I admire your optimism that there will be a next season Orange. Hope you are right.

Hi all,

I have long since held the view that the club will not win a game this season; a view I held before the season started and which was only further confirmed in the first ten minutes v Widnes and again during the Whitehaven debacles.

The reason is that the side resembles one I played for.

In my days as a player, I played for Lancaster University in all four of the student leagues (National, North, North West 1 and North West 2) and we had a side when at its peak won the SRL plate v Hull University and which was capable of winning v sides with Super League academy players and had as many as five or six student Internationals including the Scotland Captain, the Ireland full back and both halves plus an England Prop.

But we had a period where nearly all the team graduated and we just have the collective quality to threaten the opposition tryline. In simple terms, we were just overpowered. I remember going up to places like Leeds and Leeds Met and they would have three teams and a women's side and we would have just the one team, sometime on a matchday with just 12 to 13 players and very much like the Coleman side just try to hold back a vastly superior side.

In simple terms I do not think that Latu, Macani or Grant are capable of regularly scoring tries in the Championship and all are marginal selections.

I did not think any of Thomas, Coates, Horsman or Leyland would play well in the Championship, though was mystified that Coates was fourth choice given the showings of the other three.

I thought the pack looked ok, although the starting front row v Sheffield of Lovell, Foster and the academy lad at Hooker was shocking.

So I think we are 3 to 5 players short.

If we could do a deal with someone like St Helens to get a house full of their better academy players or even Featherstone we might have a shot.

Dribs and drabs won't be enough.

Like my old University side in the National League, you have got to get to the opposition tryline to be a credible threat.

This is one of the few things that could save us.

I (and I suspect many) would agree with your analysis of the quality of the side. Given the lack of ambition in recruitment, why do you think the club made a ground move (especially one that required the additional expense of separate training and academy facilities) ? This is the thing that least makes sense to me given we were not going attract new fans with such a poor team.

Hi,

The key drivers behind a ground move were these;

1. Concern that the Super League Executive would not admit Ealing Trailfinders ground "back to Super League". The then Chairman of Super League had indicated as such.

2. Lack of opportunity to further develop the corporate side of things. The club has long held ambitions to run a business club or sponsor suite. However the gold seats were often already sold out. There were concerns that the club could end up with corporate types sat near idiots like me, daft Al, Cliffie or One Arm Bandit.

3. Lack of revenue opportunities. The Trailfinders were believed to have welcomed the club with "treat the club as your own" but the revenue all went to them.

The move to AFC Wimbledon was felt to give ample opportunity to provide an SL standard facility, open up as much commercial presence as needed and a revenue share where previously it was a revenue take.

Where the club went wrong was this;

1. The AFC Wimbledon ground, Plough Lane, appeared to have all the necessary planning permissions so that London Broncos could move right in, without further process. However the club for whatever reason reapplied and began the process from scratch. This added a year to the arrival date.

2. The way the club handled and interpreted both the Covid regulations and the AFC Wimbledon move was to be as severe as possible with deathly silence on updates. This alienated supporters especially when breaking the silence by doubling prices to the very many supporters getting in for a tenner or so.

3. Halving the quality was I think a sudden decision and perhaps not deliberate. But when you get a rich man, a privileged man and a small sports shop owner you might not have your finger on the pulse.

1. Trailfinders coped with SL before and the union lot have plans in place.
2. The club had access to a fully functioning networking group from 2006-2013 but didn't use it to leverage sales, upsales or simply create relationships. This strawman is of the ex commercial and inept CEOs making.
3. Why is it that these things were not negotiated PROPERLY at the start of a tenancy? It seems this time we don't have staff for corporate as volunteers are being begged for. Also, who negotiated the Trailfinders move and the Wimbledon move? Was it the same people? Why, when they obviously got done in the first deal.
As for the rest of it. It was doomed from the start.....Hughes has AGAIN made the wrong decisions and will AGAIN find someone else to blame

Before moving from a 4,000 capacity ground to a 10k one, why not fill the 4k one first?
Corporate/gold membership? Again I'll ask.....how busy is the gold lounge at plough Lane? I'd hazard a guess at pretty empty given the lack of any evidence to the contrary

I sat directly in front of Cliffie for all the time we spent at Ealing, I think he would be a star addition to corporate Lounge. I still recall him getting so irate on the referee one game he spat his false teeth out 1/2 way across the stand.

He is a real character, and I never had a problem sitting next to him

Is he the guy that shouted out “Ref you’re a khazi” at the HKR game and last year engaged Labousier in a conversation where he demanded a refund on his travelling costs to the cancelled Newcastle game. If so, I agree, he’s just what corporate needs.

