Re: quins have to go : Sun Aug 29, 2010 10:57 pm  

TRT wrote:

I don't know how relevant this is to the discussion, but I have a close relative that is conducting a marketing campaign on behalf of the RFL for next year and all the current SL clubs are involved with this except one. Can you guess who the missing club is?
If you answered Quins you would be wrong. If you answered Wakefield you would be right!

Except we'll be there for next year. The rumourn would have been so much better had you said the campaign was for 2012, or that it included Widnes too.

Re: quins have to go : Mon Aug 30, 2010 1:04 am  

TRT wrote:

I don't know how relevant this is to the discussion, but I have a close relative that is conducting a marketing campaign on behalf of the RFL for next year and all the current SL clubs are involved with this except one. Can you guess who the missing club is?
If you answered Quins you would be wrong. If you answered Wakefield you would be right!

haha.... epic rumour fail!

Re: quins have to go : Mon Aug 30, 2010 9:33 am  

According to this link,the rumour is that John Kear strongly tipped for taking over at Quins Interesting Reading

According to this link,the rumour is that John Kear strongly tipped for taking over at Quins Interesting Reading

Re: quins have to go : Mon Aug 30, 2010 10:19 am  

i8no-one wrote:

professional RL started in 1934 in London, and still is struggling today, get rid now.

As apposed to it starting in 1895 in Wakefield.

Makes me laugh this, now I am not saying we should go or London should stay - but we are in no position to comment on them in my opinion. Them in glass houses and all that.

They have a handfull of homegrown players playing for them (LMS, Clubb, Sharpe) and another few have broken in to the squad this year and look hopefull. Crowds are clearly a problem for them and they underacheive in this area, but given our lack of attendences even in our relatively 'succesfull' seasons we aren't in a position to poke fun.

And the most important thing of all in my opinion is that if they aren't in the league then you really think the funding from Sky in its current form would continue at the same level? Like it or not if we want to keep getting our hands on the big Sky divvy at the start of every year then we need them in the competition and there is no argument to that. Fair enough, if we were Wire or Hudds and had the Sugar Daddy to pump several hundred thousand in a year we could absorb the innevitable drop in Sky money, we might even be able to handle it if we had the attendences of Leeds, Wigan or Hull FC - but we dont. Despite 100+ years in the league we are almost completely reliant on Sky money (I reckon) and to lose London would innevitably reduce our income and put our club even further behind the rest, or more likely out of business.

If you took a vote of the owners or Celtic, Salford, Hull KR and Cas then it would be pretty much guaranteed they would vote to keep London in the league, if they didnt it would be turkeys voting for Christmas.

Re: quins have to go : Mon Aug 30, 2010 10:48 am  

Tommy Duckfingers wrote:

And the most important thing of all in my opinion is that if they aren't in the league then you really think the funding from Sky in its current form would continue at the same level? Like it or not if we want to keep getting our hands on the big Sky divvy at the start of every year then we need them in the competition and there is no argument to that. Fair enough, if we were Wire or Hudds and had the Sugar Daddy to pump several hundred thousand in a year we could absorb the innevitable drop in Sky money, we might even be able to handle it if we had the attendences of Leeds, Wigan or Hull FC - but we dont. Despite 100+ years in the league we are almost completely reliant on Sky money (I reckon) and to lose London would innevitably reduce our income and put our club even further behind the rest, or more likely out of business.
.

I agree that having London in the league does mena more sky money, however if we were relagated to the championship at the expence of quins then we would loose out far more than if the sky money was reduced so i would rather stay in super league on reduced sky money thaen drop into the championship.

Re: quins have to go : Mon Aug 30, 2010 10:52 am  

What i find interesting is that Governing bodies seem happy to have someone bankroll a team/organisation. It doesn't seem to matter how much debt they rack up so long as they're competitive on the field. Franchising is suppose to allow clubs to become stronger off the pitch without the pressure of onfield results (Relegation).

But it seems we have clubs continually spending beyond their means and whilst this time it's Quins in serious trouble. What happens when the other backers become tired of bankrolling the respective club?

The clubs in my opinion who are more deserving of a franchise spot are those that keep their house in order and aren't reliant on one backer.

With reference to Quins, it may be beneficial for them to drop a division, relocate and restart in an area where they can grow their attendances. Currently they're just surviving season after season which is no good. We can't expect the RFL to keep throwing handouts. A team in London will work, but it needs to be thoroughly thought out and needs a permanant home.

Re: quins have to go : Mon Aug 30, 2010 10:53 am  

It sounds like everything right has been done. The RFL will play a greater role in funding grassroots in expansion in the South, which has to be right, and the majority shareholder will be forced to relinquish his share because he owns another club, which has to be right as well, because his Wigan-focus is bound to be a hindrance for Quins. Now they can attract another investor (or rich bloke who would rather blow his money on a plaything than give it to the taxman).

Re: quins have to go : Mon Aug 30, 2010 2:50 pm  

Is there a more corrupt league in any sport than this superleague ?

I just wonder when they are going to start the financial aid to Cas, Wakey Salford , even to saints cos they posted a big loss this year ........................................ My advice for this one is "dont hold your breath".

It makes the championship more attractive if just to get away from these bent lovers

Re: quins have to go : Mon Aug 30, 2010 3:15 pm  

[quote="ambernotyeller"]Is there a more corrupt league in any sport than this superleague ?

I just wonder when they are going to start the financial aid to Cas, Wakey Salford , even to saints cos they posted a big loss this year ........................................ My advice for this one is "dont hold your breath".

It makes the championship more attractive if just to get away from these bent lovers[/quote

makes me laugh sometimes what people expected of a franchise system, basically its SL that is the franchise, not each club so they can actually do what the hell they like to keep the franchise stable and if that means treating each club differently then i afraid its ok, and we all bought in to it. Like ive said before if mcdonalds could get in the vatican they would not care if they ever sold a burger.

Re: quins have to go : Mon Aug 30, 2010 3:44 pm  

Perry wrote:Facts people, facts.

London / Quins have NEVER been bailed out financially by the RFL or Superleague.
(When we reformed in 2005 there was no money received, all that happened was the debt to David Hughes was written off leaving Mr Hughes out of pocket).

The RFL have failed to enforce the condition that Ian Lenegan sell his shareholding in Quins within 2 years of taking over Wigan, but they have enforced the condition that forbids Mr Lenegan from investing any money in Quins (not that Mr Lenegan is complaining about this I suspect).

David Hughes is not asking for a handout, he is asking that the situation regarding Ian Lenegan owning 65% of the club be resolved, and that the RFL start to address their responsibilities regarding development of the game.

Just posted this on the VT in response to the above post, I have nothing particular against Quins but this whole business seems to have the usual RFL smoke and mirrors about it :


Sorry, call me cynical, but I suspect this call for "assistance" re the development of the game is a smokescreen to try and avoid a public outcry from other struggling clubs, who see the RFL's willingness to assist so called expansion clubs at the detriment of traditional heartlands clubs as unfair.

The losses Quins are suffering cannot be attributed to the cost of the development of the game in the South, for the simple reason that no sane business man (which I believe David Hughes is), is going to pump GBP 1.5m a year into a club to cover such costs - he would have said to the RFL years ago, sorry but this is not our responsibility - you need to bear some of the burden.

Also not sure what major difference IL not having 65% of the shares has to do with it either. If these are relinquished for nothing by IL at the request of the RFL, what difference will that make to David Hughes? He will still be pumping in the same amount of money just owning 100% of the shares - therefore Quins are no better off and neither is David Hughes (or am I missing something).