Re: Story in Guardian today : Thu Jun 23, 2011 9:37 pm  

Smooth Stu wrote:

This tells a different story. It was your second best league finish, and 2003 was only better because you won 5 out of the last 6.

I believe that 1997 (2nd) was the London teams best ever SL season. 96 (4th) was our second best and 2003 (5th) our third with a trip to St Helens for our first play-off appearance. 2005 (6th), our last year as London RL AKA The London Broncos was next with a trip to Odsul.

Re: Story in Guardian today : Thu Jun 23, 2011 10:09 pm  

gutterfax wrote:

I believe that 1997 (2nd) was the London teams best ever SL season. 96 (4th) was our second best and 2003 (5th) our third with a trip to St Helens for our first play-off appearance. 2005 (6th), our last year as London RL AKA The London Broncos was next with a trip to Odsul.

Sorry Gutters, I wasn't looking at last century!

Re: Story in Guardian today : Thu Jun 23, 2011 11:47 pm  

nadera78 wrote:

Tooting and Mitcham United. Lovely little non-league ground, currently holds 3,500 speccies - and has an open piece of land alongside one touchline. Stick a new stand on it and extend a couple of other parts of the ground and you've got yourself an 8,000 plus capacity. And the owners have just successfully removed a limit on selling it that had been held by the fans. Decent transport, and not far from the current location so community work won't be affected. And the club has money problems so could do with the cash.

Tooting fans (all 300 of them) seem to think the owners might be angling to sell it to AFC Wimbledon.

Just a thought.

Great. Why not put the boot into another sports club (one that has existed continuously, and with a lot more stability than our own, for many more decades) when they're vulnerable. How few supporters does a rival club need to have before it's acceptable to walk all over them and take advantage of their situation? Tooting & Mitcham United FC isn't a failing club, it's in quite a healthy state, but unfortunately control of the club and the facilities at which it plays appear to have fallen into the hands of a person (or persons) who wishes to feather his own nest. There are a lot of non-league football clubs in the south east with 300 or so supporters - I support one of them myself and empathise with Tooting's supporters, several of whom are personal friends of mine - and if you try to kick them out of the ground they call their own I can guarantee you you'll get more than you bargained for, and rightly so. Don't even think about it.

Re: Story in Guardian today : Fri Jun 24, 2011 12:48 am  

There's the slight matter of the planning permission clause that means the maximum gate at Imperial Fields is actually below Superleague minimum standards. Also, if people think Twickers is difficult to get to I'd love to see what they think of getting to Imperial Fields by tram on a Sunday.

Re: Story in Guardian today : Fri Jun 24, 2011 8:00 am  

gutterfax wrote:

....FFS you are whatshername who blew her trumpet and then bu99ered off to the O2 and I clam My fiver.

Hehe....I wish! If I had breasts I wouldn't leave the house!

My point is that London needs to look like the new club (whatever we may be) has thrown up on it! Every possible thing has to have an advert for us on it...and oyster cards are one of them....just not some lame figure like 5000.....given out on the same day at one station....needs to be loads and over a period to build anticipation.

Again....the kit/logo and basic product has to be great...it would be a victory of some sorts in kids who knew nothing of rugby league were getting the shirt a) because it has London on it and b) because it was stylish and looks good.

Re: Story in Guardian today : Fri Jun 24, 2011 8:06 am  

Little Big Hands Jr. wrote:

it's still better than being named after a yawnion side

Re: Story in Guardian today : Fri Jun 24, 2011 8:18 am  

With both Gus Mackay and David Hughes stating the sponsorship in name angle is there any mileage in having a sponsor in our name such as London Pride that I floated somewhere a few days back. Sponsorship is commonplace in southern-hemisphere rugby union with the sponsorship name being the name at the start of the name, ie Rabodirect Melbourne Rebels, or HSBC Warratahs which is seen at every game at the SFS, or in the league the vodafone Warriors.