Yep thats Cliffee

... He got his refund as well. And everybody was a Khazi not just the ref when he really got going. He did come out with some stuff.

And as we was sat right in the corner of the main stand at ealing (next to the away VP's and the radio commentators), it was amusing listening to the commentators having to keep apologising about some of his comments (he never swore, but he was not politically correct).

Interesting to see these, my thoughts:

1/ We had played SL at Ealing before. The club would have had a strong case that it was still fit for purpose and could have worked with Ealing to develop the ground if necessary. However, in the real world, the chance of SL any time soon was remote at best.
2/ Corporate money might be nice to have but the club should have been prioritising its core fan base (like those in the Gold seats) and trying to grow from there rather than alienating them. How much corporate money are we getting now ?
3/ As a tenant, this is all down to the deal you strike and the relationship you build. If a share of revenues was important why did they not negotiate that at Ealing ? How much are the club making from Cherry Red revenues. I can't imagine much.

The club was chasing shadows with this move and has failed on all fronts.

I sat with Cliff in hospitality at Trailfinders once, it was his birthday. He was with his brother and no trouble at all.

Mind you I travelled by train up to Leeds with Cliff in the carriage. It was first class and he had consumed quite a lot of ginger wine that morning. He was a bit loud to say the least. Quite entertaining though.

1. Moore Lane, the proposed new home for Salford Red Devils holds 5k with 2,200 seats. Ealing holds 4,000 with 2,200 seats....and is looking at being increased by the start of the 22/23 Onion season....but we're arguing a straw man here.
The reality is Hughes asked where the crowds and revenue was and when the CEO and Commercial Gimp had no valid excuses, they blamed the Landlord/Ground.
Let's be clear here. 5,000 fans at Harlequins RL delivered far greater a}revenue than anything at the Hive, trailfinders or plough lane and b} far greater chance of upselling corporate packages than anything at the Hive, trailfinders or plough lane.
The Owners Dummy Spit, which was preceded by the hiring of Gus and then Powell is 100% why we are teetering on the edge.

The % of the bar take we got at Trailfinders v Plough Lane is a non debate because both are minimal amounts

On the 2nd Point. Visuals sell. A few snaps of sponsors being presented with shirts in a packed bar, people sat around busy tables of 8 eating their pre match meals, Mustard being interviewed in an open forum and not in the corridor, player of the day award etc would all help sell the corporate packages. The fact that these PREMIUM tickets were dropped to 35 quid inside 2 games, along with other prices tells you EXACTLY how that is going.

Hughes needs to admit that he's messed up. Loubser I am afraid has presided over 2 moves, neither of which went well. He was gifted a huge 3rd opportunity when we fluked our way back to SL and they still did little to market it. I care little for Hughes "belief" that RL is THE GREATEST GAME........what he need to understand is that for his decades at the club all he's presided over is a steady decline in interest and associated revenues to the extent that we are worthless to any proposed investor......and that means all Hughes can do is look to hand the keys to either the RFL or someone with the work ethic and charisma to attract the fans back by returning the London Broncos to be a club and not just a team.

This is from his statement at the start of the season. I believe it shows how disconnected he has been from how badly the club has been run for the last decade.

There are plenty who have walked away dismayed at his incompetence, but there are also some who have been driven away by his appointees.........but he blissfully expects reboot#5 to magically work



But we are debating all of the wrong issues here. Without funding we have no team, so the reality was how to get ourselves to the magical 5,000 fans per game paying 1.3 million over the season to watch the team? I had some answers back in 2009......I'm not sure I do now.

Hi,

I am just trying to explain what I think they were trying to do, although it sounds disjointed, and hard to follow.

I suppose I can offer more of a detailed narrative.

1. There is a guy who I think first showed up about 10 years ago. I believe he had some background in coaching at Wakefield, and plenty of connections. He's quite a charming and talkative bloke. Runs his own sports business. Been in the Director's Box for many years. A bit superficial but highly persuasive. However, he isn't capable of media relations, isn't organized, and is erratic and inconsistent. From a pure commercial side he can rightly see that there is limited opportunity at Trailfinders. There's limited opportunity to offer a premium experience at a premium price. But I also saw him as short term and limited in some ways. He was too much of a small business man. If a product line didn't sell he would want to discontinue it, but if you close the shop then you sell nothing. I felt he would close the shop given the chance to stem the losses.

2. The club had a Chief Executive who I like but don't know that well. I think the club had rebuilt quite well from his arrival at Barnet to 2019. I think he became much less influential when person 1 appeared.

