Hi all,

I'll try to give a balanced opinion.

Firstly, when David Hughes was first involved with the club he was in his mid 50s and a working trader, whose bonuses alone were said to be more than enough to pay his entire contribution to the club.

I'm led to believe he is now 78 years old and I would be astonished if he is still working regularly, though it is not impossible.

My view is that his own personal financial circumstances have changed.

The club's income has also massively reduced, from over 1 million in 2019, to probably the best part of a million in 2020, with the parachute payment to probably only a couple of hundred grand or so as of now, before the gate.

Media articles of the past suggest that Mr Hughes was very much of the view he wanted to "protect his family pot".

Where I think his head was turned, is that he has been sold on the idea that Featherstone, for a much lower spend, has managed to build a borderline SL standard squad; whilst even Whitehaven last season did very well on a minimal budget.

In some ways, I think Hughes felt that there could be an opportunity to bring in very good part time players; players who in theory might not even join at all with a full time commitment.

I do also think that the senior leadership team at the Broncos felt that the London trained players could be directly replaced by similar or even higher quality players from the academy and/or that there were players just as good at London Skolars.

For instance, if Sam Davis did not sign you could put in Rob Oakley whilst Gideon Boafo could be swapped for a Macani or a Caro.

Also, there were plenty of tip offs of third division players ready to step up; about 8 from Skolars, 2 or 3 from West Wales plus perhaps more realistic prospects such as Foster.

I think the club was all too willing to overlook the continual past unavailability of players too such as Albert as well as over-rating existing players abilities.

For instance I did not perceive that either of Leyland or Horsman were midtable Championship standard, nor quite a few others such as Oakley, Blakemore and Latu. In fact, there were quite a few I thought were no better than the bottom three in League one. I had previously seen the Broncos reserves away at Coventry Bears, and did not come away impressed.

I felt that the better club trained players were Boafo (who was one of our best 4 players) plus Jones, Sam Davis, Hindmarsh and perhaps Williams.

The mid level ones were probably Hodson, Adebiyi, Ogden and Egodo; I could see why they might be released due to missing games or perhaps lack of tryscoring threat.

The ones I felt might be lacking the necessary ability or who were just finished were Horsman, Leyland, Oakley and Blakemore.

Also, of the existing squad, I felt that Hankinson, Miski, Sammut and Fozard were critical players. We needed players of this calibre. I could see why you would crack down on non performers like Moran and Navarette and maybe some of the injury prone lads. But not all had let the club down.

Players like Walters and Hindmarsh simply refused to agree terms; others like Meadows were enticed on relatively modest terms; he is then said to have played in Hodson. Other players moved to take an actual offer after waiting all season; for instance Aston waited all year to go.

I was told that the club did target past leavers where it was felt there was some chance, but for instance Toby Everett and Jon Magrin were said to have settled down and others like Joe Keyes may feel they were treated poorly in the past. Also, some of the players were at clubs with greater prospects like Halifax.

I can see why there has been a desire for cost savings and I can see why things have gone the way they have, but I think the club has been perceived as having bad people involved; also that these bad people have bad judgement.

The truth is that the catchment area for Featherstone is perfect; there are about 5 or 6 clubs in each of the top three leagues in close proximity.

Whitehaven might one season in ten hit lucky.

But you can't throw the baby out with the bathwater in a catchment area of few or no replacement players.

Depressing but highly plausible.The idea that there was plenty of like for like quality at Skolars can only have been based on the belief that it was other weaker players and/or poor coaching that held them back. By hiring pretty much the entire 1st team and coach and assistant coach they unpicked their own logic.

The problems faced by the club both on and off the park stem from inactivity in key areas years ago. Those clubs who actively engaged with their audiences over a prolonged period of time, with regular and meaningful communication are the clubs who are doing best as we emerge from the covid period.
Hughes decision to downgrade his investment was always going to come. His inability to get anyone else to join him points to both how niche a sport we are and how his personality doesn't always fit with others.
If the club had knuckled down and worked to a 5 or 10 year target back in 2009, (I say) they'd still be at quins, till be in SL and probably have the 6 or 7k fans needed to stay afloat.
As it is, the writing is in the wall now. Even if we survive the drop, I can't see either the dons being keen on us staying and there's little chance of Hughes reopening his chequebook, so we may limp through another season, but it'll be to an aging and shrinking audience.
It really could have been so different if the other SL club/RFL had let Lenagan keep his interest in Quins RL......but.like the decision to promote Leigh over us, they showed how narrow minded the sport is.

The death knell for League and, to a lesser extent, the Broncos came when (COVID aside) the Toronto Wolfpack was voted out and Leigh were promoted. Now that's narrow-minded from the M62 chairmen.

In the time it has taken David Hughes to cremate the club (2013-2022), Sarries have invested in Copthall and added 2,500 to their average gates, The Irish have moved in to Brentford and added 2,500 and Wasps relocated to coventry and added 4k.
I agree that the RFL and essentially a handful of northern businessmen have a fair amount of blood on their hands, but in this post covid era, it really will be each to their own for the foreseeable, so this master plan of Hughes and Loubser is even more puzzling.

There's no way a part time side based in the south will attract the calibre of players needed to challenge for a SL spot, so why move away from Ealing? Loubser and Hughes need to find a solution to this and find it fast.....it's either spend more and get full time players or move the club back to Ealing and grow the club/fanbase up.

I've said it before. For every Million Hughes has flushed down the bowl, he's flushed a million of central funding too.....I'd be back at Ealing next year with a mix of full time and part time players, the academy, the Kids and the Ladies all playing there and a massive spend on Customer Relations/Communications.

