Number 6 is a myth because.....?? You obviously don't know much about sports marketing from either side of the fence. Sky have made it fairly clear that Quins are important to their valuation of RL in England - just as they (under the Foxtel brand) have overtly done with the Melbourne Storm. Sky aren't doing that because they care about RL - they do it because it adds to their revenue from advertisers. Those very same advertisers being businesses that may choose to sponsor individual teams or the sport as a whole.

TBH if I had money to throw at anything in SL, it would be on promotion and marketing in London - starting with all the junior clubs. I'd rather focus on building support in kids who may stick with the game than try to tempt a few people to a game who may go for a bit of a novelty.

are they myths because you want them to be or because you can prove they are?

Myth 5 would seem a strange one.......I mean SKY would have objected to not having the best 12 teams in the league wouldn't they.....surely they'd want the best teams on TV? London weren't one of the best 12 teams.......neither were PSG......surely Rupert would have noticed this


Myth 6......who ever said that sponsors would leave? I think and most other sane people think that SKY TV, the broadcast partner would reduce their investment considerably, but I am sure sporting bet would still sponsor your club.....just as long as your games were being shown on SKY TV

Sky probably foolishly thought that people in London would have been interested in following a RL team, the old build it and they will come mentality. If the Broncos hadn't been willing to back london would Sky have pulled the plug on the whole SL concept if London weren;t in a position to enter (which arguably they weren't and still aren't)? Of course not English SL was predominantly a means to an endl for News Ltd to get its hands on Australian RL. If anyone can give me a direct quote from a Sky representative that says " we pay more money becasue there is a London team in Sl" then i am more than happy to bust the myth.

If I am a sponsor do you really think I am going to get excited by 3,000 fans turning up for a game in London? Again if there was a proveable direct correlation between Quins and TV viewers in the South (ie when Quins are on Sky do the ratings in the South go up massively compared to when two Northern teams are on?) then again the myth will be busted.

I await some evidence that debunks either myth or the ones previously mentioned.

Firstly.....BSKYB didn't use ESL to get at Australian RL. WTF

Murdoch is used to getting what he wants...but if it makes you feel better by saying a northern pastime was the gateway to the second largest sport 12,000 miles away, so be it.

Next up and the Irony isn't lost on me, we have gone from "London will never be relegated...SKY wont let them" to 'london weren't and aren't key to the SKY deal"




Try this on......in 2005, when we went to the wall, we could have been ejected from SL there and then. There were no rules in place to do this, but we would have had no money to fight this.....BUT, instead the ESL chairmen voted to not only let us stay in, but also keep all our points. Leigh and Widnes didn't vote against us....even though they could have saved their skins> Why would that be? Would it maybe have something to do with Mr Wood telling all present that without London, the SKY money wouldn't be there?

Sponsorship? I never said it would dry up....but I still say SKY would pay less for ESL with no london...and it would seem that the other ESL chairmane and the RFL agree

It appears that the London Evening Standard is FINALLY getting behind the Quins so hopefully that'll be of some benefit.

JB Down Under is obviously far more knowledgeable and shrewd than the executives/investors of the most powerful and successful broadcaster in the UK.

Clearly!

I'm guessing you weren't following RL in 94-96? That is exactly what they did, by signing up the RFL it became a very fat carrot they dangled in Australias face, the idea of world club challenges , the threat to players that if you wanted to play in Tests you would need to be with SL, join Sl and become famous in China, opportunity to play in World 9's and World cups etc etc. I suggest you Google and educate yourself.

Would be interesting to see what Fulcrubronquins drew these days for a big game like a CC Semi-Final or Final, the turnouts they had in the 90's for such games were appauling IMO.

Wow....just Wow.

There are occassionally some intelligent posts on this thread...but man, some of these posts are just deluded! I won't name name's as all that does is just start/continue a slanging match.

1) Hardly any seats at the Stoop are now uncovered or uncomfortable. But take it a step further...what stadium has very comfortable seats? Its a stadium ffs!! The Stoop is better than quite a lot of the stadiums (inc QPR, Brentford etc) in London.