3. David Hughes, I have known superficially since about 2006. I understood he was putting in around a couple of million a year as recently as 2 to 3 years ago. I've never got a real view of his wealth, though I have heard suggestions that it may be £80 million. He has seemed to lurch between paying six figure salaries to poor quality and known to be often injured players to seemingly being incapable or unwilling to secure obviously quality players with a good career to come. I could give countless examples where he has described how the academy is vital only for him to end up with all the no one wants whilst his best players left for free or near free. He just doesn't seem to want to provide a 3 year contract or protect his assets. In truth, I think he's given up on the club 4 or 5 times only to be like a drug addict who suddenly gets his heart restarted. Each time it happens the club weakens. He flushes everything. Loses good managers, good players, supporter goodwill. I think the AFC Wimbledon move was to a plan, he had approved. But then he seems to get ed off. I think he gets to the point he feels cheated and like a cards player pushes the table over. I think also he puts a lot of pressure on his coaches. There seems a lot of relationship breakdowns in his tenure.

The cast is there, pulling but not in the same direction.

For Farks sake....."do you think"?
When Hughes inherited the club "again" after IL bought Wigan, he immediately broke off meaningful relationships with both the RFL, the other SL chairmen and most importantly, the Landlord.
Not long after we fans got bounced across to the other side of the pitch and for a while had a great matchday experience in the bigger bar area, but gradually the back office staff left or moved and eventually we were introduced to Blanchard and then Gus.
Blanchard was an operations guy. He understood that a business was various moving parts and each part needed "oiled". When Hughes was having none of that, Gus lucked out and got the job on a salary he wasn't entitled to 10% of.....and he started dismantling the parts that needed oiled and instead blamed it all on Quins....the name, the venue, the revenue share......Hughes snide comments recently about 2nd or 3 rd tier Union grounds expose that MacKay played to this weakness with the name change and ultimate move.
I still have the text on my Phone when Barnet accepted us. Our CEO acted like he'd dragged it over the line.......the reality was Hughes was told accept the ground we've found you or you'll be in L1 in 2014......so he relented. Gus lasted a heartbeat after that, as did Grima.......and the mess was Loubsers to inherit.....including Barnet pocketing the 100k as well as the bar takings......
....loubser then finds Trailfinders and negotiates a deal Hughes described as perfect....including DEVELOPING THE GROUND......yet here we are discussing all the "reasons" when the biggest issue is the OWNER!
Thanks Dave.........but F67k OFF and enjoy your retirement. Put us out of our misery. For too long you'vwe wasted OUR CENTRAL FUNDING as well as your own coin on a vanity project......play with your grandkids....

Why are you even discussing someone who is banned from Fulham football and has attacked 2 opposition RL chairman at Ealing.
He shouldn’t be allowed near a sports arena again never mind being talked up on here. He’s everything modern sport doesn’t need.

Don't believe I know the person.....but being banned from a ground isn't new territory in terms of the broncos.
If there were physical attacks on people I agree a ban is warranted.....if verbal then context is needed.
But again were discussing something other than the elephant in the room....HUGHES.

Or recruitment

The 2 main issues with recruitment are available funds and the recruiter.
Who holds the funds and therefore dictates the standard of players attracted and who selected the person with pursuing these players and convincing them to come to play for us.
In this particular case, the funds were slashed from previous years whilst the recruiter has a 25% win record as a coach which makes him apparently "highly thought of" by the person who recruited him and who holds the purse strings.
Can you see where I am going with this???

Not sure anyone would get that exercised about this iteration of the Broncos. In all seriousness what is the cut off point for number of assaults before you are banned. For a Twitter ban I understand it’s criticising the blue kit. Our club’s priorities might have got muddled here.

Back on thread I suppose a positive is although all quiet on recruitment no one has actually left the club this week so that’s a plus....although some might think not.

I have some info regarding the York match that was shared with me.

Only the Platinum Lounge was used. Fairly full. 6 tables (seating 10) and other seating/table areas. Up to 75 people max.

Coach, two non-playing players and Guest Speaker pre game. Coach and MOM post game.

Gold Lounge not used.

Boardroom used, 6 to 8 present.

By percentage of attendance that is better than AFC Wimbledon, but after costs (food/staff) I doubt there is much profit.

I think one of your ideas, but why not offer some free tickets to hospitality to a few lucky winners who buy a ticket at the previous game. Target the locals generally who would appreciate the hospitality experience. They'll buy drinks as well!

By the time the York game was played, £35 was the offer.....£2,625. Let's say they all paid the full price which I believe was £55 at the start of the season, that's another £1,500.
£4,125 before wages, food costs etc are paid..

I did a similar calculation hence my comment on little profit. The only additional income is the bar.

When you’re right. You’re right.