In the northern hemisphere we haven't gone down the route of refering to our teams by their mascot, rather than where the team, and in my opinion a sports drink may be ideal, but with Red Bull being the main player we wouldn't want to move from one confusion to become the second bulls in the same league. Gatorade is a relatively small player in the UK market, and lucozade seem to put alot of money into athletics so I'd imagine their budget is tied up in 2012.

The other beverage would an alcoholic one and one that rugby league has traditionally had a strong relationship with, and perhaps one that they should look at renewing, maybe get Keith Hogg back into a Harlequins hat and link up the Scottish and Newcastle Breweries he was involved with.

Remember Harlequins rugby union were known as NEC Harlequins for a time and anything that allows us to build our playing roster and spent towards cap will be a cross worth bearing.

Hell why not become the London Pride Lions, it gives us a sponsor in the name, a return to Fulham colours to match the Fullers beer, a Lion is not a rugby league mascot in SL, Pride is an established name in Australian rugby league, a group of Lions is called a pride of lions and surely pride is something that you want associated with the shirt and the club. Fullers London Pride is made a few miles up the road from the Stoop and only a stones throw from two our former homes in Brentford and Chiswick. Also a Lion is a symbol of Britishness and may allow us to form an alliance with Surrey CCC who have returned to the name Surrey Lions after being known as the Surrey Brown Caps for a few years.

London Pride Lions.

London Pride Lions if we don't go down the London Broncos route

Re: Story in Guardian today : Fri Jun 24, 2011 8:23 am  

We have an opportunity next season as there will be a dislocation with Olympic break so maybe people will look at things differently instead of their usual summer sporting routine. The London cricket teams are pretty rubbish at the moment. If we can brand 'London' on the shirts, we could sell a lot as no other professional sporting outfit has it in their name. I understand a lot don't want the Quins name to go but if it does happen we will all have to get behind the new incarnation. Blimey, I hated the change to Quins and said in the Guardian that it would not work and got lambasted for it, I got fully behind it but I hate to say I told you so...................

Re: Story in Guardian today : Fri Jun 24, 2011 8:57 am  

Dave Lister wrote:

So we could be named after a hat, a chain of pub-restaurants, two baseball teams, murderers or a mobile phone?

Oh but...our own identity!

You people have seriously warped priorities, is all I can say now.

Re: Story in Guardian today : Fri Jun 24, 2011 10:35 am  

Prince of Denmark wrote:

Great. Why not put the boot into another sports club (one that has existed continuously, and with a lot more stability than our own, for many more decades) when they're vulnerable. How few supporters does a rival club need to have before it's acceptable to walk all over them and take advantage of their situation? Tooting & Mitcham United FC isn't a failing club, it's in quite a healthy state, but unfortunately control of the club and the facilities at which it plays appear to have fallen into the hands of a person (or persons) who wishes to feather his own nest. There are a lot of non-league football clubs in the south east with 300 or so supporters - I support one of them myself and empathise with Tooting's supporters, several of whom are personal friends of mine - and if you try to kick them out of the ground they call their own I can guarantee you you'll get more than you bargained for, and rightly so. Don't even think about it.

Calm down dear, hysteria is the right location for you it would seem. Did I say anything about death-riding T&M? No, not a word. Did I say they should be kicked out? No. DId I say we should pick them off and scavenge the bones? No. So calm down.

As it stands the club loses money every year and has owners who seem to have their own ideas about the future. T&M didn't 'fall into his hands' btw they voluntarily got into bed with him a few years ago, and it was the fans themselves who recently decided to overturn their right to block any sale of the ground. They also have no way of increasing funding to the team, so the losses will continue to mount.

All I said was, here is a local club with a nice facility that they are in danger of losing. David Hughes seems intent on moving the RL club again and has repeatedly stated that he would like to own, or at least have a share in, a stadium. RL moving in alongside T&M would make a lot of sense, in the same way that any multi-use facility does, if there is the space to expand the stadium.

Hysteria, indeed!