we will find out if this is true or not.

Of course a benefactor(s) need to undergo a "fit and proper person test" and be in for the long haul. Not just put in the £ 350,000 and then bail half way throughb the season closing the club and producinga domino effect on other championship and maybe even financially challenged Super League clubs.

 

 

[Archie Gordon]

27 minutes ago, THE RED ROOSTER said:

Reading between the lines here, the RFL is trying to entice an investor to the London club

https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/discussions-start-over-14-team-9657470

London are currently in that 14th spot. So If you have the spare cash and commercial savvy to build two teams one on the field and one off it. Then the chance is there to obtain and retain Super League status.

And in doing so the RFL / IMG can go to SKY and say "yes" we have expanded our appeal - We have a club in the capital and maybe two in the South of France (though Frewnch teams do not sell SKY subscriptions). Give us more TV Money

So if as we are told, the London Investors were waiting for the IMG grading before taking the plunge on putting money in, now we will find out if this is true or not.

...

This also makes sense as an explanation of why small improves have seen fairly large rises in scores across the board. If London and TO can also get to 14 pts, IMG may then claim there are now 14 clubs worthy of an expanded SL - and extra TV cash.

Where the theory falls down is that if that was really the plan, IMG wouldn't be so stubborn about giving London its extra 0.5 for catchment. For absolutely no reason it seems, IMG are making the Broncos a less investable proposition because of catchment. Odd.

[Jill Halfpenny fan]

9 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

This also makes sense as an explanation of why small improves have seen fairly large rises in scores across the board. If London and TO can also get to 14 pts, IMG may then claim there are now 14 clubs worthy of an expanded SL - and extra TV cash.

Where the theory falls down is that if that was really the plan, IMG wouldn't be so stubborn about giving London its extra 0.5 for catchment. For absolutely no reason it seems, IMG are making the Broncos a less investable proposition because of catchment. Odd.

I struggle to understand why Sky would offer more money because you've offered them London and Toulouse in addition.  What difference does it make to Sky that IMG rate them Grade A according to their spreadsheet. Basically you're not offering them anything that they've not had before. As long as Sky are the only bidder they hold all the aces.

[Archie Gordon]

Just now, Jill Halfpenny fan said:

I struggle to understand why Sky would offer more money because you've offered them London and Toulouse in addition.  What difference does it make to Sky that IMG rate them Grade A according to their spreadsheet. Basically you're not offering them anything that they've not had before. As long as Sky are the only bidder they hold all the aces.

I completely agree. I'm just trying to understand IMG's motivations.

If I were Sky, I wouldn't be much impressed by the grades increasing unless it was accompanied by increases in TV viewers. 

[Jill Halfpenny fan]

15 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

I completely agree. I'm just trying to understand IMG's motivations.

If I were Sky, I wouldn't be much impressed by the grades increasing unless it was accompanied by increases in TV viewers 

When did the initial gradings come out last season, was it before or after the championship grand final?

Edited October 23, 2024 by Jill Halfpenny fan

[Archie Gordon]

8 minutes ago, Jill Halfpenny fan said:

When did the initial gradings come out last season, was it before or after the championship grand final?

I think it must have been after so as to include the final performance score, including the bonus of 0.25.

[Jill Halfpenny fan]

2 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

I think it must have been after so as to include the final performance score, including the bonus of 0.25.

Yep, realised that after typing. But logically you'd expect the groundwork to be done by then and it would be a case of fill in the blanks at seasons end. I think London winning promotion threw IMG a curved ball they hadn't anticipated. Thus we end up with the ridiculous relegated before kicking a ball situation. This has progressed to where we are now. With regard to London's catchment, changing it would likely open up a whole new can of worms. Just been reading that Adam Pearson isn't happy that Hull's catchment doesn't include Beverley. By my calcs it will come under Goole. Anyway back to London. Obviously I'm just an outsider looking in but while Hughes was there we had a presence.What now?

[Archie Gordon]

20 minutes ago, Jill Halfpenny fan said:

Yep, realised that after typing. But logically you'd expect the groundwork to be done by then and it would be a case of fill in the blanks at seasons end. I think London winning promotion threw IMG a curved ball they hadn't anticipated. Thus we end up with the ridiculous relegated before kicking a ball situation. This has progressed to where we are now. With regard to London's catchment, changing it would likely open up a whole new can of worms. Just been reading that Adam Pearson isn't happy that Hull's catchment doesn't include Beverley. By my calcs it will come under Goole. Anyway back to London. Obviously I'm just an outsider looking in but while Hughes was there we had a presence.What now?

