: Wed Jul 22, 2009 3:30 pm  

Dave Lister wrote:

Why not?

He has said himself, he does not know the answers. What sort of a pathetic coach comes out with that sort of comment? People on here crow about how he is doing the best he can with what he has available - he's obviously not doing the best he can if he doesn't know how to solve the current situation. His excuses really rile me and he takes no responsbilty on his shoulders whatsoever.

I took his "I don't know" comment to be an example of a typical Brian Mac press conference - along the lines of the one that he did after the Catalans game at Millennium Magic last year. I think on the whole he has attracted better players to the club, and I still feel he is the right person for the job.

If you don't agree, then that's your perogotive, as it is mine to disagree with you.

: Wed Jul 22, 2009 3:33 pm  

Surreyben wrote:

I took his "I don't know" comment to be an example of a typical Brian Mac press conference - along the lines of the one that he did after the Catalans game at Millennium Magic last year. I think on the whole he has attracted better players to the club, and I still feel he is the right person for the job.

If you don't agree, then that's your perogotive, as it is mine to disagree with you.

And thats fine. I don't know why people are getting so defensive about this. I only asked what peoples opinions are and when they hear my opinion i'm accused of ranting but they are allowed theres.

In your opinion, what would it take for you want BM to be removed/resign?

: Wed Jul 22, 2009 3:36 pm  

Dave Lister wrote:

Good for you GF. You are entitled your opinion and using stats from what was effectively a completely different era to try and argue you point.

Different era eh.....so the last 10 years is to far for me to look back. OK.

Hang on.....what's this post below? Could this refer to a time long ago?

Dave Lister wrote:

Have a look what happened to Leeds' attendances when they turned cr*p for a year or 2. And see where they are at now and have been since they have been Champions.

Mate.....face facts. With 3k crowds and a meglomaniac with his hands all over the purse strings, we will remain a mid table team.
With 6k crowds, we will be more attractive to outside investors/sponsors and more importantly, DECENT QUALITY PLAYERS!

: Wed Jul 22, 2009 3:42 pm  

gutterfax wrote:

Different era eh.....so the last 10 years is to far for me to look back. OK.

Considering the club had a different name, played in a different stadium and was ran by different people, then I would suggest that is a different era.

gutterfax wrote:

Hang on.....what's this post below? Could this refer to a time long ago?

Aha. You picked up on that then. Well done, you realise the point I am trying to make.

gutterfax wrote:

Mate.....face facts. With 3k crowds and a meglomaniac with his hands all over the purse strings, we will remain a mid table team.
With 6k crowds, we will be more attractive to outside investors/sponsors and more importantly, DECENT QUALITY PLAYERS!

I agree we need outside investors to attract decent quality players for sure. I think you are being very harsh on DH though - he doesn't have to invest his hard earned at all in us, as far as I'm concerned as long as he keeps us going then its up to him how he wants to run his business. Without him where would we be? You lambasted me for not being able to suggest a new coach - please tell me who is there lined up to basicailly bank roll the club so we can offload Hughes?

Crowds will not come to watch a losing team though, especially a team playing the dire brand of rugby that we are playing that many on here have eluded too - avoiding mistakes and looking flat in attack and just waiting for the other team to slip up.

: Wed Jul 22, 2009 3:58 pm  

Dave Lister wrote:

Considering the club had a different name, played in a different stadium and was ran by different people, then I would suggest that is a different era.

...Superleague Era......regardless of what we have been called, the SL era is what we are now (rightly or wrongly) judged on

Dave Lister wrote:

Aha. You picked up on that then. Well done, you realise the point I am trying to make.

...whatever. You said one thing wasn't relevant.....then you yourself referred to pretty much the same period on history. TBH, can't be bothered splitting hairs.

Dave Lister wrote:

please tell me who is there lined up to basicailly bank roll the club so we can offload Hughes?

....who would be interested with crowds of 3k? Not me while the club don't move forwards (see above 10 year review post) off the pitch.

Dave Lister wrote:

Crowds will not come to watch a losing team though, especially a team playing the dire brand of rugby that we are playing that many on here have eluded too - avoiding mistakes and looking flat in attack and just waiting for the other team to slip up.

