so how much of that 1.3mill do yo consider attributable to having a London team in SL? Reality is the Broncos do not have a fanbase and therefore Sky do not sell subscriptions to fans who want to watch the Broncos play RL. Does someone in Kent decide to subscribe to Sky and watch SL because there is a team in it called London Broncos? I very much doubt it.

Anyone who believes that SKY put money into SL to seel dishes is off their rocker and f I am honest, I expected better from you JB.
Advertising revenue is where they get a ROI and advertisers aren't interested in spending hundreds of thousands on "slots" without the perception of reach in London. National advertising rates are 4 times those charged got "regional"....you do the maths.

When the NRL give perth a spot, it will have little to do with Fox selling subscription and a lot to do with the 2.4 million population in Western Australia being "opened up" for national advertisers.

Throughout all the years Fax were in SL? Around 5,500 to 6,000 IIRC, or did you just want to quote the last (2003) season to suit your agenda?

So, less than 2,000 go to the games but, because London have a team, countless thousands tune into Sky Sports to watch and absorb the advertising

That's not maths it's some kind of highly illogical conjecture.

We dont actually have much debt, yet. The problem is that there's hardly any cash coming in. Unless there's a decent away following, very little income is taken at the turnstiles because nearly all of our fans have a cheap season ticket. And the money from them has been spent. So not much debt but very little cash to pay the players for the rest of the season.

If we went into Administration the problem would be surviving until the end of the season unless a well off buyer came along. The Administrator would have the same problem of very little income, wouldnt gain much by not paying debt. The only option would be to sack the players. At some point we wouldnt be able to field a team. Without a buyer, Administration would be a short step from liquidation.

And that decision, in and of itself, should be enough to dissuade any right-thinking Bradford fan from bailing out the current BoD; my 12 year old manages his pocket money more sensibly than that.

National Advertising is more expensive than regional. Regardless of your rather simplistic view, without a team in the SE, the perception of advertisers would be that Superleague is a Local hobby and not deserving of a National ad rate.....

and the only way to measure the influence of your advertising is to look at the teams on the field and where they play their home games...
I can't imagine these companies doing any other research, say into the viewer demographics, before committing their budgets to advertising during Super league coverage or elsewhere.

You'd be stunned at how lazy some advertisers are, but you make a valid point.

I have no doubt Rupert Murdochs lot own the Storm and plough millions into the club because of the 11,000 fans they get or the 90,000 TV viewers........nothing to do with the perception of the entire state being available as viewers.......simply because they "like the idea" of a team in Victoria



The first season of ESL SKY wanted a London team.......since then, their stance may have changed, but when we went to the wall in 2005 we broke no rules and were admitted back into the league by a democratic vote......and the club have never finished in a relegation position.

I believe the lack of fans and investors will come to the fore in 2013 if not sooner, at which stage, the club will only have themselves to blame....kind of like Bradford now. The difference being that London won't try and blame everyone other than themselves.........unlike Bradford now.

I'm not sure RBS constitute "everyone other than themselves".