Agree wholeheartedly.

It amuses me that those "in the north" constantly berate the attendances at London whilst choosing to ignore the fact that nearly all SL teams struggle to get consistent 5 figure attendances.

It amuses me that those "in the north" constantly berate the attendances at London whilst choosing to ignore the fact that nearly all SL teams struggle to get consistent 5 figure attendances.

renamed: Gillingham Gladiators........makes sense.

That makes no sense. How does clubs not getting 10000 crowds make a 2000 crowd acceptable?

I would like to think that long established clubs in the heartlands should attract a much higher consistent level of attendance than they do compared to a realitively new club in a developing area.

32 years isn't relatively new. And newness of club doesn't pay the bills.

You are failing to understand the definition of relative i.e. in comparison to the long history of most other clubs in SL then London is "new".

You are failing to understand the definition of relative i.e. in comparison to the long history of most other clubs in SL then London is "new".

I guess London/Harlequins/whatever etc probably always have the lowest SL average attendance, but some other club's are not much higher. I mean averaging 3,000 (with a long way for away fans to travel) compared to say a northern club doing just under 4K, is nowt (flat cap speak) to brag about.
Was it Fulham's 1st ever game at home to W**an (I'm a Leigh fan) there were over 10,000 speccys on !!

Pfft. Bradford are only 48 years old...

It works both way budgie, other clubs have competition for RL fans, London dont, the bottom line as our good friend GF points out, if nobody knows who or where you are, nobody will turn up, you have to find them, get them into the stadium and then make them want to come back

And Widnes just five...