Good point.

When the idea of a pro rugby league team in London was first muted who thought it would ever get off the ground never mind still be here 30 plus years later.
read my post gutters, I never said it would get us an investor, I merely suggested it is the sort of article that could get the interest of someone, if that is being a fantasist then I am a fantasist
We were in existence before Mr Hughes and will be after Mr Hughes.
As for your comment that if someone buys out Mr Hughes that nothing will change, how on earth can you say that? Things change and evolve constantly sometimes for the good other times for the bad, all I can say is glad I don't drink with you coz the depressing glass half empty attitude you have would drag anyone down

Blake Solly's comment is interesting. It would seem that the RFL see a successful London team as an asset but are not going to help this happen to protect the sport's integrity. All you need to do, Mr Solly, is to convince someone with sufficient capital (no pun intended) of the benefits of making London a success. You know, like your mate Nige did with Dr K and Salford

Grammar was down to typing on an I phone whilst walking.......as for disagreeing with me and being flamed, the poster concerned implied a new investor from the states could be attracted by the article......I simply highlighted the unlikelyness of that happening.
I said it was a good article.......it is, but the no fans because nobody knew bit is very relevant to the clubs current state........which is financially terrible

Gutters, so come on font of all knowledge, where is the new investor going to come from? I merely suggested that it is the sort of article that could easily peek someone's interest, I didn't say it would in this case.
Good to know that bad grammar in your case is acceptable because you were walking.

Ah, so you're allowed grammatical errors, it's just the rest of us who aren't. While we're on the subject of grammar I noted the word "unlikelyness" in your latest post. An interesting portmanteau, but I think you may mean "unlikelihood". Or were you walking again?

The last time I made a typo you asked me if English was my first language. You're very quick to dish it out to people, but equally quick to excuse yourself. Has it ever occurred to you that if you stop jumping on other people when they make a typo, you might receive more understanding when you err yourself?


It's not so much the message as the way you choose to deliver it. Had you responded along the lines of:
"It's a well written article but unfortunately I doubt it will encourage anyone in the US to invest", most people would have thought it a fair point.
But instead you have to call the poster "a fantasist" and then deliver the usual collection of numbers which for all we know are made up, because to be honest most of us don't have the time to check them.
There's no need for the way you address other people.

Firstly I'm not sure a few hundred words in one of The USA leading daily newspaper is likely to bring forward an american investor. However, I'm from the school of all publicity is good publicity. The game in the US is growing and now that the league's have unified in the US I expect huge leaps in the game over the pond in the next 10-20 years.

However your cheap sneering remark about american's having no knowledge of "soccer" is simply misguided. I suggest next time you apply fact to your sneering fiction. And we all know that the past years under Hughes ownership haven't been the best. But until someone takes the Bronco's off his hands we are stuck with his ownership. Support the team or don't, I really don't care but please stop your petty whinging for all our sakes. I really wonder why you bother hoping on here sometimes.

Just in case. Drone

Wrong. I questioned if English was your mother tongue because you were having trouble comprehending the reality that the club was buggered.....I rarely pull people up on grammar as it is a pointless exercise that smacks of having little if anything to add.
As for how I deliver my message? My "manner" is the least of the problems faced by the club moving forward and as for my statistics, they are not made up......just because they aren't pretty it would make some posters feel more "comfortable" but the reality of the losses incurred under Hughes is frightening.

Really? Tell me how well Soccer stacks up against the other mainstream sports in the USA in regards to the financials? Soccer is a growth sport, but in reality, it is a minority sport that relies on ex-pat interest for its TV audience.....the concept of RL making any inroads into the psyche of the US sporting market is laughable and the stuff of dreamers. Union is a minor-minor minority sport in the US that relies on college alumni...it has some central funding for its Olympic 7's side but it is light years away from anything like being "known"....league is 50 years behind them.

Patronising and untrue. I'm under no illusions where the club is at. What I had trouble comprehending was why you were attacking people who continue to attend matches, and gloating over those who talked about no longer going.

But it is a problem for many people on here.
Tell me, how are the problems faced by the club helped in any way by your attacks on other people on this forum?

There are 4.2m men and women currently registered with US Soccer as actively playing in amateur and professional football clubs. There is an estimated 25 mil people playing soccer on a regular basis in the US which is way more than American Football and only bettered by Basketball and Baseball. Soccer is the third highest supported sport in the US and the MLS is the seventh highest supported football league in the world. Soccer is the second most popular sport for under 25's according to a 2011 survey.

I think the figures for those who watched the world cup in the US is around 25-30mil.

This is not a minority sport anymore, as for relying on ex-pat support, the entire US stems from immigrant population so it's hardly surprising. Last month a friendly game at the Pasadena rose bowl attracted 110,000. This is why European clubs want a piece of the action.

