I was a Southend Invicta and a Fulham RL Fan so I know what it is like to suffer!!!!

Agreed I would be back at the Stoop like a shot if we were entertaining and competitive. But we aren't. Cr@p management has left us playing a great sport in the wrong location with a clueless coach, and for the good of the game something has got to change.

I am always amazed how Lenegan is held in such high esteem on here, he was the one in my opinion who started us on this path only to b"gger of to Wigan when the going got tough.

Sometime I read his stirring quotes in my copy of A Pastel Revolution ( available in all good charity shops ) for comfort

Whatever your view is on Quins RL - without it we would have gone bust way back when.
However I have never liked the stoop - be it when it was the first time we were there- Quins RU - or the internationals.

only because we never fill it and the team is terrible, run by incompetents.



How do you know?



Why? Because we had three stands open? Because the walkway in front of the stands is ever so slightly smaller? Because it's on a tube line? These all seem very minor details given that we lost, at home, in front of a sub-3000 crowd.

Close...he sent me a text at 1am local time

Read this in the Hotel yesterday from David Hadfield in the Independent "A change of scene could not bring a change of fortune for the struggling London Broncos. Playing across the city at Leyton Orient's Brisbane Road while the Stoop is undergoing pitch repairs" I thought many said this was not the case? it was just our choice?

Not sure it matters much really, but seeing as how Harlequins have a game there against Northampton on Saturday it's more likely to be lazy journo syndrome.

The size of Brisbane Rd is important, in the increasingly unlikely event that the club applies for a licence in 2 years time. You get points for meeting certain criteria and Broncos get one for the Stoop, but wouldn't get it for Orient. The club only gets a couple of points anyway, and is one of the lowest rated clubs as it is, lose the point for stadium criteria and we'd be bottom of the lot.

As some have mentioned the young backline it's worth looking at someone like Dixon. He only came to the club late on, and I don't think he was on the scholarship programme in his early teens. He's an elusive runner, and did very well for the U-18's at full back where the best open-field runners play these days. Powell has stuck him out on the wing, where he has less opportunity to run at a broken line, and his defensive frailties are being exposed. It's an incredibly difficult learning curve for him at the minute and you'd have to ask if he's getting the coaching support he needs, and if his long-term development is being harmed. I'd hate to see a young lad with huge attacking potential have his career ended because he's being asked to do things he's not been taught to do. The fear is that Sarginson and Channing could both go the same way.

Maybe we should try Dixon at full back and let Robbo go back to the wing. This would help our defense out wide and as the full back is essentially an attacking option - so the experts on here tell us - Dixon could flourish. Not so easy to target as a defeder. He is certainly too exposed on the wing as he is not tall or strong and bulky. Speed is asset and he is wasted on the wing as we don't get good ball out to him. Sargy is a standoff but as we have signed Witt, Sargy is being played out of position at Centre but it is difficult to see where else you can play him.

Agree with you Snoopy. At the last home game (or was it the one before) I constantly saw both Sargy and Dixon having to go right over to the other side to get some ball play. We have never utilised our wingers correctly ever since I started watching Broncos in 1997. I think Dixon would be better at full back. I have seen him play there and I believe he had a good game. Both my nephews from Huddersfield really rate him and they both play prop for Underbank up there so they know what they are on about. Who is doing the defensive coaching because from what I have seen from home games so far, with a few exceptions, we can't tackle for toffee.

I think it takes about fifty games to really tell whether an inexperienced player is going to be of one capable of playing to a consistently decent standard and the years of seasoning also contribute greatly. If a player has good pace, height and a powerful physique that also greatly helps. The mental approach, positional sense and ability to defend are something that develops. Of our younger players Sarginson seems blessed with pace and agility but is yet to develop a physique of equal standard to a 100KG centre but will get to a top standard. Channing seems to be solid and looks like he will be a good defensive centre. Dixon looks like he will struggle against taller wingers in defence and will need to play fullback to play at his best. But all three of these boys have played under twenty games. My belief is that Jamie O'Callaghan has had sixty five plus games at SL level and I am not sure he has more to come. I am nervous that he is not to the standard and more games won't change things. That is also true of Powell of course. But I am not sure as a club we will draw the line and say that someone isn't going to make it. My view is that a player like Karl Pryce had potential and it needed unlocking but some guys have none!

