Agree that big gates should be a target. But as someone who has lived in London, I think they need to be settled in a particular area. Living in West London, most people I knew actually couldn't be bothered going into the centre very often (except for work), preferring to drink and socialise locally at weekends rather than the West End ("for the tourists"icon_wink.gif, and there were a lot of people who would go to Brentford and QPR every week as it was easy to walk or hop on the bus a few stops.

When London Broncos were at The Valley (for just one season) they pulled in massive crowds - maybe South East London would be a good bet as there are fewer football teams to compete with.

Another argument in favour of a high-profile London club is the national newspapers might actually bother to cover the game a bit.

(I'm aware there is a reasonably competitive London club but nowadays they play to piddling crowds at a glorified leisure centre)

Interesting......

Looked it up and The Valley provided a 5,400 average crowd. Wigan 10,000 was the best and Halifax 3,200 the worst. Last year in Superleague 2,000 average, 1100 worst crowd.v.Salford, best v.Leeds 3000.

So the question would be would the the extra costs of operating at the valley be more than the extra revenue from an average 3,400 fans? I suggest they may be??

The other point may be that if the owner is happy settled at Ealing, and if the reserves and Academy and development foundation is working well out of Ealing then they really do need to stay there. That we have a formal RL player development system going on in London and a settled professional club is important, I would not like to see them move for the umpteenth time. In the end fans are not as important as a stable cost effective home, the development of southern players and the presence of top class RL in the capital...

Or are they?

I don't remember what made them move from The Valley.

But besides Chelsea, Fulham, QPR and Brentford, West London is also catchment area for Twickenham, Harlequins, London Irish (though they play out at Reading now), Richmond RFC. There is definitely a lot more competition around Ealing and most people I know can only afford the time and money to follow one sports team properly.

Funnily enough, I am usually a supporter of the BBC, but I have noticed that now the RU Premiership has restarted RL doesn't even get a mention. In fact this morning on R4, they didn't even bother saying 'and in rugby union....', they simply said ' In the Premiership Exeter won...blah blah blah....'

It seems we ra back to being those ' idiots up north'.

The Guardian coverage is also poor, usually just an afterthought. Notice the banner on the web site sports page - rugby league way over on the right whereas rugby union is placed with football and cricket. Clearly forgotten its Manchester Guardian heritage.

The Independent's coverage was always very good, but with Dave Hadfield unfortunately long term sick, the game doesn't seem to be pushed as much as it once was.

So, basically, the anti-establishment broadsheets can't be bothered with league anymore, and we will never get a fair go in The Telegraph because of what the paper is.

Very few newspapers are sold nowadays.
With the only apparent ambition for the sport of rugby league being the ability to repeat own goals,this may be a good thing.
I think having a club in London is a very good thing - as is having the 2 we do have.
However,the oft called requirement for adding press and tv coverage is a red herring.

Until,or If ever Elstone,Ian Lenagan,McManus et al can give rules,regulations,criteria for Super League clubs, then the sport should refrain from compartmentalising the sport.

It may sort itself out in another 125 years...

I don't think you can make a statement like that without justifying it.

Increased TV coverage raises the profile of the sport, which in turn encourages people to attend, buy replica shirts and merchandise, which brings in further sponsorship and investment.

I would like to see a study that somehow refutes this.

Yes exactly, look at the media cut through success Toronto had before the current calamity.

Obviously not tv but media nonetheless.

For those who want the truth here, it was TWP themselves who pumped out vast amounts of "aren't we great" stuff across social media and then made their own count of the number of "eyeballs" that supposedly read that rubbish. I think they boasted there were 80,000 people somehow following them. None of it at all verified and even if people did read it it didn't generate a cent of income.

They put out this particularly over contrived nonsense when they were under pressure to justify themselves, as they hadn't found a single cent of TV money or developed a single Canadian player. Moving into Superleague they appeared at Headingley for the opening double header and in terms of real eyeballs I saw a small group of half a dozen fans wearing TWP gear and shouting for their team.

That was it, so on real "I was there" evidence there was no [i"media cut through"[/i. Only 12 eyeballs.....So you've had your reaction you craved, no need to reply

CCcoooooooommmmmee Onnnnnn UUUUUU Buuuuuls!

My point is that despite having 2 clubs in London the press and media coverage has NOT improved.

The sales of the printed word is very much down.

MORE exposure for the sport is what we all want.

Agreed. BIG games are what are needed. Sadly it must also be more violent, and fast. the '6 again' is great. NO scrums is brilliant. As a quick and fit, old fashioned hooker, I think they are a complete and utter wasts of time. That said, the 'central scrums in RL look good. Thread started.

Out of interest, do any Bradford fans actually call their side 'the Bulls', or are they still Northern?

Just asking, because I've never heard any Warrington fan call the side 'the Wolves' and it's still Wire to everybody in the town.

We move with the times......

Honest.

We have a difference in opinion, which is what forums are for, and as for you and ''truth'' that couldn't be further from reality.

As for me craving reactions, why don't you compare the number and length of your posts to mine to realize the stark reality.

With Toronto, I have no idea why you get so worked up over them, leading you to deride them for the last 5 years.

Maybe they weren't all drinkers and came to watch the game instead of those 6 who were quite happy to stay in the bar all the game trading insults with you

no need to reply.

The "Bulls" went to town in the late 90's and early 2000's with their massive Bullmania campaign allegedly stolen from Keighley Cougars. They rode to the top of the tree on that and I suppose if you look at their last years in the old Rugby League their fanbase was about 6,000, Ten years later it was 13,500 so even at that time the majority of their fans only knew them as "Bulls"......

But some Bulls fans may have deeper insight for you? Me? I have to go now got a couple of Trolls on my tail.....

Though I suppose you could say they actually rode to the top of the tree through fraudulent mismanagement, breaking rules and simply spending money they never had and were never capable of paying back, rather than any clever marketing ploy?

You can't just dismiss the marketing effort to attract generations of families and children and to get 15k in that hole every other week. Whatever the wrongs of the Bradford operating model, making light of their success in getting people through the turnstiles is just daft.

I've no doubts about their marketing efforts - If there was one club who truly embraced the brave new world of SL, then it was definitely Bradford and on the marketing aspect, they were the leading light to follow.

I was though questioning the idea that it was purely marketing and getting increased crowds, that got them their success, when, in reality, it was more stretching and breaking of the rules which had more of an influence?

If Bradford or Fev are the answer the game is finished.

So who would you suggest and why ?

Fev (at least) were the club beaten by Toronto, which, due to the lack of RL since that game, puts them in poll position.
Personally, I'd like to see Toulouse take the spot but, despite being challengers and having had a decent start to the season, their would be very loud shouts of "FAVOURITISM" (or worse), if they got the nod.
Of the rest, you then look at Leigh, Widnes or London.
York, Bradford and Newcastle havent been in contention and to suddenly elevate any of these (or Bradford) would just be taking the Mickey although, in time, any of them could be proper contenders.

Has to be Leigh or Widnes if we are going down the traditional route.. The league needs another Yorkshire club without a pot to p!$s in, like it needs a hole in the head.

Personally, I'd sooner give a London or Newcastle a real prolonged go of things (proper 5-10 year licence) than simply kick the can down the road with a club which would only bring more mediocrity to the league, like Featherstone.

It has to be Tolouse, London has been tried, and failed, Newcastle is a non starter, they can't even get a decent crowd at Gateshead. I'd rather see Keighley than Bradford. Widnes and Leigh are both non starters. In reality, we should merge FC and KR, Leeds and Huddersfield, Saints and Wigan, Warrington and Salford. But that is a business head, not a club pride and history idea.