Re: Story in Guardian today : Mon Jun 27, 2011 10:33 am  

The Penguin wrote:

Why must we have a moniker? 'Titans'? 'Broncos'? Is there anything proven in marketing land that these have any impact whatsoever?

I think they do work and are essential for marketing aimed at and for young people, rather than just "Landan" - no problems with Titans!

Re: Story in Guardian today : Mon Jun 27, 2011 3:06 pm  

Fair sized piece in this weeks "League Express" saying no decision made yet, it has to be London but what goes with it, they say one option is a sponsors name which makes sense, it does interestingly say that League Express understand an approach was made to Fullers for sponsorship with the Pride brand, but Fullers withdrew after speaking with the RFU! as they have several sponsorships with them??

In the League Express readers poll last week, which does not state how many participated, we just get % figures, percentages a marketers dream, the result:

58.1% London Broncos

25.8% London with another second name/moniker

8.1% London Quins

5.6% No name change

2.4% London Harlequins

Re: Story in Guardian today : Mon Jun 27, 2011 3:10 pm  

So, when we revert to being Broncos and it has next to no impact on our attendances, what will you lot pick on next? The stadium? Gus Mackay? Buck and Dusty? The grass? The bar? Vince Cable?

Re: Story in Guardian today : Mon Jun 27, 2011 3:47 pm  

The Penguin wrote:

So, when we revert to being Broncos and it has next to no impact on our attendances, what will you lot pick on next? The stadium? Gus Mackay? Buck and Dusty? The grass? The bar? Vince Cable?

It has to Vince Cable!

Re: Story in Guardian today : Mon Jun 27, 2011 4:37 pm  

The Penguin wrote:

So, when we revert to being Broncos and it has next to no impact on our attendances, what will you lot pick on next? The stadium? Gus Mackay? Buck and Dusty? The grass? The bar? Vince Cable?

IF serious money is put into the re-launch, marquee players brought in, marketing really stepped up and it still does not work, whatever Ray French may say in his column that attendances are not the most important, I disagree and feel it is time to call it a day.

Re: Story in Guardian today : Mon Jun 27, 2011 4:58 pm  

RL will always exist in London. If it fails in SL so be it, but the Skolars I hope will continue and we will be back. It is too good an idea to die!

Re: Story in Guardian today : Mon Jun 27, 2011 4:59 pm  

jaybs wrote:

Fair sized piece in this weeks "League Express" saying no decision made yet, it has to be London but what goes with it, they say one option is a sponsors name which makes sense, it does interestingly say that League Express understand an approach was made to Fullers for sponsorship with the Pride brand, but Fullers withdrew after speaking with the RFU! as they have several sponsorships with them??

In the League Express readers poll last week, which does not state how many participated, we just get % figures, percentages a marketers dream, the result:

58.1% London Broncos

25.8% London with another second name/moniker

8.1% London Quins

5.6% No name change

2.4% London Harlequins

That's the League Express, so it was probably dominated by votes from within the M62 corridor, and therefore has nothing to do with our fanbase.

Re: Story in Guardian today : Mon Jun 27, 2011 5:02 pm  

The Penguin wrote:

So, when we revert to being Broncos and it has next to no impact on our attendances, what will you lot pick on next? The stadium? Gus Mackay? Buck and Dusty? The grass? The bar? Vince Cable?

Agree with everything you've said.

I also don't understand why we must be called 'London'. That gives nothing away. We could play anywhere in London, it's not gonna change anything with regards to crowd numbers. If we must re-name, then I'd rather we were called Richmond, as it least it shows the casual sports fan where we play. It also banishes the notion that we will moving around London again.

Re: Story in Guardian today : Mon Jun 27, 2011 5:32 pm  

Pinkerton wrote:

That's the League Express, so it was probably dominated by votes from within the M62 corridor, and therefore has nothing to do with our fanbase.

Did I say it was? LOL, at the end of the day fans will be considered but it will be a business decision and more important what the RFL, David Hughes and hopefully a major sponsor wants.

From what has been our most heated debate for a long time, there is very little agreement here in the forum and we are the few! The latest suggestion not to have London in the name personally I feel is a non starter from those who have the final decision, Richmond??

Re: Story in Guardian today : Mon Jun 27, 2011 5:38 pm  

poplar panther wrote:

RL will always exist in London. If it fails in SL so be it, but the Skolars I hope will continue and we will be back. It is too good an idea to die!

Perhaps I should have qualified more clearly and said Super League! if it is such a good idea why is it not working? in the North most clubs never had serious competition as we have in London from Premiership teams in football and union.

It is interesting that now even a rugby steeped town as St Helens the number of really loyal supporters is a very very small percentage of the population of what is only a town, this could be down to the number of people who have moved from Liverpool and that younger people follow football teams more than rugby league which does not have the same school or amateur young players numbers!

We have some high points in the 20 years but we never seem to have been able to build on it!