BUMP: If the "rumoured" gate of between 750-900 for Bradford is correct, then this surely must spell the end for this disastrous move south of the River and highlight the need to discuss moving back to Ealing. Regardless of the expense of the various grounds we know rent, the idea of a few hundred rattling around a 10k stadium, watching a relegation battle unfold is surely seen now as insanity?
The whole move was managed terribly and yet the club are insisting on playing in Dons colours to try and garner favour rather than playing in our proper colours. There is no attempt to market the game other than to existing fans, no game day experience no feeling that the club know what is happening from day to day.
Surely Hughes, who has alluded to 4 more years after this, can see that anything other than cloth cutting and hard work back at Ealing is key to having any chance of building to even half his 5k figure. 1,350 is the current average after 4 games (if we take 900 as correct). This includes hundreds of free tickets and discounted offers to curious dons fans and we started discounting after just 2 games into this new dawn.....so the club are aware they have f%$&*d up...now they just need to admit it and get the side back to West London ASAP.
There was a reason for each of the previous moves...
Harlequins RU negotiated a deal with the Broncos which gave the Broncos a free ride on a Matchday, however the Union Club benefitted from their brand being paraded around, and also the Broncos paid for things like an after match party which filled their bars with takings for themselves. They had an option to buy in after a few years for one pound. There appears to have been little thought about what happened if they didn't buy in. Once the initial deal elapsed, the Union Club wanted tens of thousands a game, plus a large share of the takings. This was perceived as not worthwhile by the Broncos.
A similar deal in many ways was agreed with Barnet, in which the Broncos would get the ground free, but basically Barnet would take all money. Parts of the deal, which made it potentially worthwhile for the Broncos were that they were promised a training pitch and provision for club staff. However, Barnet sold their former ground, where Broncos trained, would not install Rugby pitches at the Hive, would not let Broncos train on the match pitch and wanted an additional payment for just about anything. This damaged relations and the Broncos had to go to the expense of setting up again elsewhere for training and for club staff etc. It was not surprising when the deal was terminated.
The deal at Ealing Trailfinders also seemed to be baked in warmth, with the initial talk being about treating the club as your own and one big happy family etc. But the reality was that once a supporter had passed through the gate, pretty much all money went to the Trailfinders. The Trailfinders were also highly restrictive around what Broncos could do, and fixed prices in e.g. the corporate facilities. The problem with this was for instance, the Broncos may have got e.g. 100 people who would pay 15 pounds for a meal, but perhaps only 30 people who would pay 25 pounds for a meal, meaning the club had no flexibility. Some of the other decisions stripped out revenue opportunities in the last season or two, because if you are merely a salesman you might remove unprofitable product lines, but if you are with a big business, you cannot necessarily apply that thinking or you might close everything down, which is not exactly commercial acumen, as the downturn becomes then closure in real terms. In my opinion the club should have insisted that any merchandise provider ran a stall for say 5 hours on a matchday, guaranteeing a range of products etc. As things went, it became improbable the Broncos would make any money once in the ground, due to short term decisions which had a highly corrosive impact.
I reckon it would have only taken a modest double digit percentage of the bar takings and food stall takings to secure new terms, perhaps 50p out of a Pint, and a pound out of a burger sale and we could still be at Trailfinders. But obviously the octogenerian travel multi-millionaire at Trailfinders wanted all the cream for himself.
The problem the club has had over the past 15 years or so is that the majority of commercial people were simply unable to build positive relationships with their landlord, but I guess if a deal is signed which is so clearly one sided, it becomes very difficult for the beneficiary to renegotiate or want to renegotiate. Why would someone want less?
The problem that Hughes has always had is that he appoints someone into e.g. a media role or commercial role and the next thing along is that they start to give him advice. It is fine if you hire e.g. Phil Knight the founder of Nike to advise on sporting merchandise but less so if you get Fred of Fred's Sporting Barrowstall. After all a Fred will always seek to cut costs, change location etc if sales are low. But a Phil Knight would not sack all staff simultaneously to save on wages, or close the factory, or start over, because he is not a small businessman but interested in longevity. It is just also like McDonald's they do not apply the exact model to all locations, but Jack's Burger Van would merely roll up anywhere with no adaptation. That is why Jack and Fred are small businessmen and why big business doesn't hire them.
Joined: Mar 09 2002 Posts: 5137 Location: Twickenham
markrammond wrote:There was a reason for each of the previous moves...
Harlequins RU negotiated a deal with the Broncos which gave the Broncos a free ride on a Matchday, however the Union Club benefitted from their brand being paraded around, and also the Broncos paid for things like an after match party which filled their bars with takings for themselves. They had an option to buy in after a few years for one pound. There appears to have been little thought about what happened if they didn't buy in. Once the initial deal elapsed, the Union Club wanted tens of thousands a game, plus a large share of the takings. This was perceived as not worthwhile by the Broncos.
A similar deal in many ways was agreed with Barnet, in which the Broncos would get the ground free, but basically Barnet would take all money. Parts of the deal, which made it potentially worthwhile for the Broncos were that they were promised a training pitch and provision for club staff. However, Barnet sold their former ground, where Broncos trained, would not install Rugby pitches at the Hive, would not let Broncos train on the match pitch and wanted an additional payment for just about anything. This damaged relations and the Broncos had to go to the expense of setting up again elsewhere for training and for club staff etc. It was not surprising when the deal was terminated.
