Of course that's the point.

However, as you made no attempt to discuss what I wrote, which contained no excuses for anybody, I'm not interested in prolonging any discussion with you.

I discussed 50% of your post - you making excuses for McDermott - and asked when the excuses become to much.

With regards to the rest of your post that I overlooked (which I apologise profusely for doing so), then of course not, but the 6 coaches below are all in different situations so it is irrelevent what they are doing - our coach has, hypothetically, missed the playoffs 3 seasons in a row and we would have gone backwards on the pitch since he started.

To be fair, I honestly believe that Mac has done the best ANYONE could have in the circustances at the Club. This is not an excuse by the way. If you think anyone else would have done better at attracting the likes of Orr down here, or getting Purdham to stay, please tell me who they are.

I also, whilst I admit to being slightly concerned about our current run of results, find it odd that we are talking about the coach when the season is just getting to the interesting section.

If we finish 6th, will you still have a go at the coach? If so, why?

A lot of people are forgetting what circumstances were when Brian came.
We were facing relegation with a largely Aussie squad. Now we are starting to complain when we are still in the play-off hunt. Progress, slow, yes, but progress, I think this discussion would be better had at the end of the season.

If you re-read my original post it was IF he fails to make the playoffs. Its something that is worth debating IMO. If we finish 6th then this will be the minimum target hit. If we fail to get into the playoffs I think its worth trying someone new tbh, they can't do any worse than McDermott and we need someone to take the club to the next level.

I don't see any problem with talking about it now - I imagine those running the club will have it in their heads already too. DH laid out the targets and they must be met or action needs to be taken. This is the cut throat world of professional sport, a multi million pound business, not a local community team where everyone thinks the coach is a decent bloke.

Its just an interesting, harmless discussion.

In his opinion, the targets that need to be met........and I wish to God someone else would take over this target setting agenda.

Sorry, but I would rather miss the play-offs 3 years running and see 6,000 averages at the stoop. And before anyone says "we won't get people back if we're losing"......we hit the play-offs twice and nothing happened to our crowds then......
6,000 fans adds 30k a game to our income.....£390k pays for a couple of decent game breakers....we improve results.
3,000 fans means we tread water for another 10 years in mid-table mediocrity.
It really isn't brain surgery, but so long as DH controls where money is spent (ie not on marketing or publicity) then we will continue to get terrible crowds and consider scrabblig for a play-off place a good season

In theory if we are spending to the full Salary Cap shouldnt we expect to have players of equal quality to Saints Leeds etc.? After all that is what it is supposed to achieve(over time anyway).
Im not sure if we are operating at the full SC or not. Does anyone know?

It doesnt matter what your crowds are as long as you are spending to the full SC. A nice sugar daddy like they have at Hudds means they can do that and give away free/low cost Season tickets etc. and not worry about the cost as the SC is no longer geared to a percentage of income.

Can't believe you don't think success and crowds go hand in hand. Very naive IMO. Of course it does. People won't come back if the team is underperforming. Previous years are a completely different scenario as to what we are in now.

Stat attack3% less the following season. Great result!
2005. Made the paly-offs and had an average of 3,918 that season. Then we moved, changed our name and attracted some curious Union lot and managed to add a whole 8% to the gates. Due to the move and name change, I believe that the 2003/2004 figures are the more reliable ones. If you question this, I suggest you look at the average gates for every team to visit London since 2000 and compare to the gates in that first Harlequins Rugby League Season...EVERY ONE OF THE GATES THAT YEAR IS HIGHER THAN THE AVERAGE OVER THE 10 YEAR PERIOD!

So....what do these stats tell us? Is this the ultimate chicken and egg scenario in that do we need to win to increase crowds or increase crowds to win?


Our (mean) average over the last 10 years is:
Position 7.8th
Crowds 3,611.3

I would suggest that, given we have hit the dizzy heights of 5th and 6th and yet found ourselves in DIRE debt and now have 1 less (average) fan than in the year 2000 that my route is the one to try this time.

Still Listy...we are all entitled to our opinions and even though mine are partly based on facts and stats, I will admit they are manipulated facts and stats.........but still, they aren't "if's, buts and maybe's"

Good for you GF. You are entitled your opinion and using stats from what was effectively a completely different era to try and argue you point.

Have a look what happened to Leeds' attendances when they turned cr*p for a year or 2. And see where they are at now and have been since they have been Champions.

I took his "I don't know" comment to be an example of a typical Brian Mac press conference - along the lines of the one that he did after the Catalans game at Millennium Magic last year. I think on the whole he has attracted better players to the club, and I still feel he is the right person for the job.

If you don't agree, then that's your perogotive, as it is mine to disagree with you.

And thats fine. I don't know why people are getting so defensive about this. I only asked what peoples opinions are and when they hear my opinion i'm accused of ranting but they are allowed theres.

In your opinion, what would it take for you want BM to be removed/resign?

Different era eh.....so the last 10 years is to far for me to look back. OK.

Hang on.....what's this post below? Could this refer to a time long ago?



Mate.....face facts. With 3k crowds and a meglomaniac with his hands all over the purse strings, we will remain a mid table team.
With 6k crowds, we will be more attractive to outside investors/sponsors and more importantly, DECENT QUALITY PLAYERS!

Considering the club had a different name, played in a different stadium and was ran by different people, then I would suggest that is a different era.



Aha. You picked up on that then. Well done, you realise the point I am trying to make.



I agree we need outside investors to attract decent quality players for sure. I think you are being very harsh on DH though - he doesn't have to invest his hard earned at all in us, as far as I'm concerned as long as he keeps us going then its up to him how he wants to run his business. Without him where would we be? You lambasted me for not being able to suggest a new coach - please tell me who is there lined up to basicailly bank roll the club so we can offload Hughes?

Crowds will not come to watch a losing team though, especially a team playing the dire brand of rugby that we are playing that many on here have eluded too - avoiding mistakes and looking flat in attack and just waiting for the other team to slip up.

...Superleague Era......regardless of what we have been called, the SL era is what we are now (rightly or wrongly) judged on



...whatever. You said one thing wasn't relevant.....then you yourself referred to pretty much the same period on history. TBH, can't be bothered splitting hairs.


....who would be interested with crowds of 3k? Not me while the club don't move forwards (see above 10 year review post) off the pitch.




Crowds WILL come to watch a new sport though. Let's face it, we have pretty much all the RL fans that were already RL fans when they came to London and the target audience is NEW FANS.....

As I have said, chicken or the egg. I may not be right in my assumptions, but I tell you what, after 10 years of NOTHING, it must be worth a try.