Some lawn chairs on those flat balconies should suffice.



Seriously though the atmosphere was pretty good for a change I thought.

Biggest drawback of Brisbane Road is the ridiculously small pitch.

Maybe the pitch would be something we could develop as an advantage, the Atmosphere I can't remember when it was last like that at the stoop!

Didn't we have a 6 inch in-goal at Brentford?

When we only opened the East Stand and were half competitive. Now we are stuck with 2 stands that are half empty.

But the sun dave....what about the sun

The only reason I can see for the stands issue is cost! with the attendances we currently get what must that cover? not even the rent, thanks for the kindness of BSkyB it is the only thing which keeps rugby league alive!

So those first 90 years were all a myth then?

Are you talking pre Super League, when it was semi-pro and many of them worked down the pit or in the case of overseas players given jobs with companies having good connections to the clubs directors, after working a full day they then went to training and then it was a winter sport, yes also when they had to Win to get the pay which give them a little better life, instead of some of the over inflated wages paid to some average players in the game today? when the big Sky money came into the game, clubs gave away so much to these players instead of being spent on grounds which before Sky were dingy and ready for condemning? Yes that is what I was relating to.

The game is faster now and the players fitter, they play on grounds and pitches much better condition but take away the Sky money and compare the attendances then, I can remember standing on Central Park or sitting on one of the corner crowd terracing fences with 40,000 plus and Station Road for Great Britain matches, so all is not perfect now!

We were both taking about Rugby League. You were talking nonsense.

For once, I can't see what is wrong with what jaybs is saying. Spot on for me.

I'm talking about Rugby League Chris, do you think then that pre-Sky and the game going full time professional that it was in a good state? I admit the crowds were much better, and most clubs with semi-pro players would be able to cover costs from gate money and then club lotteries which brought in good money, some still continue but they can't compete now with the UK Lottery! but the state of the grounds in the North as I said had been allowed to just go into decay! So tell me what was the nonsense? IF ever Sky thought they could do without Rugby League how would the game survive? on money or none from such as Stobart and the small amount that Carnegie pay for the Challenge Cup virtually just to have a sponsor, remember the days when cigarette companies and the brewers pumped big money into the sport, who has replaced them?

Thanks Dave! I don't put my head in the sand, I just wish I had all the answers, it means a lot to me as it is the game I was brought up on and it upsets me to see the way it is being allowed to go and so many feel it is perfect?

Sport doesnt need Sky, sport was doing just fine before it turned up. All Sky's money has done is make it more expensive for people to watch.
SKY needs RL not the other way round (same can be said with a lot of sports) Sky pays the minimum it thinks it can get away with in order to buy the rights to a sport that it then think it can make money from. The whole notion that the sport needs a tv platform that uses it for its own benefit shows how warped the world has got.

See also -"our kit looks wrong without a sponsor"

Completely agree with you! sport didn't need Sky, perhaps the game may have been in a better state without Sky, but we will never know. But I am unsure if we could manage now any longer without them and They Know it! how could we find the income they put in? more so when Chairmen of some clubs are greedy even now and want less clubs in Super League thinking they will get more money, and the players hide behind they play too many games but with less clubs would get more money?

Sport is no longer in control! and they have to bow down to those that pay the golden dollar! I do not have a clue how would ever replace the money they contribute.

It's a long shot but if Al Jazeera's dalliance with RL in France proves a success and if Al Jazeera launch sports channels in the UK (not out of the question) and if then they're looking for some content & bid against Sky for RL then there'll be more of that lovely lolly. Or they outbid Sky for some of the PL packages and Sky are then forced to fill their schedule with more RL and pay more for it.
The Sky money is unfortunately vital & if it quickly went the game would be in crisis. It'd be nice to have some competition for the rights. Come on Qatar, make your move.

To those that say the glass is half full with a gate of 2,844, here's the list of all 19 Superleague home game attendances v Bradford........
4,524
9,166
7,000
8,233
4,063
5,259
4,605
3,651
3,910
3,987
3,879
4,491
3,793
4,011
2,534
3,112
3,152
4,253
2,844

86,467 fans at 19 games with an average of 4,550....the Glass Half Full Figure