The pretty obvious answer is that you put your money in a sport with a national profile - there's a number to choose from.

However, if your question is about RL having a viable national base, then GF has answered your question (although equally I think you could also select Brisbane Broncos, New Zealand Warriors, or from other sports the likes of Sydney Swans). Of course, that wouldn't happen in UK, where progress would be seen as putting Featherstone in Super League (no disrespect to Fev, by the way).

I don't believe that a struggling London club does the game any favours. However, if RL is not to become an almost exclusively semi-pro sport in the country, it needs a strong London presence.

The RFL will have the details of everyone who bought tickets for yesterday and anyone who buys tickets for any Rugby League event. I know that there may be some laws against passing on the information to a third party but wouldn't it be nice to see everyone within a 50 mile radius of Barnet or wherever London Broncos end up receiving an offer from the club for a reduced ST, a three or five game ST or any sort of offer for the 2014 Super League season?

Yes, it sounds too simple to happen however.

While the present clown is still CEO for LB forget it, think we are dead and buried.

I said it after the last double header at Wembley but "somebody" was happy with a couple of "we're back" screen shots in the ground and a mention in the programme.......21,000 of the fans there we are told were southerners...why the didn't we bug, borrow or steal that data? Hughes wasted 3 million last year we are told......it's a farce that we didn't at least try.

There is such a thing as the Data Protection Act. It's not quite so simple as just asking for the data though I agree with your general point. Hughes / Gus should have thought just a little about how they could have got some access to this data.

I'm sure that most agencies always ask for permission to keep a purchasers information, and you usually have to opt out, if RFL were the seller, I would see no legal problem in RFL contacting those who purchased in London, yes we should be asking, but it is something RFL should also offer, if we continue next season.

For the last 10 years + you haven't been able to collect data without offering opt out processes......then there is the assumed permission, as in , you bought RL tickets and we are promoting RL....It's not like we were nicking the electoral role.....this is targeting!

When you collect data you are supposed to describe the purposes for which it can be used and with whom it can be shared etc.

I have received a couple of advertisements from the RFL regarding the Challenge Cup Final for 2014 and considering that London Broncos are a member of the RFL so it would be advertising the Rugby Football League's product therefore there wouldn't be much wrong with mass marketing to those in the South East.

Yes......and let's say 50% of those cockney based RL fans opted out...there's still 10,500 potential targets.....money better spent on Oyster Card wallets and viral videos some say


Interesting take on the use of terms and conditions and who bothers reading them.....
[urlhttp://www.out-law.com/page-10929[/url

Yep it a no brainier, assuming the data collected could be used for that purpose.

So GF, you slagged off the several investors model at Bradford, how is the one sugar daddy model working for your team?

For those people who had tickets posted to them, what was to stop the RFL/London Broncos throwing in 5 free tickets for redemption to an April/May game? The permission is already assumed as the follow up/reminder mailer in late march or early April isn't a blind one, but a legit follow up........

Wrong!
I questioned the Validity of Mr Ryan Whitcut as a fit and proper person to run a SL club and guess what......... I was right

They guy had a string of failed pubs/bars/clubs/hotels behind him......every company he was a director of was dissolved....I didn't need to be Einstein to see it.

As for the multi owner model, I have no thoughts on it one way or the other.....although Mr Moore et al are the THIRD DIFFERENT OWNERS FOR BRADFORD IN THREE YEARS I suspect if it doesn't work, the RFL will find another way to bail Bradford out AGAIN whilst ignoring other clubs in trouble......after all, we can't have the Iconic Odsal only open for monster trucks, speedway and Belinda Carlisle





Now, I am sure you felt smug when you crawled from under your bridge to post here, but I'd suggest you get back under there before I spank you some more.
TT4N

Nothing probably.

Back in 2011.....when we had an opportunity to contact 21,000 "locals" directly when they received their tickets for the doubleheader and the chances are the RFL would have given this to the club gratis or close to it.........

You've forgotten incompetence and stupidity.

I have recieved emails about bathrooms and clothes for fat people through my membership of rugbyleaguetickets.co.uk so I see no reason at all why London wouldn't have been able to access the same database.

I still receive emails weekly from Northampton FC cos I briefly expressed an interest in a non-existent pro RL club.

mental picture stuck in my mind......can't close my eyes for 5 minutes....

Oh wow, just realised that should have read bathrooms AND CLOTHES for fat people. Brilliant!

Wrong. you quoted a previous poster that lead to the facts about Whitcut. if you had left it there then fine, as you say it was pretty obvious and anybody could draw an unfit person conclusion from that public information, but no you had to troll on.

But good, finally an answer from you about the multi owner model, which however you could have made on redamberblack instead of wittering on about big trucks and T'pau etc, (which you still are!!!). The person you obsessed about, Whitcut, has played his role in getting three investors in, and gone once the RFL were happy. In retrospect the RFL must have said based on the same info, that Whitcut was not fit when the initial plans were put in, hence the time taken to build the investor base and present the final plan. The previous two owners were not multi owners, true Hood was a minority shareholder with until the last minute an inactive majority of shareholders -Caisley, OK was the sole owner but hardly a sugar daddy as was stated when he took over.

Why my obsession with this? Because there has to be an alternative to the sugar daddy model for clubs without one such as Bradford, London, etc. For Bradford, if it works when we are short of £600k sky money then it will do when we get it back. The critical factor/flaw is the unity between the multiple owners, as evidenced by Hood and Caisley, however with a newco a fast exit that does not affect the club can be written into the shareholder agreement, which is presumably what is going on right now.

So for London, would a multi owner model be better?

Any owner model would be nice