Oh dear, now he's got you started on throwing statistics about, mel. Take care

Watch those stats meliferra, could set someone off.

The only thing that surprises me is that anyone is surprised by the rise of soccer in the US. There are whole swathes of the US where Spanish has replaced English as the lingua franca because of immigration from Hispanic countries, and the sporting tradition of Hispanic countries is soccer not gridiron.

You're right


What a hypocrite I am. In my defence I was trying to be helpful by providing the statistics someone else was looking for.

and very helpful they were too.

....but other than a friendly game attracting 110,000....(the aussies got close to that last year BTW), you offered none of the financials I requested.
Here's a re-cap:

You'll see that I have said soccer is growing, but is not anywhere near the "wonga" value of the other sports.

Oh...on the 110,000 "exhibition game"......we've been down this route in the UK before. US Gridiron teams filling wembley....the London Monarchs filling Wembley.......er.....the German/USA Military personel being the only ones interested....but that not being able to sustain the league. Don't get me wrong, soccer is most assuredly there to stay in the USA, but at present, it is a minority sport.......nice that you pointed out the growth of MLS though....that has taken over $1,000,000,000 of investment since USA94 to get that far.......THAT'S HOW YOU DO "EXPANSION"



25,000,000 (8%) watching FIFA14 is brilliant.....the French had 18,000,000 (27%) tuned into RWC11 and Rugby is well behind Soccer there......SOCCER in the USA is still a minority sport.

Where does that put cricket in this country?
I'd never realised that it's finances determine whether a sport is a minority\majority one.

I guess football is a minority sport in most of the world because it tends to be played by poor people on the street rather than the elite and wealthy.

Jumpers for goal posts and the romance of sport are driven by a desire to become one of the elite. I asked about the financials because as a professional sport, they are the driver to success.......the masses at hackney marshes are great but they have little influence over the balance sheets at top tier clubs.

I refer you all to that old adage "ANY publicity is GOOD publicity!".

as usual off thread. . just back from 3 weeks in states. football may be a minority sport but a fast growing one. whilst anecdotal, there is a fair bit of coverage in the media, crowds are growing and the World Cup played big in the USA.

Gutterfax's comments are just outdated stereotypical c***.

Soccer sits behind gridiron, baseball, basketball and hockey in the USA.......it is a minority sport that I never denied wasn't growing, but a minority sport all the same.

And your picture proves what exactly? Soccer is a minority sport in the USA.......buy a copy of the NYTimes any weekend and it gets a page of a 100 page sports supplement.......expats aside and outside the metro centres it is tiny when compared to the other sports

There are some anomalies in US sports that do not exist elsewhere.

Firstly, that they have a very successful Collegiate system of sports which is dominated by Gridiron followed in it's wake by Basketball, then way down the pecking order is Baseball, Soccer and Athletics (in no particular order). At some of the more established US college's, the paying public (in attendances) for both Gridiron and Basketball can easily surpass that of it's professional cousin's. For some fans it's the collegiate versions of the game that they trust and love the most. Most College teams have been around longer than their professional counterparts.

The monies raised by the fee paying public in these primarily "amateur" gatherings (Gridiron/Basketball) along side TV revenue's is in some case's one of a college's major revenue streams and can be a multi-million dollar income stream.

Whilst the audience both live and for TV in the US is primarily with NCAA administered sports, it's the professional version's (NFL/NBA) where it can be argued the money is really at and that is driven by broadcast right revenue alone. The NFL have some of the most ambitious revenue streams and growth projections, especially in International markets in professional sport that make the eye's of some Wall Street type's water.

Baseball is slightly different where the MLB's collegiate cousin is a poor third behind Gridiron & Basketball in the numbers of students on scholarships, attendances and TV revenue, it's professional cousin is the people's sport with in general match-day prices to match, that can be as cheap as $ 5 per ticket per game. IF you've 81 home games in a season then you need to make it affordable for all. And has TV rights revenue's that some sports governing abroad would kill for but are dwarfed by those of the NFL and NBA.

So the question it needs to be is it a) participation, b) press coverage or a lack of it, c) financial clout/revenue d) bums on seats or e) History that makes a sport a "Major" or "Minor" in the land of the free and the home of the brave or beyond?? Discuss or javelin?

i did ask about financials a few posts back...it was side-stepped because the agenda wasn't catered for......soccer is a growth sport in terms of finance but a minority sport all the same.

It wasn't sidestepped. To claim Soccer in the US has the same financial clout as American Football, Baseball or Basketball would be daft. I take no issue with your point on this and if it came across that way it wasnt intended.

As there is no formal definition of what represents a minority sport I feel comfortable disagreeing with your definition and feel no need to challenge it having already given my reasons for thinking otherwise.