Think you embarrassed yourself by calling Wigan an embarrassment to the sport, so your point about attendances became a little lost.

How is it? Care to refute the post with something sensible or have you nothing but hot air as usual?
Was not the hotbed of rugby league that is Wigan's attendances much lower than pretty much all other 1st division teams bar probably York & Whitehaven(off the top of my head)? That after a successful return to the top flight.
The talk about the miners strike having an effect didn't manage to diminish the numbers elsewhere in huge droves compartatively eg Fev, Cas, Leigh etc during the same time period.

the call of the OP (and others previously) saying London should be kicked out from SL due to attendances, if that is the case then why weren't teams of yore binned off for the same thing. That isn't the rules is it...
yes London is a major problem atm, yes it needs to do shed loads more, yes the RFL need to pull their finger out to help sort it as we need a top flight London team
Should they be binned due to attendances (as posted for the umpteenth time this and last year)..no. That's my point.
Crack on....

London and long term - ideal mates.

So what's long term? Over 30 years so far.

That really is an awful argument!

What were the comparative attendances at other clubs?

What's Salford, Fev and the rest of them using as there excuse? They have 70 years on the Broncos

How long would you like??

The same as the rest to get it wrong

London is a city of 8 million whilst Featherstone is a village of 12000. Fev currently average 2000 roughly 18 percent of its population. Now go do the math for London and then tell me why fev need an excuse silly person.

How long have Fev been in existence? If London are named Twickenham instead would that then make the crowds ok?

Twickenham is far bigger than featherstone to start with!

I love this idea the flatcappers have that London is essentially just one big place where everybody buys into the same sports teams.

Then why call themselves London?

And what makes them valuable if they are just another small suburban team? You can't have it both ways!

Correct.

Other possible Featherstone excuses - lower tier as opposed to SL, part time players and journeymen as opposed to the supposed best talent in the Country to watch, no away followings as opposed to regular big away crowds, crap ground as opposed to nice all seater with superb facilities.

Taking all that into account, on a regular Thursday night as opposed to a bank holiday, live on the TV Featherstone got over 1000 fans MORE than London did against Catalans. They also got 500 MORE for their last weekend game than London did their game with Hull at the Stoop.

Given the cost of travel and often during the week it would be interesting to see what away support nothern teams would take over a season.

What about Salford and its locality to Manchester!!

So Fev got 500 more fans for their last home game-Thats significant progress if they take London's place!!! A town of 12000 has great potential- maybe they can copy the Green Bay Packers model where 80% of the population turn up!!

The Oldham derby between Saddleworth v Waterhead drew a bigger crowd yesterday and that's in Conference 1. And that was about 500 more than the town's professional club the day before in their derby match.

Jeez you're dim.

Fev don't need an excuse because they already are drawing more than the average from their locality - how can anyone not get that.

If London and that's what they are called not Twickenham drew just 1% of 8 million people they would be averaging 80,000. They are not even close to that. The whole point of a team in London is so we have a team representing the Capital so your ludicrous Twickenham argument has no validity at all which in you case is always the case. Featherstone only claim to represent Featherstone and in that respect do s bang up job.

By the way London have been in existence 30 years now and there gates are as low as they have ever been - yet unlike Fev have had unbroken membership of SL and all the funding and big games that provide. So yet another pathetic excuse on your part.

So it's just Salford now.

When Fev were last in the top flight they averaged 4,000 which were good gates pre SL. I'd imagine with their tip top stadium they would do even better this time.

Your so full of bullsh*t my friend. This potential crap you talk about is truly hilarious - it can only be potential if there is any real demand for the game - it is clear to anyone with a brain that nowhere near enough people in London give a damn, ever gave a damn or ever will.

You are so clueless and so lacking in your knowledge of the game it almost seems unfair to belittle you, but I will. It does not make a jot of difference what size Featherstone is or what percentage of their population turn up. What matters is that they will get gates well in excess of anything London manage and ever will manage and thus by definition have more potential and will have fulfilled that potential.

What really pees me off about you and your ilk is that your not just happy to flog a dead horse yourselves but you expect us to do it and pay for it to boot. A match against Fev will boast my clubs coffers by roughly 30-40k a season and as someone who considers the London experiment a waste of time is money we are being forced to waste on a hopeless cause.

We will let Fev have Gus, that'll drop the crowd numbers

Can you qualify this utter nonsense?

Given how much closer Fev is they will always get more away fans.

If they are getting more people in the gates in the Championship then they would only increase in Super League.

As those gates are higher than London's now by all accounts its preetty simple maths.

What excuse are you on about?
So you're saying that Featherstone get better crowds than Man United?
Can you actually the question? If London Broncos were renamed Twickenham, would that make their crowds acceptable? What percentage of the area a club is named after has to turn up for it to be acceptable? What do you think of Leeds and Wigan's crowds?
Indeed London have been going for 30 years in various forms and have been in SL since its inception, and have never been relegated.
Yes London's attendances are very low, worryingly low. I don't believe I said anything contradicting that, so again, what excuse are you on about?
Can you at least try and engage in a civil debate without resorting to abuse at the outset?

Really? Can you prove that?