In an interview that Sky's Vic Wakeling gave to the authors of a history of SL, he said that a London club was the condition of the initial Sky contract, not summer rugby or a French club, for whom they wouldn't have the TV contract, but it wasn't now (when the interview was given).

Thank you.

Given that there is no longer any stipulation from Sky, and that DH has said that his support will end after next season, it has to be said that things don't look great for the London franchise; it's a shame really, because a proper marketing strategy and some decent on-field results could have sparked a real success story.

I wonder if Richard Branson can be romanced into giving it a another go?

Londons average is 2,883.....what was the average for Fax in their last SL season......? 116 more per game with a fair few local derbies in there.... Don't get me wrong, I am London's biggest critic when it comes to their crowds, but fax had their chance and cheated/blew it.

So basically saying the worst team ever to grace SL in a single season still managed bigger average crowds than a London team that has been given chance after chance year after year to grow its crowds with a bigger catchment area? Not much of an argument really, lets face it if franchising would have been in place then we would still be in SL now.

My point is that they don't own it. They don't have a huge asset. Wigan and Hull make up for that with big crowds and decent teams. London offer nothing at the moment. It is a real shame.

They had one chance and that was that eh? How wonderful the rugby league family really is.

I believe that Halifax are averaging 2,236 fans at home this year in the Championship.....Hunslet, 16 miles away, Keighly, 12 miles away, Leigh, 37 miles away, Dewsbury, 12 miles away, Featherstone, 13 miles away, Swinton, 33 miles and Sheffield 50 miles. Fax have just won a trophy and are sitting 2nd in their division.

I believe the London Broncos have managed 4 wins all year, are sitting at the bottom of the table and average 2,883 at games....our visiting supporters come from about 200 miles away...not from around the corner and on average, we are shipping 34 points a game.....

You claim Fax 2003 were the worst team in the history of the comp....and that would explain the average gate that year of about 2,900.....but in the same sentence, you bemoan London, who have won 3 more games for having a similar average crowd.

Again..in 2003, your 4 biggest crowds were from Leeds, Bradford, Huddersfield and Castleford...a bus ride away......but you compare them to London, 200 miles + away?

Given chances year after year? Hmm......I believe that we never finished in a relegation position over 16 years in SL and have never been caught cheating either. When the club went into administration, we broke no RFL rules as there were none and we were readmitted to SL by a democratic vote of the other SL chairmen. We have never received any assistance...and certainly nothing along the lines being dished out to the Bulls at present.

As for the bigger catchment area.....WTF?
Twickenham is a town that is 10 miles outside London with a population of about 20,000...Halifax has a population of 80,000.

I agree 100% that the Broncos crowds are a disgrace and most of my 14k posts on here have undelined this, but sweeping statements about "what teams would attract in SL" are nothing more than argumentative.....they are not backed up with facts at all. Halifax has a long and illustrious pedigree in the sport, but for some reason, the "fans" can't be bothered attending games in a stadium situated pretty much in the middle of town....but rather than look at the issues nearer home as to why only 2,300 bother going to games, it's easier to point the finger at London and their failings.

Leigh averaged 4750 in SL in 2005 and were DIRE. Not saying we should get in SL in front of Fax or Fev, but the SL average as a whole would go up with any of the 3 in SL instead of London, or even Salford.

1. Yep...best way to attract attention as a potential national sport......bring in more teams from next door and do away with the one that's far away.
2. London are debt free.....Can I suggest that if you're thinking of binning clubs, look a little closer to home first.
3. Using your warped logic, I bet the premiership clubs were relieved that West Ham went up last season instead of Peterborough United.
4. Fax and Leigh were in SL, they got relegated......London didn't, which is why London are still in SL and Fax and Leigh aren't.....for now anyway.


