I didn't know quins paid each club 1.2m each year. I thought it was sky.

Super League - made up of members who are the best of the best of the best.

Apart from Harlequins - who are loss leaders.
It's sport Jim - but not as we know it.

Of course they would , for the ' good of the game '

I think that's true if you're a fan of the club, not so true if you're a transplanted fan of another club, who's also a fan of the game, but has family/competing interests demanding you don't take 6 hours out of every other weekend to watch a game of RL, especially one involving the sort of commute that you're sick of doing five days a week anyway...

Perhaps that's why Quins/Broncos have had such limited success in attracting the literally hundreds of thousands of expat Northerners and Aussies in London to their club.

Having said that: I'm not sure they need to be attracting huge crowds to be considered a success.

Was it the bit where I said:
"and the 1.2 million each club get from SKY?"..that confused you

never mind 9, number 10 is going to be one paradigm shattering gem!

So what the hell has the 1.2m got to do with Quins?

As we're repeating old lines:

The quins need to stay exactly where they are. The problem with them is that through all the moving from brentford to charlton to the stoop they will lose fans as people do not want to travel. They stay at the stoop, at least they have a core of fans coming to watch, which will grow. They are a young club, RL is making HUGE ground in London in the schools, which is a huge bonus and they will benefit in the LONG RUN!

They are not going to attact 10k overnight!

It's like those small toys you get in cerial packets. The weetabix is the £1.2m. Harlequins are the free toy. It's a small harmless thing to put up with for a great bowl of wheat.

What a pile of crap!!!!!!!

It is often rumoured that part of the deal with SKY funding the game is that there has to be a London based team.

Not saying it's true, but the speed in which we were permitted to keep our points and position in the table by the other SL Chairmen in 2005 would point to there being a real benefit to having a london based team. Apparently the SL Chairmen were told by Lewis that if we were to be ejected from SL it would impact on the amount of cash they receive.....

Or the ' damp patch ' after a sh.g

Biggest load of rubbish I've heard.

So that would make Quins the most important team in super league.

So super leagues life span all depends on Quins. If they was to go bust then that would be the end of every club in the land.











What would we all do without Quins

Local derby, on SKY, in February against a set of fan that don't travel that well.



Quote our Crowd for Hull KR at home in 2 week on sunday. It will be 9,000 ish I'd have thought. HTH

It'd better be with 8,000 rovers in attendance

that doesnt really affect a drop in averages does it.

Been around the London area for about the past three years and watched Quins in that time, getting a season ticket both this year and last (though I was initally not going to renew this year after the pain of last season- a factor that I think may have had an impact on today's crowd).

As an ex-pat Northerner, I love Rugby League and I love having a team I can watch (nearly) on my door step. I've met other ex-pat northerners and curious RU fans (who suprisingly don't all wear top hats and quaff Champagne- and often either have a high level of respect for League or simply apathy/disinterest). I don't know why more people turn up- it's an endless debate that has no easy answer. The only tangible way crowds would increase was if the club had a major backer (like they did with Virgin) who could pay for a top flight team and proper marketing.

With the rise and rise of Union since it went professional, and the media presence of both their National game and the Guiness Premiership, I don't think that's going to happen. If the RFL put money into marketing the club to the South you might see results- but then again, I'm sure that won't make them very popular with the type of people who post on here.

To all those complaining- the current chairman will only keep us afloat for the next three/four years (from the current lot of liscences to the next one), so its ultimately do or die for the club over the next three years. We actually have a core home fanbase of around 1500-2000, which, let's face it, isn't that much lower than a team like Salford (who will obviously attract more away fans). If the team fail to achieve anything and still attract crowds around the 3000 av. level, it's doubtful that we would find new backers and the club would probably fold to the delight of the flatcappers. The sport would go back to being an M62 curiousity that once attempted to be viewed as a national game, but gave up the ghost.

For us, it potentially does....


We play Leeds not on sky, we get 11,000 +.

We play Leeds on sky, its been around the 8,000 mark the last 2/3 years.

So it contributes yes. Just one example though.

Add into that Catalans played on a Tuesday

First two home games on Sky - Warrington and KR - both teams travel well.

Bradford played at 11:30am.

Bradford on the Same day as England V's Germany World Cup knock out, the previous year, we got 9000 for, down to 6000 ish right?

knew i wasnt talking utter tripe, for a change

Castleford have had 4 attendances over 11k this millennium. And not one since prior to their 2nd relegation. and since then only one over 10k, which was against Wakefield and not Leeds. This is indicative of the attendances as a whole falling (as are the averages) rather than an unfortunate coincidence with Sky and Leeds.

Leeds - 2006 - 11,016. Incidentally, the last time it WASNT played on TV.