Yer an idiot

No, for two reasons.
1. As covered elsewhere the local council blocked development in the past.
2. At the Stoop they were able to develop flats on the old training pitches to fund the redevelopment of the ground. No equivalent source of funds exists at Esher.

Elmbridge Council would veto an extension to Esher Rugby Club as at the moment they are trying to decide between two sites for sports development. One site is the privately owned Walton and Herhsam Football CLub in Stompond Lane which is in need of development, close to the main train line in and out of London and direct trains to the south coast and Woking. It is within close walking distance of the town and close to a number of eating and drinking establishments and if developed caefully will have plenty parking. The other ground is the other end of Walton and already has a leisure centre, gym, training pitches and swimming pool there. The council want to develop this with a stadium and new training pitches and combine with other sports. Maybe that is the way LB should be looking, get in with the council and get a ground share with a football club or get in with a private owner and develop the land between football and rugby.

daft dad, it was a throw away line, I agree London broncos should be a London based club, but we are back to the Gillingham scenario, choice between those two?
The thread was esher development, even if it was a goer, daft idea too far out of the way.
If we had the money and the choice then throw our hat in with the new stadium at Brentford but hey again that's just my thoiughts

hey if we moved to Gillingham maybe we could be called kent invicta

Gus Evicted more like.

David Hughes has been involved with the club for 10-15 years and already puts a massive amount of money in each year.

But I am not sure he is looking to deliver us a modern high quality 10 - 20,000-seat stadium capable of also hosting first class professional football or rugby union, perhaps with income growth potential, in order to secure the long term sustainability of London Broncos.

If he were, the opportunity could be there to develop Wood Green with the Skolars, given there is an immense amount of land, a potentially willing partner and a council who may co-operate and I am sure the likes of Brentford could be interested once again plus perhaps other small clubs.

However, I perceive that we are looking merely at a tenancy at somewhere which is reasonably close to the RFL requirement but I do not see the RFL as being insistent on meeting 100% of the standards anymore.

Cheers
Mark

Guesstimate is about 15million over the years he's been involved, stacked heavily post IL, since 2007.....London has never lacked a backer and Mr Hughes is a Saint, but in reality, he needed guidance from the RFL and business minded individuals, but without any help with his financial burden, he seems reticent to accept any advice from anyone.

Long term sustainability and in the end, self sufficiency could and IMO should have been secured through building up a decent size supporter base. The club in general, not just under Mr Hughes ownershiphave repeatedly failed to see the formula is:


Increased awareness = Increased attendance = Increased atraciveness to sponsors = Increased attractiveness to investors = Increased revenue all around.

Ever since SL I, they've stuck posts in the ground and expected people to roll up......

April 4th, 1996....9,638 roll upto the Valley......17 years later and 1,136 bothered to go to Esher.......

If we are at 1,000 it will be an increase on the Cats game

Wycombe cannot be used because Wasps are still there, there is no way three teams could play there. Wycombe does have undersoil heating but I just cannot see how three clubs could fit there fixtures around each other. It would take some organisation.

Hughes will tie up Buck and Dusty in Gillingham in 2014 and cite that Rugby Union didn't have a London RU team for years and that each club prospered oustide of London and that the London Travellers will do so playing out of Kent.

Apart from Quins

and Wasps I guess to when they were winning things

I am supposing that the idea of moving outside London/beyond the London Underground is not sacrosanct, despite the heavy resistance of supporters, and that the club is willing to risk alienating/losing supporters to safeguard the future of the club.

In this case the catchment area would cover probably anywhere within about an hour's travelling distance from London in all directions - maybe into any of the home counties.

I know this is provocative and am not meaning to be so, just to create a frame of reference.

In theory, there are four realistic 'transaction' scenarioswithout a realistic chance of going into a league which pays so much money that when they return to success that we would be seen as an inconvenience/pitch damager/pitch blocker. This seems to be the most wanted scenario for us, and if our rent is always seen as highly desirable, not peppercorn, then this could be lasting.

3) To form a relationship with a club who has a Stadium now and to share in the expense of building a new Stadium with them, thus creating a legal entitlement to the ground. This would probably mean support from the football club's local council and would require David Hughes to pay in, but not necessarily as much as a half share. This would seem to be the best long-term scenario.

4) To buy the Stadium from a club who is moving out by using a long commercial loan and effectively paying down a mortgage. This would work best by taking over a stadium in a relatively cheap, downmarket area which cannot be instantly transformed into a more luxurious or commercial development. This would be an ok scenario, especially if the Stadium is simply too small rather than being decrepit.

There are of course fantasy/silly scenarios such as sharing with a Premier League club, the Olympic Stadium, Twickenham or Wembley or the RFL offering to build us a Stadium but none are appropriate.

I don't see us evolving a very small ground with no quality Stand into a full Stadium but I'd love us to find someone who genuinely want to work with us, with a supportive council and secure our future, even if it means a little extra effort 13 times a year from me and others to get there.

Cheers
Mark