The income derived by a club for attendances is solely the responsibility of that club....away fans, which is why the 3 clubs you mention would increase the oveall average, are a bonus. Hull FC and Wigan have actually been known to have INCREASED attendances for the visit of London/Catalans over the last few years by using these games as an opportunity to attract new fans at special rates....IIRC, Wigan sold an entire stand to Heinz a couple of years back for the London game......the same Heinz that are now on SL shirts.

Potential national sport, we are a million miles away from that. London are offering nothing to the game at the moment, unless Sky would reduce the money should they go. Do we have any evidence that this is the case?

Rugby League sits pretty well on the TV ratings table....the predominance of teams along the M62 does it no favours though.


Please expand....by nothing do you mean no development of the game, no increase in the number of schools playing the sport.....no award winning community work?


Since SL started, London have never finished in a relegation position and have never given cause to be refused a licence, therefore, they are where they deserve to be....for now.

As for the SKY money, London receive the same amount as the other teams, yet are faced with far greater running costs, living costs for the players reduces the appeal of playing in London and then there's the battle over young players with the cash rich other lot.

Londons home support or lack of it is nobody's business but theirs...their supposed lack of away support accounts for less than 1% of the turn over of the other 13 clubs......it's a myth.

If you want to discuss the financial burden of a London club in SL..........I suggest you go and post on the Bulls forum, because they are currently and looking increasingly likely to continue to be a massive financial drain on the game.....

...london are debt free, they cost the other clubs nothing to run and are developing the game in the south east.

Ah that old chestnut, the problem is that London are not called Twickenham are they?

in all fairness in hunslet keighley & fev they've only just got horseless carriages and the man with the red flag walking in front wouldn't be alowed on the M62

London is huge. For any Londoner not living in the Richmond/Twickenham area, getting down to the Stoop (in terms of travel time) is like an away game.

Simply making out that they should attract huge crowds as they're located in a huge city is quite ignorant.

There could be an argument made for them to relocate to another area (which I think they're looking into?), somewhere more densely populated and not in an area of RU fans.

Daft argument.
Do you think that Celtic Crusaders had a catchment area of 18.5m people? Or do you think in reality it was predominantly Bridgend.

There was some other minor sporting event taking place in London last Saturday I believe.

Sounds like a SL club in London is unsustainable then.

I think the point about the cost of living is a good one. Coming down here on the same salary and then seeing that the rent of property is is so much more must make players think twice about going to London

Also players have to up sticks and move their families to play in London, most of the northern clubs they can, and do, stay put.

That's not what I said at all. Dimwit.

Sounds like a SL club in Twickenham is not sustainable. Is that better?

Just out of interest how many different areas of London has this team played from? To be fair then I do wonder why they are called London if the reality is that they are just a bus stop in Twickenham.

There are a few factors I think. A Superleague club in the capital is definately sustainable.

Personally, I don't think their location helps. Decent stadium, but situated that far out of central London, in an RU area with poor (for London) transport links doesn't help. A more central location in a more densely populated area would be my choice, somewhere like Loftus Road or Brisbane Road.

As Gutterfax has told us for years, their marketing is poor.


The only black mark against their name is the poor attendances. The work at grassroots/amateur level in the capital is vital, as is RL having a Superleague presence there. No debts, no additional SL money going their way, decent stadium, decentish youth setup - it's just their attendances really isn't it? Obviously they've been poor on the pitch, but the investment in players is there, they've just fallen short on the coaching side.

Not daft at all.

It is constantly being sold to us as "must have a club in London" but when it suits the argument it's not in a big city called London, it's in a small town called Twickenham.

You can't have it both ways.

It is daft, and you know it. The need for a southern club in the London market is obvious.
To suggest that simply because it has London in the name then the entirety of a huge area like London should be classed as its catchment area is just stupid.
As I said, was Celtic Crusaders catchment area one of 18.5m people? Or was it in Bridgend?

No. Actually we all have cars up here and can achieve substantial speeds in them unlike Greater London which is one gigantic traffic jam and the best argument for not having a car.