I'm now moving towards thinking that the Broncos will start the season. That might be with something like 7 decent local pros (say Bienek, Stock, Lovell, Macani, Davies, Williams, Walker) and 13 youngsters/SCL players who won't be L1 standard frankly.

But without new ownership, I can't see them lasting the full season. Still, as above, I can now see them putting together enough cash from several sources, inc. up front CF if they can negotiate that, to get to the starting line. 

The IMG score - which shocked me - helps them.

EDIT: And to add, Mike Eccles is rapidly becoming a force of nature. If he wants something very badly, I sense that he can go a long way towards achieving it via sheer willpower. He's absolutely determined to succeed.

Edited October 23, 2024 by Archie Gordon

[Hello]

1 hour ago, Archie Gordon said:

I completely agree. I'm just trying to understand IMG's motivations.

If I were Sky, I wouldn't be much impressed by the grades increasing unless it was accompanied by increases in TV viewers. 

Maybe I'm not reflective of a significant number of potential viewers of the sport, I don't know, but for my tuppence worth I've lost interest in watching SL over time having seen the Celtic Crusaders leave, the rise of Toronto (which really inspired me) and their removal, the initial loss and now repeated loss of London from SL, and the shut-out of them along withToulouse despite both having massive populations that could be exploited. The new stringent financial terms put upon Catalan are also indicative of the direction of movement, for me.  Whilst I will continue to check out what's happening in the sport I have lost interest in watching any SL because to me it feels like a regressive league in a world of sports that are trying to sell themselves to others outside their comfort zones.  So, yeah, here is at least one potential viewer lost as a result of the predictable block-out of London and Toulouse from SL.  

Edited October 23, 2024 by Hello

[Jill Halfpenny fan]

5 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

I'm now moving towards thinking that the Broncos will start the season. That might be with something like 7 decent local pros (say Bienek, Stock, Lovell, Macani, Davies, Williams, Walker) and 13 youngsters/SCL players who won't be L1 standard frankly.

But without new ownership, I can't see them lasting the full season. Still, as above, I can now see them putting together enough cash from several sources, inc. up front CF if they can negotiate that, to get to the starting line. 

The IMG score - which shocked me - helps them.

Hope they make it, for me it's a good day out if nothing else.

[JohnM]

33 minutes ago, Hello said:

Maybe I'm not reflective of a significant number of potential viewers of the sport, I don't know, but for my tuppence worth I've lost interest in watching SL over time having seen the Celtic Crusaders leave, the rise of Toronto (which really inspired me) and their removal, the initial loss and now repeated loss of London from SL, and the shut-out of them along withToulouse despite both having massive populations that could be exploited. The new stringent financial terms put upon Catalan are also indicative of the direction of movement, for me.  Whilst I will continue to check out what's happening in the sport I have lost interest in watching any SL because to me it feels like a regressive league in a world of sports that are trying to sell themselves to others outside their comfort zones.  So, yeah, here is at least one potential viewer lost as a result of the predictable block-out of London and Toulouse from SL.  

"yeah, here is at least one potential viewer lost as a result of the predictable block-out of London and Toulouse from SL.  "

That would be a shame,  because the games themselves, on the field of play, will be just as exciting, pleasurable, competitive, frustrating, controvertial, and sporting, as ever. 

Edited October 23, 2024 by JohnM

[Archie Gordon]

8 hours ago, JohnM said:

"yeah, here is at least one potential viewer lost as a result of the predictable block-out of London and Toulouse from SL.  "

That would be a shame,  because the games themselves, on the field of play, will be just as exciting, pleasurable, competitive, frustrating, controvertial, and sporting, as ever. 

But this isn't about the game itself, it's about the sense of belonging. As someone living in the South, is RL my game? Do I feel wanted or valued by the sport?

Not really. 

[The Blues Ox]

10 hours ago, Archie Gordon said:

EDIT: And to add, Mike Eccles is rapidly becoming a force of nature. If he wants something very badly, I sense that he can go a long way towards achieving it via sheer willpower. He's absolutely determined to succeed.

Yet some on here would leave us to believe that Mike Eccles has just sat there and not spoke to his chairman and asked why they have not been planning for next season. It just seems a bit of a reach.

Although David Hughes has got a lot of criticism, a lot of it very just, it is still hard to think that a guy would pit millions of his own money in to a club to try and kill them, its quite absurd that people are thinking like that. The problem now is there is no hiding the fact that his money has kept London going and that is quite a short fall to try and make up and London will not get by without an owner with deep pockets. The big question is the lack of potential for another shot in SL enough to put off potential investors?