CCcoooooooommmmmee Onnnnnn UUUUUU Buuuuuls!

My point is that despite having 2 clubs in London the press and media coverage has NOT improved.

The sales of the printed word is very much down.

MORE exposure for the sport is what we all want.

Agreed. BIG games are what are needed. Sadly it must also be more violent, and fast. the '6 again' is great. NO scrums is brilliant. As a quick and fit, old fashioned hooker, I think they are a complete and utter wasts of time. That said, the 'central scrums in RL look good. Thread started.

We move with the times...... Honest.

The "Bulls" went to town in the late 90's and early 2000's with their massive Bullmania campaign allegedly stolen from Keighley Cougars. They rode to the top of the tree on that and I suppose if you look at their last years in the old Rugby League their fanbase was about 6,000, Ten years later it was 13,500 so even at that time the majority of their fans only knew them as "Bulls"......

But some Bulls fans may have deeper insight for you? Me? I have to go now got a couple of Trolls on my tail.....

Though I suppose you could say they actually rode to the top of the tree through fraudulent mismanagement, breaking rules and simply spending money they never had and were never capable of paying back, rather than any clever marketing ploy?

You can't just dismiss the marketing effort to attract generations of families and children and to get 15k in that hole every other week. Whatever the wrongs of the Bradford operating model, making light of their success in getting people through the turnstiles is just daft.

I've no doubts about their marketing efforts - If there was one club who truly embraced the brave new world of SL, then it was definitely Bradford and on the marketing aspect, they were the leading light to follow.

I was though questioning the idea that it was purely marketing and getting increased crowds, that got them their success, when, in reality, it was more stretching and breaking of the rules which had more of an influence?

If Bradford or Fev are the answer the game is finished.

So who would you suggest and why ?

Fev (at least) were the club beaten by Toronto, which, due to the lack of RL since that game, puts them in poll position.
Personally, I'd like to see Toulouse take the spot but, despite being challengers and having had a decent start to the season, their would be very loud shouts of "FAVOURITISM" (or worse), if they got the nod.
Of the rest, you then look at Leigh, Widnes or London.
York, Bradford and Newcastle havent been in contention and to suddenly elevate any of these (or Bradford) would just be taking the Mickey although, in time, any of them could be proper contenders.

Has to be Leigh or Widnes if we are going down the traditional route.. The league needs another Yorkshire club without a pot to p!$s in, like it needs a hole in the head.

Personally, I'd sooner give a London or Newcastle a real prolonged go of things (proper 5-10 year licence) than simply kick the can down the road with a club which would only bring more mediocrity to the league, like Featherstone.

]

It has to be Tolouse, London has been tried, and failed, Newcastle is a non starter, they can't even get a decent crowd at Gateshead. I'd rather see Keighley than Bradford. Widnes and Leigh are both non starters. In reality, we should merge FC and KR, Leeds and Huddersfield, Saints and Wigan, Warrington and Salford. But that is a business head, not a club pride and history idea.