The deal at Ealing Trailfinders also seemed to be baked in warmth, with the initial talk being about treating the club as your own and one big happy family etc. But the reality was that once a supporter had passed through the gate, pretty much all money went to the Trailfinders. The Trailfinders were also highly restrictive around what Broncos could do, and fixed prices in e.g. the corporate facilities. The problem with this was for instance, the Broncos may have got e.g. 100 people who would pay 15 pounds for a meal, but perhaps only 30 people who would pay 25 pounds for a meal, meaning the club had no flexibility. Some of the other decisions stripped out revenue opportunities in the last season or two, because if you are merely a salesman you might remove unprofitable product lines, but if you are with a big business, you cannot necessarily apply that thinking or you might close everything down, which is not exactly commercial acumen, as the downturn becomes then closure in real terms. In my opinion the club should have insisted that any merchandise provider ran a stall for say 5 hours on a matchday, guaranteeing a range of products etc. As things went, it became improbable the Broncos would make any money once in the ground, due to short term decisions which had a highly corrosive impact.
I reckon it would have only taken a modest double digit percentage of the bar takings and food stall takings to secure new terms, perhaps 50p out of a Pint, and a pound out of a burger sale and we could still be at Trailfinders. But obviously the octogenerian travel multi-millionaire at Trailfinders wanted all the cream for himself.
The problem the club has had over the past 15 years or so is that the majority of commercial people were simply unable to build positive relationships with their landlord, but I guess if a deal is signed which is so clearly one sided, it becomes very difficult for the beneficiary to renegotiate or want to renegotiate. Why would someone want less?
The problem that Hughes has always had is that he appoints someone into e.g. a media role or commercial role and the next thing along is that they start to give him advice. It is fine if you hire e.g. Phil Knight the founder of Nike to advise on sporting merchandise but less so if you get Fred of Fred's Sporting Barrowstall. After all a Fred will always seek to cut costs, change location etc if sales are low. But a Phil Knight would not sack all staff simultaneously to save on wages, or close the factory, or start over, because he is not a small businessman but interested in longevity. It is just also like McDonald's they do not apply the exact model to all locations, but Jack's Burger Van would merely roll up anywhere with no adaptation. That is why Jack and Fred are small businessmen and why big business doesn't hire them.
So what did Hughes learn for this move ? Assuming your account is accurate, he has made a series of bad deals and bad appointments.
Hi, I think that there have been two moves which were offered London Broncos which I would have taken.
The move to Gillingham, which at the time had one of the biggest amateur clubs in the country with circa 500 members, and which hosted close to 4000 for the Warrington Wolves game, would have given the club an instant community. The people of Gillingham, which is a deprived area, I feel would have been ideal for a gritty game like Rugby League. There is also an overall poverty of life sport in Kent, and thus a potentially high catchment area once you get beyond the likes of Bromley South and Swanley which are still relatively commutable to London. I think the deal was actually done, for it was announced in one of the tabloids. I personally believe the club would have been viable in the long term based from there and it was a big error not to go. There's got to be over 2 million people in Kent by now; at least 700,000 households and over 100,000 people in just Gillingham in isolation. I felt that was an opportunity missed. It would have put out a few people, but history shows that many of the objectors would not stay with the club in the long term. I am not sure of the heads of terms for this deal.
The second opportunity I heard about must be eight or nine years back, and apparently the London Skolars complex was offered to the club. This consisted of many revenue generating opportunities for it included for instance popular and presumably sold out football pitches, golf courses and the like, plus there is a gym there now. The club could have been the operator of these amenities. You could have gone staffed up the facilities with players too if part time was on the horizon. The sky was the limit potentially to build up the Stadium, or build housing and sell it on, or house the players cheaply. The sky would have been the limit. You could have had one club in which the player pool extended from London Broncos in SL to a partner in Skolars perhaps also with an academy and reserve pool for both. Hughes could have left a legacy with that. Apparently the council were hawking this around.
I think the other deals apart from the initial period with Harlequins RU were simply bad deals and I do not understand why the 1 pound buy in was optional, this should have been locked in from day one when we wore those colours and their brand. We were either Harlequins or we were not.
I do not think a credible deal has been negotiated since, though I am not sure what the deal is with AFC Wimbledon.
But clearly you do not need an SL league ready Stadium when you have 8 first team squad members from London Skolars, plus their Manager and Assistant Manager.
I do not understand why people see my name and assume I will advocate the club's position regardless. I do not do that. I try not to denigrate the club for its own sake but no one is more dissatisfied than I am with where things are.
I just think it is simplistic to assume that e.g. a reunion with Ealing is something viable when there was a reason we left in the first place, and that is that the deal was not a good one for the Club.
I think the underlying issue is that the leadership of the Club has been heavily influenced by relatively random advisers who I would not take advise from, simply because I do not think the advisers have the depth of knowledge to provide such advise.
Any suggestion of a move to Gillingham post 1998 would definitely have had the remaining Fulham fans boycotting it following the killing of Matty Fox at Gillingham v Fulham match. Gillingham is just a blot on the landscape to us.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 47 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
