Quote ="ChiswickWire"I think there's 2 questions here.
Is a London / SE presence important to SL?
Is LB the team to do it?
On the first - yes it is. Sky is under serious pressure from BT and needs to save as much money as it can to hold on to its marquee properties such as the cricket, F1 and the remaining Premier League rights.
It gets revenue through subscriptions and advertising. Media buyers will want properties that are national - having a London team helps tick this box. Not having them, makes it a harder and a lower revenue sell for Sky. Ergo - smaller TV deal for SL. (particularly if we contract to 12 teams.)
As Sky is by far the biggest investor in SL this is important. In summary, without a decent Sky TV deal we're screwed and without London we're more likey to get a lower deal.'"
Interesting points well made Chiswick, but, after some considerable consideration I'm yet to be convinced either way by the London question.
Regarding the Sky aspect and whether the deal depends on a London presence is it really that simple? If I was a sponsor or advertiser perhaps I might look at the viewing figures together with their demographic rather than the location of competing teams.
For example, are viewing figures split equally per capita do 'Londoners' make up their quota of the TV audience on a regular basis? Additionally, if they made up a fourteenth geographically how much is that dependant upon a SL team called London perhaps a significant % are exiled flat cappers or general sports fans or RL fans that might be attracted to a successful side in a lower division?
All conjecture I know but until someone has the facts to hand a SL without London might not be too disastrous for either SL or London
