Re: New York Times article on the London Broncos : Tue Aug 26, 2014 8:07 am  

meliferra wrote:

Football (Soccer) in America is currently a massive growth sport with the World cup attracting huge audiences.
There are several US owners of UK teams, plenty of European players now go to the MLS for their final payday and the UK clubs are involved in setting up sister clubs like NYC and Man City.
A lot of this is probably down to the increase in Hispanic population and their love of football.

Good point.

Re: New York Times article on the London Broncos : Tue Aug 26, 2014 11:10 am  

When the idea of a pro rugby league team in London was first muted who thought it would ever get off the ground never mind still be here 30 plus years later.
read my post gutters, I never said it would get us an investor, I merely suggested it is the sort of article that could get the interest of someone, if that is being a fantasist then I am a fantasist
We were in existence before Mr Hughes and will be after Mr Hughes.
As for your comment that if someone buys out Mr Hughes that nothing will change, how on earth can you say that? Things change and evolve constantly sometimes for the good other times for the bad, all I can say is glad I don't drink with you coz the depressing glass half empty attitude you have would drag anyone down

Re: New York Times article on the London Broncos : Tue Aug 26, 2014 2:02 pm  

Blake Solly's comment is interesting. It would seem that the RFL see a successful London team as an asset but are not going to help this happen to protect the sport's integrity. All you need to do, Mr Solly, is to convince someone with sufficient capital (no pun intended) of the benefits of making London a success. You know, like your mate Nige did with Dr K and Salford

Re: New York Times article on the London Broncos : Tue Aug 26, 2014 11:25 pm  

Perry wrote:

"how much I a fantasist you are", what a great bit of English from the original grammar policeman, combined with the usual name calling, and then followed by a blizzard of statistics. Will you ever be able to respond to someone who disagrees with you without flaming them?

Grammar was down to typing on an I phone whilst walking.......as for disagreeing with me and being flamed, the poster concerned implied a new investor from the states could be attracted by the article......I simply highlighted the unlikelyness of that happening.
I said it was a good article.......it is, but the no fans because nobody knew bit is very relevant to the clubs current state........which is financially terrible

Re: New York Times article on the London Broncos : Wed Aug 27, 2014 8:55 am  

Gutters, so come on font of all knowledge, where is the new investor going to come from? I merely suggested that it is the sort of article that could easily peek someone's interest, I didn't say it would in this case.
Good to know that bad grammar in your case is acceptable because you were walking.

Re: New York Times article on the London Broncos : Wed Aug 27, 2014 3:42 pm  

gutterfax wrote:

Grammar was down to typing on an I phone whilst walking....

Ah, so you're allowed grammatical errors, it's just the rest of us who aren't. While we're on the subject of grammar I noted the word "unlikelyness" in your latest post. An interesting portmanteau, but I think you may mean "unlikelihood". Or were you walking again?

The last time I made a typo you asked me if English was my first language. You're very quick to dish it out to people, but equally quick to excuse yourself. Has it ever occurred to you that if you stop jumping on other people when they make a typo, you might receive more understanding when you err yourself?

gutterfax wrote:

...as for disagreeing with me and being flamed, the poster concerned implied a new investor from the states could be attracted by the article......I simply highlighted the unlikelyness of that happening.
I said it was a good article.......it is, but the no fans because nobody knew bit is very relevant to the clubs current state........which is financially terrible

It's not so much the message as the way you choose to deliver it. Had you responded along the lines of:
"It's a well written article but unfortunately I doubt it will encourage anyone in the US to invest", most people would have thought it a fair point.
But instead you have to call the poster "a fantasist" and then deliver the usual collection of numbers which for all we know are made up, because to be honest most of us don't have the time to check them.
There's no need for the way you address other people.

Re: New York Times article on the London Broncos : Wed Aug 27, 2014 6:24 pm  

gutterfax wrote:

Seriously?
I said it was a good piece......it is, but until your imaginary NY investor (lol) buys Hughes out then nothing will change......and how a team having lost all season, been relegated and having no fans or media coverage would attract your yank investor is beyond comprehension. American don't really know soccer exists as a pro sport......the concept of an investor ploughing cash into a minority sport.......and a minority sport everywhere other than Australia's easy coast is laughable and shows how much I a fantasist you are. Cold facts are that in 2016 if we want to compete either Hughes bankrolls us or we are dead! The last 4 years (possibly 6) of mismanagement will take 25 years and £40,000,000 to undo........that's about $65,000,000 US by the way

Firstly I'm not sure a few hundred words in one of The USA leading daily newspaper is likely to bring forward an american investor. However, I'm from the school of all publicity is good publicity. The game in the US is growing and now that the league's have unified in the US I expect huge leaps in the game over the pond in the next 10-20 years.

However your cheap sneering remark about american's having no knowledge of "soccer" is simply misguided. I suggest next time you apply fact to your sneering fiction. And we all know that the past years under Hughes ownership haven't been the best. But until someone takes the Bronco's off his hands we are stuck with his ownership. Support the team or don't, I really don't care but please stop your petty whinging for all our sakes. I really wonder why you bother hoping on here sometimes.

Re: New York Times article on the London Broncos : Wed Aug 27, 2014 7:56 pm  

Just in case. Drone

Re: New York Times article on the London Broncos : Wed Aug 27, 2014 11:51 pm  

Perry wrote:

The last time I made a typo you asked me if English was my first language.

Wrong. I questioned if English was your mother tongue because you were having trouble comprehending the reality that the club was buggered.....I rarely pull people up on grammar as it is a pointless exercise that smacks of having little if anything to add.
As for how I deliver my message? My "manner" is the least of the problems faced by the club moving forward and as for my statistics, they are not made up......just because they aren't pretty it would make some posters feel more "comfortable" but the reality of the losses incurred under Hughes is frightening.

The Lambeth Bronco wrote:

However your cheap sneering remark about american's having no knowledge of "soccer" is simply misguided.

Really? Tell me how well Soccer stacks up against the other mainstream sports in the USA in regards to the financials? Soccer is a growth sport, but in reality, it is a minority sport that relies on ex-pat interest for its TV audience.....the concept of RL making any inroads into the psyche of the US sporting market is laughable and the stuff of dreamers. Union is a minor-minor minority sport in the US that relies on college alumni...it has some central funding for its Olympic 7's side but it is light years away from anything like being "known"....league is 50 years behind them.

Re: New York Times article on the London Broncos : Thu Aug 28, 2014 6:23 am  

gutterfax wrote:

I questioned if English was your mother tongue because you were having trouble comprehending the reality that the club was buggered...

Patronising and untrue. I'm under no illusions where the club is at. What I had trouble comprehending was why you were attacking people who continue to attend matches, and gloating over those who talked about no longer going.

gutterfax wrote:

As for how I deliver my message? My "manner" is the least of the problems faced by the club moving forward ...

But it is a problem for many people on here.
Tell me, how are the problems faced by the club helped in any way by your attacks on other people on this forum?