I admire your optimism that there will be a next season Orange. Hope you are right.

Hi all,

I have long since held the view that the club will not win a game this season; a view I held before the season started and which was only further confirmed in the first ten minutes v Widnes and again during the Whitehaven debacles.

The reason is that the side resembles one I played for.

In my days as a player, I played for Lancaster University in all four of the student leagues (National, North, North West 1 and North West 2) and we had a side when at its peak won the SRL plate v Hull University and which was capable of winning v sides with Super League academy players and had as many as five or six student Internationals including the Scotland Captain, the Ireland full back and both halves plus an England Prop.

But we had a period where nearly all the team graduated and we just have the collective quality to threaten the opposition tryline. In simple terms, we were just overpowered. I remember going up to places like Leeds and Leeds Met and they would have three teams and a women's side and we would have just the one team, sometime on a matchday with just 12 to 13 players and very much like the Coleman side just try to hold back a vastly superior side.

In simple terms I do not think that Latu, Macani or Grant are capable of regularly scoring tries in the Championship and all are marginal selections.

I did not think any of Thomas, Coates, Horsman or Leyland would play well in the Championship, though was mystified that Coates was fourth choice given the showings of the other three.

I thought the pack looked ok, although the starting front row v Sheffield of Lovell, Foster and the academy lad at Hooker was shocking.

So I think we are 3 to 5 players short.

If we could do a deal with someone like St Helens to get a house full of their better academy players or even Featherstone we might have a shot.

Dribs and drabs won't be enough.

Like my old University side in the National League, you have got to get to the opposition tryline to be a credible threat.

This is one of the few things that could save us.

I (and I suspect many) would agree with your analysis of the quality of the side. Given the lack of ambition in recruitment, why do you think the club made a ground move (especially one that required the additional expense of separate training and academy facilities) ? This is the thing that least makes sense to me given we were not going attract new fans with such a poor team.

Hi,

The key drivers behind a ground move were these;

1. Concern that the Super League Executive would not admit Ealing Trailfinders ground "back to Super League". The then Chairman of Super League had indicated as such.

2. Lack of opportunity to further develop the corporate side of things. The club has long held ambitions to run a business club or sponsor suite. However the gold seats were often already sold out. There were concerns that the club could end up with corporate types sat near idiots like me, daft Al, Cliffie or One Arm Bandit.

3. Lack of revenue opportunities. The Trailfinders were believed to have welcomed the club with "treat the club as your own" but the revenue all went to them.

The move to AFC Wimbledon was felt to give ample opportunity to provide an SL standard facility, open up as much commercial presence as needed and a revenue share where previously it was a revenue take.

Where the club went wrong was this;

1. The AFC Wimbledon ground, Plough Lane, appeared to have all the necessary planning permissions so that London Broncos could move right in, without further process. However the club for whatever reason reapplied and began the process from scratch. This added a year to the arrival date.

2. The way the club handled and interpreted both the Covid regulations and the AFC Wimbledon move was to be as severe as possible with deathly silence on updates. This alienated supporters especially when breaking the silence by doubling prices to the very many supporters getting in for a tenner or so.

3. Halving the quality was I think a sudden decision and perhaps not deliberate. But when you get a rich man, a privileged man and a small sports shop owner you might not have your finger on the pulse.

1. Trailfinders coped with SL before and the union lot have plans in place.
2. The club had access to a fully functioning networking group from 2006-2013 but didn't use it to leverage sales, upsales or simply create relationships. This strawman is of the ex commercial and inept CEOs making.
3. Why is it that these things were not negotiated PROPERLY at the start of a tenancy? It seems this time we don't have staff for corporate as volunteers are being begged for. Also, who negotiated the Trailfinders move and the Wimbledon move? Was it the same people? Why, when they obviously got done in the first deal.
As for the rest of it. It was doomed from the start.....Hughes has AGAIN made the wrong decisions and will AGAIN find someone else to blame

Before moving from a 4,000 capacity ground to a 10k one, why not fill the 4k one first?
Corporate/gold membership? Again I'll ask.....how busy is the gold lounge at plough Lane? I'd hazard a guess at pretty empty given the lack of any evidence to the contrary

I sat directly in front of Cliffie for all the time we spent at Ealing, I think he would be a star addition to corporate Lounge. I still recall him getting so irate on the referee one game he spat his false teeth out 1/2 way across the stand.

He is a real character, and I never had a problem sitting next to him

Is he the guy that shouted out “Ref you’re a khazi” at the HKR game and last year engaged Labousier in a conversation where he demanded a refund on his travelling costs to the cancelled Newcastle game. If so, I agree, he’s just what corporate needs.

Yep thats Cliffee ... He got his refund as well. And everybody was a Khazi not just the ref when he really got going. He did come out with some stuff.

And as we was sat right in the corner of the main stand at ealing (next to the away VP's and the radio commentators), it was amusing listening to the commentators having to keep apologising about some of his comments (he never swore, but he was not politically correct).

Interesting to see these, my thoughts:

1/ We had played SL at Ealing before. The club would have had a strong case that it was still fit for purpose and could have worked with Ealing to develop the ground if necessary. However, in the real world, the chance of SL any time soon was remote at best.
2/ Corporate money might be nice to have but the club should have been prioritising its core fan base (like those in the Gold seats) and trying to grow from there rather than alienating them. How much corporate money are we getting now ?
3/ As a tenant, this is all down to the deal you strike and the relationship you build. If a share of revenues was important why did they not negotiate that at Ealing ? How much are the club making from Cherry Red revenues. I can't imagine much.

The club was chasing shadows with this move and has failed on all fronts.