The name's irrelevant. Ive taken loads of new people to games over the years and nobody's ever said to me 'what a strange name! or 'what a stupid name!'. It's fine, and was fine when we've drawn 8k crowds and 5k crowds etc.

Our poor crowds are due to our poor team and lack of stability.

If anything the kids love the name Broncos and the mascots that come with it, and Aussie players are drawn to a club called London.

Do you really think the crowds would have been better if we were called 'Twickenham Tigers' or 'Brentford Buffalos'. They definitely wouldn't.

It makes absolutely no difference.

So every example that disproves your theory from all over the UK and the world in various sports doesn't count because it's 'different'.

Get a grip.

With you on that one.

Not what I said.
But don't let that stop you from uttering one dismissive line, followed by a brusque rebuff. Why would we want nuanced discussion, when we can all just use a megaphone?

Like a lot of other posters, I think the above poll is a wee bit simplistic. There are many reasons why Broncos have failed. Some are club-specific, and some are more generic, where London has been particularly hard-hit by issues which the whole sport faces.

However, ultimately I think it does come down to a failure to successfully market the club. The crowds haven't really been significantly affected by success or failure either way. Instead, we've seen a pretty long-term declining trend in crowds since the very early days of Super League. Neither teams, coaches, Wembley trips or league positions have significantly altered that overall trend.

London faces issues which northern clubs don't : travel times to get to the club; the transient nature, or churn, of London's population; the vast array of alternative draws for the punters' pounds which, with all due respect to St Helens' nightlife, is in a different league from the M62 clubs. That's before you get to very real issues like a lack of RL infrastructure and junior clubs, the additional cost of living, the absence of a generational family commitment to RL which is sustaining northern clubs in the face of no sponsorship and declining media interest/exposure, and of course northern jessie players not wanting to move far from mum's Yorkshire puddings.

However, these haven't proved insurmountable problems for various rugby union clubs, including the landlords. Yes, they have advantages league will never have in terms of friendly and disproportionate media coverage, big central funding and an affluent supporter base. But there's no denying that several RU clubs have turned crowds of less than the current Broncos average into regular gates of the sort which Broncos can only dream of. There's been almost no penetration of the local market, and a declining ability to attract and retain expat northerners and antipodeans to the Stoop.

Of course, some might argue that a winning team would attract more fans. But the long-term crowd trend doesn't support that argument too strongly. I'd also argue that there's a bit of chicken and egg there. We know that big, loud and passionate crowds help motivate players to better performances. London's players have been playing in what must feel like an empty park for a decade. There's your vicious circle right there.

So, without wanting to give Gutterfax any further reason to shout "I told you so" all over the boards, I'd have to agree with his central thesis, which is that the club has pretty much consistently, since Branson, relied on the concept of "If you build it, they will come". And that's just not proved to be true. The lesson from the Broncos is that you need very effective, successful marketeers to deliver a successful, effective club. And you'll need to both pay them well, and provide them with a big budget to work with. If you don't do that, then no amount of money on the pitch will sustain you.

Although GF will no doubt go on about it at length, I think many posters on here are in agreement that the Kevin Costner marketing plan had been an abject failure!

pretty much says all really.

The main problem is the management of the club is diabolical.

I was trying to avoid the concept of a "main problem" as I think that is too simplistic, but that's definitely one of the biggies.

Totally agree - its more about total mismanagement, and then poor performances on the pitch. i think it was always going to be a sruggle, but a team that keeps losing doent help.....................

I'll repeat myself again. None of the posters on here criticising the name have suggested it's the main problem, or even a big problem. But someone posted that they didn't think the name helped, and some of us were happy to discuss. It is a forum after all.

Sydney Roosters
Melbourne Storm
North Queensland Cowboys (how's that for a massive area with no specific identity)
L.A. Galaxy (15 million people!!)

all clubs doing pretty well despite a non-specific area name.