Re: Who is to blame? : Wed Sep 25, 2013 11:05 am  

Hedgehog King wrote:

The "local spelling" equals the Florentine dialect that was chosen as the national language. The Milanese name for Milan is "Milan". It's the same with "Torino", the football team took the Italian name of the city, the local Piemontese name is "Turin" just like in English.

Here you have the advantage over me, as I know b*gger all about Italian regional accents and dialects.
A.C.Milan were set up by an Englishman though, I'm sure of that bit.

Re: Who is to blame? : Wed Sep 25, 2013 11:12 am  

TMF wrote:

Yeah, I've thought all along the main problem has been the name. We should change it again.

That should do it.

Read the thread and you'll see that the discussion regarding the name was a side debate. No-one has suggested it is the main problem. Indeed, the whole thread is based on the fact that there isn't a "main problem", but lots of inter related ones, some big, some small.

Re: Who is to blame? : Wed Sep 25, 2013 11:18 am  

Hedgehog King wrote:

DC residents are entitled to vote in the Maryland round of the Presidential elections if they "cross the border" into Maryland proper (no polling stations in DC). It's not a normal part of Maryland but it's still very much associated with it.

It's not in Maryland.

Re: Who is to blame? : Wed Sep 25, 2013 11:24 am  

TMF wrote:

Yeah, I've thought all along the main problem has been the name. We should change it again.

That should do it.

Before you jump in with both feet try reading my post again.......where did I say it was the main problem? The thread had drifted on to club names and I happen to feel that LB is a crap name, simple as that. Clearly you are one of those that thought changing our name from the global brand `Harlequins` back to the London Broncos was the right move and we can all see the success that has brought us.

There are a host of reasons as to why we are in the state we are in including lack of funds, poor management appointments both on and off the pitch, poor management decisions, poor player selection/purchase, extended contracts for players past their best or continually injured, no show players, lazy past-it overseas players, lack of marketing.....take your pick, it has all contributed to some degree in our downward spiral....but hey pick me out for not liking the name.

Re: Who is to blame? : Wed Sep 25, 2013 11:28 am  

Perry wrote:

Read the thread and you'll see that the discussion regarding the name was a side debate. No-one has suggested it is the main problem. Indeed, the whole thread is based on the fact that there isn't a "main problem", but lots of inter related ones, some big, some small.

The name's irrelevant. Ive taken loads of new people to games over the years and nobody's ever said to me 'what a strange name! or 'what a stupid name!'. It's fine, and was fine when we've drawn 8k crowds and 5k crowds etc.

Our poor crowds are due to our poor team and lack of stability.

If anything the kids love the name Broncos and the mascots that come with it, and Aussie players are drawn to a club called London.

Do you really think the crowds would have been better if we were called 'Twickenham Tigers' or 'Brentford Buffalos'. They definitely wouldn't.

It makes absolutely no difference.

Re: Who is to blame? : Wed Sep 25, 2013 11:33 am  

Perry wrote:

Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree.

They have been established for a long time from when the city was nowhere near that big. Also you have to remember that during the cold war both East and West Germany used Berlin as the showcase to demonstrate why their political system was supposedly the best. Sport was not immune from the clash of ideologies, by keeping the name "Berlin" for a sports team you could de facto claim that your team was the true representative of the whole of the city, rather than just the half of it that you ran.
Major League US sport has always been based on the business franchise model. They can, and do, up sticks to a completely different city at the whim of the owner. So we should be careful drawing too many parallels to the UK in general, and ourselves in particular.
A throw over from the days of shamateurism. But interesting to note that the only ones to adopt "London" in their name are the ones who play nowhere near the place. A bit like airports, if they have "London" in their title they're nowhere near.


The problem I have always had with the "London" tag is that it smells slightly of artifice, especially when you have no real period of history compared to other sports in the area. London is a city of 8 million people (second 2nd most populous in Europe) and myriad suburbs all with a distinct identity. I just don't think that most Londoners identify with London as a whole, as neatly illustrated by these two comments,
There's your London unity for you.

So every example that disproves your theory from all over the UK and the world in various sports doesn't count because it's 'different'.

Get a grip.

Re: Who is to blame? : Wed Sep 25, 2013 3:02 pm  

Partisan wrote:

...One think I don't like is that London once again changed it's colours.
I don't think navy blue, black and silver works...

With you on that one.

Re: Who is to blame? : Wed Sep 25, 2013 3:04 pm  

Tre Cool wrote:

So every example that disproves your theory from all over the UK and the world in various sports doesn't count because it's 'different'.

Get a grip.

Not what I said.
But don't let that stop you from uttering one dismissive line, followed by a brusque rebuff. Why would we want nuanced discussion, when we can all just use a megaphone?

Re: Who is to blame? : Wed Sep 25, 2013 3:52 pm  

Like a lot of other posters, I think the above poll is a wee bit simplistic. There are many reasons why Broncos have failed. Some are club-specific, and some are more generic, where London has been particularly hard-hit by issues which the whole sport faces.

However, ultimately I think it does come down to a failure to successfully market the club. The crowds haven't really been significantly affected by success or failure either way. Instead, we've seen a pretty long-term declining trend in crowds since the very early days of Super League. Neither teams, coaches, Wembley trips or league positions have significantly altered that overall trend.

London faces issues which northern clubs don't : travel times to get to the club; the transient nature, or churn, of London's population; the vast array of alternative draws for the punters' pounds which, with all due respect to St Helens' nightlife, is in a different league from the M62 clubs. That's before you get to very real issues like a lack of RL infrastructure and junior clubs, the additional cost of living, the absence of a generational family commitment to RL which is sustaining northern clubs in the face of no sponsorship and declining media interest/exposure, and of course northern jessie players not wanting to move far from mum's Yorkshire puddings.

However, these haven't proved insurmountable problems for various rugby union clubs, including the landlords. Yes, they have advantages league will never have in terms of friendly and disproportionate media coverage, big central funding and an affluent supporter base. But there's no denying that several RU clubs have turned crowds of less than the current Broncos average into regular gates of the sort which Broncos can only dream of. There's been almost no penetration of the local market, and a declining ability to attract and retain expat northerners and antipodeans to the Stoop.

Of course, some might argue that a winning team would attract more fans. But the long-term crowd trend doesn't support that argument too strongly. I'd also argue that there's a bit of chicken and egg there. We know that big, loud and passionate crowds help motivate players to better performances. London's players have been playing in what must feel like an empty park for a decade. There's your vicious circle right there.

So, without wanting to give Gutterfax any further reason to shout "I told you so" all over the boards, I'd have to agree with his central thesis, which is that the club has pretty much consistently, since Branson, relied on the concept of "If you build it, they will come". And that's just not proved to be true. The lesson from the Broncos is that you need very effective, successful marketeers to deliver a successful, effective club. And you'll need to both pay them well, and provide them with a big budget to work with. If you don't do that, then no amount of money on the pitch will sustain you.

Re: Who is to blame? : Wed Sep 25, 2013 7:57 pm  

Roy Haggerty wrote:

So, without wanting to give Gutterfax any further reason to shout "I told you so" all over the boards, I'd have to agree with his central thesis, which is that the club has pretty much consistently, since Branson, relied on the concept of "If you build it, they will come". And that's just not proved to be true. The lesson from the Broncos is that you need very effective, successful marketeers to deliver a successful, effective club. And you'll need to both pay them well, and provide them with a big budget to work with. If you don't do that, then no amount of money on the pitch will sustain you.

Although GF will no doubt go on about it at length, I think many posters on here are in agreement that the Kevin Costner marketing plan had been an abject failure!