Difference is most of the SL M62 clubs (Bradford, Leeds, Wigan, Wire, Hull, Hull KR, Huddersfield to name 7) get respectable crowds for the league they're in, Fulcrubronquins do not.

Stamford Bridge Capacity 42,050

Liverpool at the Bridge 2010-11 season......41,829 top gate
MSK Zilina at the Bridge 2010-11 season....40,266 bottom gate

so...no they don't......but they have got a lot better:
QPR last year 37,781, Barcalona the year before 37,857.......and 24,973 Rosenbourg the year before that.

Hmm, thing with that though is that in a lot of games not every seat can be sold because of factors like segregation, e.g. the Hull derby has been officially a sell-out with 23,000 in, but there are 24,500 (IIRC) seats. So therefore these 40,000 / 41,000 probably have been sold out, e.g. when you watch a Champions League game the front few rows are nearly always kept empty for some reason.

Anything at 95% capacity or over will be viewed as a sell out. Chelsea are at 98.4% in the Premier League this season. As Roofs mentioned, segregation will always reduce the full capacity of the stadium.

Roofs: The front rows of the Champions League games are left unused (although not always, it depends on the stadium) because of sponsors. UEFA make sure the signs are highly visible, which in some cases means not allowing people in the front rows.

Ah right, thanks LUFCLR, thought it would be something to do with sponsors, e.g. because those same seats (say at Old Trafford) are back in use by the weekend's Premiership game.

So anyway GF, it would appear that Chelsea DO sell out every home game...

Rubbish! RL was the only sport they had a problem with, professional soccer player, no problem, professional golfer, no problem. Reality was RL was the ONLY sport they took this stand with, explain that one gutter.

The same reason why loads of kids who play Rugby both code, soccer, cricket etc etc.

They can be bothered or have something better to do or no money.

My local non league footie team has teams of all ages both male and female. Must be about 5 of them that go and watch games.

Because RU was losing players to RL.

so you agree that they discriminated against RL players and clubs? Good, glad we got that sorted and you understand my disdain for the kick and clap brigade.

Grow up JB

wake up Phipps

Correct.

In fact, rugby union had players who played both Union and soccer. They were never excommunicated from Union. If you tried to play with in the rebellion up north, you were done for. All very intricately documented.

The irony, the greatest of them all, is that a century later the very thing they despised and heaped on, they turned into. Scum, really.

On the one hand, Rugby as a game would be far more stronger today had it stayed intact. In fact up until the 1880s, rugby football was more popular than soccer. Not going professional basically consigned any future form of rugby code to be a bridesmaid to soccer, which had then started gaining some real momentum after it went professional.

On the other hand, we might not have rugby league today. Its a tough one to call!

To be honest I've got more important things to worry about than the politics of entertainment.

Which is what all these sports are. Entertainment.

Alas, some take it too seriously....it's akin to the 70's football hooligans ploughhing into each other the way JB, dally et all plough into anyone who dares comment on anything to do with league in a negative light, or commits the cardinal sin of actually saying anything positive about Union. Jesus, if you even use the letters A-F-L- in the same sentence they try to have you burned at the stake.
Back on thread>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

London RL has failed to attract fans and therefore sponsors and revenue to the game at its highest level. The reasons for this are many, as are the excuses that get rolled out on a regular basis, but the bottom line is:

The RFL, whilst keen to keep a London Team in the league have contributed nothing to the development of the game in the South East. The community coaches, school visits, club assistance etc has purely come from the coffers of the London RL Franchise. These people have a massive area to cover and I believe that 2011 is the first year that any financial assistance has been offered by the RFL to "spread the game".
The RFL, whilst responsible for the marketing and promotion of the game, have actually only ever become involved in the marketing of 1 game at the stoop, prior to 2011. This was the WCC Warm up game v Manly and you can take it from me, whilst they made a profit from it, they learnt exactly how hard it is to get the media involved...even if you are paying them. TNT Magazine made more money from this game than anyone else..........that is the magnitude of the issues faced in the south east.

2011 is the year that the RFL are getting involved.......when they should have been doing so since 1996.
This month, the RFL and the evening Standard, in conjunction with the club have offered 2,500 free pairs of tickets to the Castleford game. I suspect, 1,000 or maybe 1,200 of these pairs will have been taken up. If any so called heartland team repeated this offer in their local paper, I suspect the 2,500 would be gone in 1 hr. The reason Quins will undersubscribe? It has nothing to do with League....it has more to do with what else is available in entertainment in London on Friday night, the recession (costs to get there, drinks etc) and the fact that only 15% of the standards readership will live within 5 miles of the ground.

I don't know if London RL will remain at the stoop or if it will ever get the investment, either from the RFL/SKY/Private sources to ever attract 10,000 gates that it needs to be self sufficient, but I do know (well, I am 90% sure) that without London RL in Superleague, the game becomes less attractive to advertisers......because like it or not, the Capital City is always key when they are putting their budgets together......and the people they pay for advertising are the same ones that pay the other clubs 12 million each a year, without which, your Willie Masons, Michael Maguires and other "overseas" stars would be off the menu and with the exception of 3 or 4 clubs, the rest would go back to being part time.......as a result, Union would strip the best players and RL in the UK would be worse off than it was in 1993 within 5 years.....IMO that is.

I heard the RU were going to do a raid on the Stoop and strip Quins RL of all their best players.


But they haven't got any.

Subtle PHIPPS.......you'll never catch anything unless you are going to try and be subtle

I'm actually a defender of London RL, but the 'Thousand's of Players' excuse can't be backed up, and for your information, I used to (and still do) play RL at an Amatuer Level, I see hundred of girls and boys that used to play RL with me. The Giants turned up at my Gaelic Football session to advertise, I saw all of the 25 people at the club there. But really, why don't we give free tickets to those thousands who play RL?

The RFL HAVE been involved since 1996 my friend, they've been helping the Experiment every year with oodles and oodles of cash (much more then the Clubs in SL).



IMO the RFL should just admit defeat - no matter how many millions of schoolkids play RL down there it's just never going to equate to increased crowds.

Like many have said before GF (we, me

) we all had to play different sports at school but that didn't lead to us following these sports by going to games, this is the problem for Fulcrubronquins.



Also have to say that I've always disagreed with Experiment getting high profile games like the Manly match, after doing nothing to justify having such an honour, whereas clubs that contribute to SL miss out on the opportunity to host a world-class side like this, very unfair IMO.

Care to produce evidence?

On a side note ... news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 456539.stm Comments from Mr Lewis.

On a side note ... news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 456539.stm Comments from Mr Lewis.

Rugby league in London, La La La. Rugby League in London La La La!

Quote ="Paull3v"On a side note ... news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 456539.stm Comments from Mr Lewis.'" Well said Lewis As many people call for pro RL to be withdrawn from London, he is talking about two London clubs so there's derby matches and rivalry

Quote ="Paull3v"On a side note ... news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 456539.stm Comments from Mr Lewis.'" Well said Lewis As many people call for pro RL to be withdrawn from London, he is talking about two London clubs so there's derby matches and rivalry

And less Yorkshire teams-Wakey first then one other 3 years later- seems like a good plan.

Haven't got any players at all, or any 'best players'? If we have any players at all (which we do. Unlike those who claim we are being bankrolled by the RFL I can actually produce evidence!), then some of these must, by definition, be our best players even if they are not as good as others at any clubs. Thus making a mockery of your post and rendering the whole thing pointless.

Well done for trying though.

Well they can join us in the ' Worth winning in it's own right ' Championships