2) People watch the game in London - maybe they don't go to the Stoop (which is an issue admittedly), but anyone in London (born and bred) following SL would probably have at least an eye on Quins results etc.

3) Lets give this season a chance shall we? New CEO, will be new marketing staff involved....sunny weather has only just arrived - which will entice more people outside! I know for their next match they are giving away 5000 tickets in the Evening Standard and linked on money saving websites. Incase people didn't realise London is a large City...when its pi33ing down with rain and cold there are other things to do other than go to rugby matches!

The sad thing is that people on this site will have gone once or twice to the Quins and not enjoyed it and aren't willing to go again...full stop...get the blinkers out...do all you can to slap it down. You people are just bores...end of!

If there was no Quins (London) side in SL....RL wouldn't have/be cracking the London sports market...people wouldn't watch it in the south nearly as much....viewing figures would fall....Sky wouldn't spend half the money bothering with it....the so called big teams and RFL would lose money....their progress would halt...RL would shrink back to factory towns....only a combined amount of about 200k people would watch the game....playing figures would drop....more top class players would defect to RU.....England would be even further behind Aus and NZ.....

All this would equal those whinging now about London RL failing to eat their hats and realise their team would take a big step backwards as a result.

Hope that's not too ranty....lack of sleep, forced to work in an office during the sunshine etc...

Hear ye you've "been had" by those who still want this www.flickr.com/photos/groundhopp ... 163226921/

Hear ye you've "been had" by those who still want this www.flickr.com/photos/groundhopp ... 163226921/

Absolutely spot on. Make up your mind either we're important to Sky or we're not. The example above and the fact that you don't find many existing SL sides making any noises about Quins' right to be in SL should speak volumes. Why would they want to rock the boat? Plenty of them find it hard enough to stay within the salary cap as it is!

Nobody is saying that the loss of Wigan or Leeds or any SL club for that matter wouldn't affect the TV deal as well. But some people seem to think that the loss of a top flight side from the capital city of the country, the business centre of the country and the city where the major bankroller of the sport is located wouldn't have a negative impact on the TV deal.

Bollox.......Murdoch had AFL (well half of it) in his pocket before any of that.....the negotiations were way down the road....but you bang on about the SL wars.....how it killed ARL. Fact is, average crowds before the SL wars were 11 to 13k before the war....the game is better for Murdock taking control, but Aussies are an insular lot and more concerned with the fact that they are still No2 at home after AFL



BTW......If I want an education, I wont be going to google or wiki...but knock yourself out

Murdoch had AFL? are you drunk??

I was with you up until you started this paragraph.

This is scaremongering and conjecture based on zero evidence.

I am still waiting for someone to post the Sky sports viewing figures that show there is a big spike in viewers when Quins are featured. Waiting.........

And why would Sky think that? Maybe because at times crowds of 10,000 plus have turned up to see Fulham, or Crusaders or Broncos play. As many have pointed out, even the overall average in their history, dragged down by more recent years, would compare favourably to Salford or Wakey or Giants - all 'hotbeds' of the game.

And since when did senior media executives go on record in the general press about key contract negotiating points? That's why you'll never see the 'quote' you're after. On the other hand I can tell you that more than one SL club director has told me that the presence of the London team adds value to the TV contract.

yeh and the pixies at the end of the garden told me that the existence of Quins has zero effect on TV viewing figures in the Sth of England.

Splendid. Over here it's more difficult to meet pixies than to meet directors of SL clubs, so we'll have to take your word for it.

Is that the clubs cumulative total since 1980?

Erm, yes that is exactally what happened.

Myth 7: JB Down Under once wrote a comment that was vaguely positive about RL in London (presumably when the imaginary creatures who usually supply him with his tedious bile were on holiday)

Contrary tom what some on her may say, a London based team has more to offer the game than other teams.

In fact in one city there is one senior club too many for a start!

Hmm, well you can't be on about the city of Hull (considering the success that Hull FC and Hull KR have both been in SL overall and the support of both clubs), so which city do you mean?