Absolutely true, and yet junior teams are left to fend for themselves, with their success often coming despite the dozy old duffers who administer the junior game rather than because of them; furthermore, professional teams are largely uninterested until U14's, when they suddenly appear looking for potential scholars to hoover up.

Add to this that coaches in the junior game are pretty much a law unto themselves and spectators are allowed to behave like football hooligans, and you're left with an unhealthy situation at the bottom tier of the game that sees many talented young athletes lost to football, RU or worst of all, cider and park benches.

If this is a long term plan to increase the player pool and improve the long-term health of the sport, then the junior game really needs some TLC.

Spot on!



I'd also add that whilst the junior game is (in my opinion) at best average but generally poor at developing players it's even worse at developing interest in RL. It's not entirely the junior game's fault because they rarely get enough/any support from pro/semi-pro clubs but they're still pretty bloody useless in my opinion.
It's one of the biggest factors that holds the game back.

In fairness, junior clubs are usually reliant on the goodwill and efforts of a small percentage of the parents of their players; you can get lucky and unearth a few diamonds, or you can find yourself relying on angry Dads who just want to win and well-meaning Mums without a clue.

Given all of that, it's a bit much to expect the vast majority of junior clubs to be able to do any marketing or PR work on top of the fundraising, coaching, admin, catering, social events, transport, kit supply and god knows what else they have to do on a voluntary basis.

What a pleasant well thought out post. Have to agree.

London, as as we have been, spent to the full cap in 2013.....it would mean having no or at least an equal cap in the Championship.....meaning more clubs reliant on benefactors.


London played Fev and Sheffield in 2013.....1,217 watched the Fev game, 2,459 watched the game in Sheffield........games that aren't included in the season ticket generally struggle for crowds.

Really?

Answer me this, out of the 4 teams mentioned above, 1 of the teams OWNS there own stadium, has the highest commercial revenue and largest average attendances.

And according to you we will never be self sustaining? We've ALWAYS had to rely on fans and not an owner. Do some research before you write absolute rubbish.

The domestic comp must support the international objectives
Increase player pool
Expand game
Create an intense elite

Two full time tens must be the way, HKR Widnes hull Warrington Salford London did not kick off the career of any of Saturdays 17, yet Leigh did
We need that second tier to expand the pool and allow the inclusion of Toulouse and a second French club soon after

But we have included Toulouse before and it failed.

Why should we include them a second time round?

Wouldn't the game be better investing money in the French league?

Is there any chance the government will invest more money into rugby league after the World Cup?

Didn't they take away a huge chunk of money?

It's all pointless anyway in terms of self sufficiency.....

Broncos posted debts of just over 13 million last week for their accounts up to 2012. Conservative estimates put Hughes ploughing in another 3 million in 2013...so basically, 16 million in "loans" in 8 years....that's 2 million a year.

3,414 is the average attendance over these 8 years and 105 home games.......if the average ticket is 15 (allowing for corporates/ST's/Kids/concessions etc) then 665k a year in ticket revenue is what the Broncos have averaged over 8 years. Sky deliver 1.3 million a year....

So
SKY, Tickets and Loans alone have delivered 4 million a year to London (excluding sponsors/shop and other bits)

London need to replace the 2 million loan with income.....if it was all through tickets, they'd need to increase their average to 13,670, but in reality, once they get to 10k then sponsorship and residual sales would makeup the difference.

So, which of Leigh, Fax, Fev, Sheffield or anyone else is going to either hit 10k averages or has a sugar daddy willing to plough in 10 million over a number of years on the off chance they might get there?

Replacing London with another team is not the answer...........financing London centrally for the benefit of the game is.

One change they should bring in that would be easy to market, a double header of the Challenge Cup Semi Finals, tickets ten and fifteen quid, less for concessions, at the Manchester of City Stadium.

I certainly believe we must protect London not replace them but Leigh do not need those gates to operate a successful club from the LSV with the world class facilities on hand already

So you seriously think that the RFL can afford to put in the 2 million a year instead of Hughes and that's just to remain as they are. To move forward it would have to be considerably more than that. Hey, here's an idea. We are repeatedly told that the Sky money belongs to SLE's member clubs. Well, maybe those member clubs could all agree to give London a bigger share than the rest of them, say 3 or 4 million, after all it is THEIR money.

Yeah, right, I can really see that happening.

Which other money do you think the RFL have?

Sport England money is solely for the provision of youth and amateur RL.

International money comes from SL Players playing international competition.

Where do you think this none-SL money they could spend on London is coming from?

If the RFL give any club money, chances are its SL money. There isn’t any other money coming in.

How about London get their act together, build a fan base and get some corporate support, you know like all other clubs are expected to do. The day sky come out and say a London club in SL is essential for a bigger TV contract is the day we should consider centrally funding London more than other clubs.

How about Hull KR do the same and stop whining that they are losing money and not breaking through the 'glass ceiling'? How about instead of moaning about how many support staff Wigan have Hull KR employ some themselves instead of a multitude of overseas players?

Our game in its entirety is set up to protect small failing clubs in the north. When all clubs are forced to face the inherent disadvantages London are, and they are successful, then they are in a position to dismiss them.

Sorry?

Read my post again. I'm not suggesting they fund London. I quite specifically stated that they can't afford to. IIRC, the RFL get the same each year from SL as ONE of it's member clubs.

I repeat, if the SLE member clubs believe that it is essential to have a club in London then surely it is in their interest to help fund it.

Yes, I understand that.

What I am saying is that if the RFL fund it, SL will be funding it. All the money the RFL could use to fund it comes from SL directly or indirectly.

You mean like improving the stadium, increasing corporate support, bringing in a new membership model to build crowds and making the playoffs most seasons? If London had achieved half as much in their time in SL they might not now be in administration and facing relegation or closure.

But the share of the Sky money which goes to the RFL is to fund the administration of the game, pay referees etc. It is not there to be given straight back to the SL members.

If London were just another club relying on overseas players to get them mid-table with sub 10k crowds we would have no need for them.

Whatever money it is it comes from SL. If the best thing to spend that money on is London, it should be spent on London, if the best thing to spend it on is something else, we should spend it on something else.

No, it comes from Sky. If the SL clubs wish to keep the whole lot without the RFL taking a share (which is what Lenegan and his cabal are wanting) I personally would let them. They can then sink or swim on their own decisions and have no further involvement with the RFL. This being the case, do you seriously believe that they would vote to financially prop up good old London year after year. I think not. They would drop them like a hot stone and split their Sky money between them and then wait for the next club to go bust and so on until Sky decided they no longer wanted to sponsor a rapidly shrinking SL.

Sky pay SL for a product. That money only comes from Sky in the same way Sainsburys money comes from me.

But if you found that Sainsburys started to give less value for money you would put your money into another supermarket instead.