I think people are massively overestimating the amount of adults who are interested in multi-skilled sports that aren't football. We have turned off a massive section of those interested in attending sporting events because Harlequins RL has become synonymous with poor crowds at the Stoop and an uncompetitive team in the Super League.

We are making strides off the field throughout London and the south-east, and quite simply a better roster or a massively over-achieving team would see people who are interested in sport, rather than the sport turn up at the Stoop, as long as they are told that Quins are selling themselves; a hell of alot easier to do when you are winning than when you are not, as Saracens and Harlequins rugby union can attest to.

I believe David Hughes is both sticking with the Stoop at the moment and waiting to twist, and that twist is another investor that will either see us continue at the Stoop and drift or ramp up with a cash injection. The other option on the twist is for that investor to move us away from the Stoop and rebrand.

A comprehensive questionnaire of those interested in the game, with those completing the survey getting free match tickets would be worthwhile.

It is by no means guaranteed that Wakefield are the team to go down to the Championship, I hope for our sake that someone or a group of investors can share some of the burden currently carried by David Hughes.

I tend to agree, I suspect the only reason for us to move or rename is if it is associated with additional investment. Looking at the stats, I don't think that our name or location are a major factor in us attracting crowds. I think having a decent team is a much bigger factor but without investment that isn't going to happen. Also lets not lose sight of the fact that we will need to have a competitive team to retain any key talent we develop.

I wonder sometimes whether things would be different if the franchise system was not in place. The threat of relegation would make things more interesting at least.

People will think i'm crazy to say this but....

One place I think would be great but it will never happen as there would be no chance of building stands either temp or full time would be the HAC
Artillery Ground. Great location plenty of land but no chance of building.

The first time round, we had a team that was winning.

People will come an watch a winning team.

Quote: Starbug "Except it does really doesn't it , its just that the RFL have made a rod for their own back by putting stadium criteria too high on the list of what clubs really need It would be better to have a club filling a dilapidated 8,500 stadium that belonged to them or was able to make a good income for them , than having a club playing in a council or non income stadium with 20,000 seats and 4/5,000 in it and a flat atmosphere Clubs need income first and foremost , fans want atmosphere and options first and foremost The RFL just dont understand what makes a good sustainable club'" I would much rather that a London team played in a stadium of around 10k and aim to fill that, rather than having a 1/4 full 14k stadium, but the Stoop provides good facilities across the board and I would much rather stay there and fill it, however I just can't see us making that quantum leap forward any time soon. I believe the RFL would be willing to accept a sub 10k ground if it were fully researched, a viable and sustainable stadium (a decent length of time on the lease) and modern facilities for all. The Stoop ticks all the boxes on the facilities front and we shouldn't move unless we are forced to or we find somewhere better for a good length of time. news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 398625.stm It is however a moot point as Hughes stated earlier this year "(the Stoop) That's our stadium for the three years,"

Quote: Starbug "Except it does really doesn't it , its just that the RFL have made a rod for their own back by putting stadium criteria too high on the list of what clubs really need It would be better to have a club filling a dilapidated 8,500 stadium that belonged to them or was able to make a good income for them , than having a club playing in a council or non income stadium with 20,000 seats and 4/5,000 in it and a flat atmosphere Clubs need income first and foremost , fans want atmosphere and options first and foremost The RFL just dont understand what makes a good sustainable club'" I would much rather that a London team played in a stadium of around 10k and aim to fill that, rather than having a 1/4 full 14k stadium, but the Stoop provides good facilities across the board and I would much rather stay there and fill it, however I just can't see us making that quantum leap forward any time soon. I believe the RFL would be willing to accept a sub 10k ground if it were fully researched, a viable and sustainable stadium (a decent length of time on the lease) and modern facilities for all. The Stoop ticks all the boxes on the facilities front and we shouldn't move unless we are forced to or we find somewhere better for a good length of time. news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 398625.stm It is however a moot point as Hughes stated earlier this year "(the Stoop) That's our stadium for the three years,"

I think one point that needs to be emphasised here is that the vast majority of Londoners don't actually seem to recognise the fact that London has a Super League side. Our results are never carried on BBC London TV News or London Tonight. When we were London Broncos, people kept mistaking us for an American Football Team. The RFL need to jump in here and put a far larger amount of money in to boost awareness of both Harlequins RL AND London Skolars - boost awareness, combine with more offers such as the Evening Standard, and also the rather excellent suggestion that Martyn Sadler made in RL Express yesterday - RFL help to bring in a worldwide RL star to play for the club and use him in the club's marketing strategy which would be on the tube, buses and main line around London - he suggests a certain Darren Lockyer.

Put the Super League show in there as well.

London Tonight I can understand, they have no interest in promoting a sport that isn't shown on the dippy channel. I've seen BBC London TV do bits on the amateur side of the game and the angle was pretty much 'wow there really is an amateur game, who knew'

It really doesn't take five seconds to say Harlequins lost to Warrington the Super League, especially as they do all the local professional football and rugby union results.

No to Lockyer, nothing against the player, just the idea that someone no-one outside rugby league has heard of will automatically sell out crowds. A St Helens Jamie Lyon style signing would help, armed with five or six quality players would have a few people interested in sport in general going London has got a rugby league team and their not bad. Snowballs from there. Nothing against Darren Lockyer, but he seems pretty set on retiring. I would rather have Petero Civoniceva, Darrell and Josh Griffin, David Solomona and Rangi Chase as total random signings to boost the club and say we have punch, we have Southerners in our squad, we have flair and we have the best creative player in the Super League. We'd be exiting, we'd challenge in every game and for the play-offs and we'd be under the salary cap with several additional players, rather than one marquee player who could get injured in the first minute of play.

BTW those players were chosen totally of the top of my head, I realise that we stand very little chance of attracting those players, unless.....

Mate, I know exactly where you're coming from there!

Lockyer is the greatest player I have ever seen play Rugby League. Even now, about to retire, he is the best player in the world at the moment IMO. He is certain to retire, and good for him.

Then surely the answer is to follow the Crusaders lead

Nah - leave that to HKA

Who do you reckon then? Any chance of gettting Ashton to return to RL ? We'd be more likely to end up with the likes of 'Tango' Henson!!