Completely agree.

I bet your mates back at Craven Park were thrilled to see that remark. (I do appreciate you MAY be joking).

Meant West of the Pennines, living down under screws with your geography!

I should hope you did mean West. Your boys have enough to worry about at the minute.

WoW......I should get into politics if I'm that good at changing peoples minds......then again,in your case, there was very little to change in the first place

If asked if they would prefer 1,350 or so away fans once a year paying 27k instead of London, or 54k for 2 x 1,350 or so replacing London and Catalan,I suspect the majority of Chairmen, CEO's and CFO's would look into the long term financial implications, together with taking advice and guidance from the RFL.
I can't say for sure that they would all, or even some of them, would select the exchange of the 2 expansion clubs the same way I can't say for sure that they would opt to keep them.

The point is....neither can you.

The exchange of opinions on an open forum are what make boards like these tick. I have backed upmy standpoint on the issue of away fans and financial with factsrl


By the way...I have taken the above factual figures using the home clubs average....I could have easily used their next lowest attendance v a heartland club......the cost would have come down considerably.

Interestingly, all you've come back with is your "opinion" that the SL clubs would jump at the chance of getting rid of London in favour of recouping some of this lost revenue.....when in fact, they decided exactly the opposite in 2005 when asked to vote on us staying in the comp. Your comment that they would get rid of us is based on nothing...no historical factual data, no reports from accepted media...nothing.

On the topic of "away fans" at London games....we welcome those that make the trip and are appreciative of them. I have heard very little negative feedback from those that have visited the stoop and we have received many many messages of support and thanks for our hospitality. It is very depressing for us who support the club to see the current administration bereft of ideas on how to increase crowds,as well as revenue streams, but it is our cross to bear.

Your club are listed above. At a score a ticket, they would need to attract between 264 and 19 more locals to 13 games a season to make up for the loss in revenue from away London fans.....surely with their herritage and sense of community for the game they wouldn't struggle with that would they?

Let's put into even more perspective.....just to make it easy for you....

London, being in SL, cost the Bradford Bulls £18,000 last year at £20 a ticket against their average attendance.....I think....and feel free tocorrect me if I am wrong here, they needed slightly more than £18k to get out of the trouble they'd got themselves into.

In 2010, Tony Clubb, Born down south in Gravesend in Kent, became only the 10th England RL player to score 4 tries in an competetive international.......he did it against PNG in the 4 nations......but it was not given the same level of praise as spoilt brat tomkins of wigan, who achieved it against the might of France in a mid deason friendly and had flat cappers ing over their wippets.

NOT A SMILIE IN SIGHT!

Yeah, I've seen all that. You've come up with those numbers and seem to think costing other clubs potential income is acceptable. Strange.

You also appear to think SL clubs should go out and attract new fans to make up for your shortcomings. Hmm. Of course, clubs are trying to attract fans all the time (or they should be), but it shouldn't be to compensate for your weaknesses.

So now, I'll ask again seeing as you keep ignoring it: why we should put up with a poor atmosphere at some home games thanks to no visiting fans and a visiting team no-one cares about? A downbeat game that even turns home fans off?

I don't enjoy putting London down. I'd love a thriving London club, but 30 years later it's still a relatively pointless endeavour. I've sat near and spoken with London fans at Wigan and been impressed with their dedication and passion for the game. They (and you) deserve much, much better, but not at any cost.

Oh, and yes, I saw the Tony Clubb game. He did well, and I seem to recall plenty of praise from within the game. Not quite the same level of individual skill Tomkins displayed to get his four though. And not sure why you bring it up at all.

And someone, please, reveal to me the mystical benefits of London in Super League? People keep hinting at them but no-one actually reveals them. And don't talk about Sky money - they would NOT pull out of RL if London lost their licence.

Why is it strange? Financials were one of your reasons for beomoaning expansion.....specificall lost revenues. I simply showed you that it accounted for about half a percent of most clubs turn overs.


Nope....I simply said that 105 was the average increase in attendance for home games over a season to make up for londons lack of away support. Again, this simply underlines the fact you have nothing but opinion when faced with facts.

And SL clubs can afford to lose that? You've never run a business, have you?


Nope, you've repeatedly stated that SL clubs "won't have an issue" and "wouldn't struggle with" bringing in additional fans to cover the lost support when London visit. Why should they cover for you?


I go to RL for RL. I play and watch a lot of amateur RL, but when I travel and pay £20 a ticket I want something more - a matchday atmosphere, not the sense that a 'nothing' club has come to town.

There you go again, blaming the home club. Why is it down to them to cover for your shortcomings? If you're not an attractive proposition for fans, that's your problem.


London Broncos' involvement in SL is not a condition of Sky's money. HTH.


Is that really a bragging point?


THAT'S your argument: "Erm, Sky want us!"

Sky may have wanted London once, back when it was believed it might grow into something substantial, but if you think London are a condition of their money in 2013 you're the insane one.

The answer is, London currently bring nothing to SL apart from the thrill of a team based in London. Low crowds, little atmosphere, mediocre team, no travelling support, loss of potential revenues for other clubs, no community support, little media attention even in the capital - nothing.

I never said it was.......I said it WAS back in 1996. Are you saying it wasn't?

I thought this was about Salford?

It should be re-titled get rid of salford AND london

It’s a given we want rid of London

I was trying to get the league down to 12 to cater for Leeds and Wigan to play in the expanded and fanciful world club challenge

Clearly not.

But you've been hinting at London's Sky money connection throughout - in fact you've been directly linking Sky money with London's inclusion. 17 years on, I think the London dream has died and Sky know it. It's even been mentioned several times in recent weeks on various Sky RL programmes.


What's that got to do with anything? "Sky paid more so it's ok if London are holding potential fan income back". Utter crap. We need Sky money AND healthy travelling support, not one or the other. SL teams should not have to budget to account for your poor visiting support.

And as I've repeatedly said, it's not the whole argument, but part of it. The missing potential income, the lame atmosphere, the fact the even some home fans are turned off when you come to town, the terrible home crowds, the poor to mediocre team, the overseas players, failure to progress in 33 years to the point you're looking at moving AGAIN. And again, the lack of tradition or a grounding in any community (even after 33 years).