Crowds WILL come to watch a new sport though. Let's face it, we have pretty much all the RL fans that were already RL fans when they came to London and the target audience is NEW FANS.....

As I have said, chicken or the egg. I may not be right in my assumptions, but I tell you what, after 10 years of NOTHING, it must be worth a try.

: Wed Jul 22, 2009 4:08 pm  

gutterfax wrote:

...whatever. You said one thing wasn't relevant.....then you yourself referred to pretty much the same period on history. TBH, can't be bothered splitting hairs.

You are really missing the point here aren't you?

gutterfax wrote:

....who would be interested with crowds of 3k? Not me while the club don't move forwards (see above 10 year review post) off the pitch.

Someone with a bit of ambition to invest money and make the changes needed to gain a return (!) on their investment. When buying shares, you buy shares in something you think will improve, no? You don't buy at the peak. Waiting for the club to have 6000 attendences and then hoping for an investor won't work.

gutterfax wrote:

Crowds WILL come to watch a new sport though. Let's face it, we have pretty much all the RL fans that were already RL fans when they came to London and the target audience is NEW FANS.....

Yep, but then you have the issue or retaining these people interested in the new sport, and it won't happen if the team are playing badly and getting tonked at home.

: Wed Jul 22, 2009 4:24 pm  

Dave Lister wrote:

You are really missing the point here aren't you?

Patently.......as I thought you pointed out that I referred to a period in our history where attendences didn't rise as a result of success and that this was irrelevant as it was the wrong era (different name, same club) and then you pointed out that Leeds were affected by their success/lack of in the same period if not earlier?
Sorry, but the fact is, RL in London needs to attract NEW fans......not lapsed RL fans.

Dave Lister wrote:

Someone with a bit of ambition to invest money and make the changes needed to gain a return (!) on their investment. When buying shares, you buy shares in something you think will improve, no? You don't buy at the peak. Waiting for the club to have 6000 attendences and then hoping for an investor won't work.

Fair point, but I still insist that until I win euro millions, increased crowds will make us a more attractive proposition. The DH route hasn't worked, so why not try another? Or are you happy to plod along as we are?

Dave Lister wrote:

Yep, but then you have the issue or retaining these people interested in the new sport, and it won't happen if the team are playing badly and getting tonked at home.

Hey...as we say in sales that would be a nice problem to have

Seriously, this thread started with you asking questions about Big Mac, but in reallity....the problem lies elsewhere

: Wed Jul 22, 2009 4:45 pm  

Now now Children Play nicely or Naughty step for You both

: Wed Jul 22, 2009 5:43 pm  

gutterfax wrote:

Stat attack:
2003. Made play-offs and had an average of 3,545 that season. Following year we actually ended up with an average 3% less the following season. Great result!
2005. Made the paly-offs and had an average of 3,918 that season. Then we moved, changed our name and attracted some curious Union lot and managed to add a whole 8% to the gates. Due to the move and name change, I believe that the 2003/2004 figures are the more reliable ones. If you question this, I suggest you look at the average gates for every team to visit London since 2000 and compare to the gates in that first Harlequins Rugby League Season...EVERY ONE OF THE GATES THAT YEAR IS HIGHER THAN THE AVERAGE OVER THE 10 YEAR PERIOD!

So....what do these stats tell us? Is this the ultimate chicken and egg scenario in that do we need to win to increase crowds or increase crowds to win?


Our (mean) average over the last 10 years is:
Position 7.8th
Crowds 3,611.3

I would suggest that, given we have hit the dizzy heights of 5th and 6th and yet found ourselves in DIRE debt and now have 1 less (average) fan than in the year 2000 that my route is the one to try this time.

Still Listy...we are all entitled to our opinions and even though mine are partly based on facts and stats, I will admit they are manipulated facts and stats.........but still, they aren't "if's, buts and maybe's"

Do you want to talk us though the 1997 figures or will that mess up your manipulation of the facts ?

: Wed Jul 22, 2009 6:19 pm  

Snoopy wrote:

In theory if we are spending to the full Salary Cap shouldnt we expect to have players of equal quality to Saints Leeds etc.? After all that is what it is supposed to achieve(over time anyway).
Im not sure if we are operating at the full SC or not. Does anyone know

Does anyone know if we're currently spending up to the salary cap?