Not to any great degree we dont. We dont focus on or target those areas. this is a very very small part of it.

certainly more than they would if they were called Hull.



really?



But they werent always like that, which rather than invalidates my point, supports it. NFL clubs chose to represent large cities or large geographical areas to promote growth. That growth is why they are one of the biggest sport leagues in the world.

but your opposing argument is that they would support these same teams even if they were simply named after a relatively small areas. Even some of those do have large population centres. Like perth,

Yet thats what they do in New York with the Giants, Jets, Knicks, Yankees, Mets, Rangers, Islanders, Red Bulls, City FC, In fact all bar Brooklyn Nets who had spent 35 years in New Jersey.



In fact, London, in soccer, is pretty much unique the world over in branding their clubs after smaller parts of the city and that is mostly to do with their ages and the environment in which they were founded.

Again, that completely contradicts what you're trying to say. London are also unlikely to get very many supporters from outside the area in which they're based regardless of name.



Maybe, but there probably wouldn't be anywhere near as much local interest in Hull.



Yeah, that and the fact that it's the biggest, most popular sport in the richest, most powerful and third largest nation on Earth.



No, that isn't my argument at all. But there's a huge difference between naming a team after Rockhampton, a small and relatively insignificant place with a population of 60,000, and naming a team after Barnet, which has a population of 330,000 in the middle of a city of 13.5 million. A club named 'Barnet' would represent the third biggest population centre out of any team in Super League after Leeds and Bradford, and would also be bigger than any in the NRL apart from Melbourne, Brisbane, Gold Coast and New Zealand. Barnet alone has a bigger population than the geographical region of North Queensland.



What you're failing to acknowledge that these 'suburbs or boroughs' are far larger than most cities in their own right.



But again, you're missing the fact that sport in the USA is completely different to RL in the UK, both in its scale and nature. And that most of those teams play different sports. AFAIK, New York is only represented by two clubs at each sport. Which makes sense given the size of America and the population spread that needs to be covered. There are 30 or so teams to go around 320 million people. But what you're talking about in the UK would be a London club representing a population four or five times the size of all the other teams combined.



So you think it would be more logical if all the soccer clubs in London were just called London?

So I say I don't like the 'London' moniker and the usual suspects start shouting "that's not why the club's in trouble". Except that I never once said it was the reason the club's in trouble, but don't let that stop you refuting a premise I never put.



I still don't like the 'London' moniker, and never have.

Why??

It doesn't matter what the rest of the country think, if we're serious about building a local support base and not relying on away fans turning up (I grant you, given what's gone before that's a big 'if').

Quote SmokeyTA="SmokeyTA"People don't associate themselves with a direction. '" Many do. onedirectionfanclub.com/ Quote SmokeyTA="SmokeyTA" People dont think of themselves as 'The south'.'" Some do www.thesouth.co.uk/ they're playing Gawsworth Hall on Friday. And Bingley Live on Aug 31

Quote SmokeyTA="SmokeyTA"People don't associate themselves with a direction. '" Many do. onedirectionfanclub.com/ Quote SmokeyTA="SmokeyTA" People dont think of themselves as 'The south'.'" Some do www.thesouth.co.uk/ they're playing Gawsworth Hall on Friday. And Bingley Live on Aug 31

FA





[size=50but a superb post[/size

How on earth does it? Harrogate and York are nt in Leeds. It is entirely irrelevant to my point.

it doesnt need to have more than there is in Hull. Just more than there would otherwise be and it is the obvious right way to go.



And to repeat, Them making a conscious decision to target large populations with city or region teams were one those catalysts for that growth which made them the most popular sport.





But you are arguing that those who want to watch RL, but were one of the 13.2m people in London but not Barnet would watch Barnet anyway even though they had no affinity or affiliation to Barnet. So Why wouldnt they watch Rockhampton? If the name doesnt matter and they would watch anyway why would you rename the Auckland Warriors the NZ warriors if it wouldnt attract more people?



If the name didnt matter and those in north queensland who were going to watch the cowboys would watch anyway, why are they the North Queensland Cowboys and not the Townsville Cowboys.



Its irrelevant how big they are. We want the club to be as big as possible. The principle is the same. It doesnt change with scale.



Every other sport in the world doesnt look to clubs representing suburbs, every major sport in the world looks to its biggest sides to represent cities, larger regions or are none-geographical, the only exceptions are those which grew out of amateur sport and we are talking centuries old.



Why are we different? What are all they doing wrong?



And? are we in a position of Londons Club being too big? Why wouldnt we want each club to be as big as it can be?



Everyone else in the world seems to manage pretty easily.

Quote Ferocious Aardvark="Ferocious Aardvark"Many do. onedirectionfanclub.com/ Some do www.thesouth.co.uk/ they're playing Gawsworth Hall on Friday. And Bingley Live on Aug 31'"

Quote Ferocious Aardvark="Ferocious Aardvark"Many do. onedirectionfanclub.com/ Some do www.thesouth.co.uk/ they're playing Gawsworth Hall on Friday. And Bingley Live on Aug 31'"

To be fair, I'm loving Headhunter and Smokey arguing, leave them alone.



I thought they were they same person. Maybe they are...



Back on topic. RFL get involved, help the London club find a decent venue and market the living day lights out of it. Also, again, enjoy the championship, it's a fantastic league, more so next year and hope you all visit the Shay!

The Club's biggest and most enthusiastic attendances were when they were called Fulham and played at Fulham.

Leeds get support from Harrogate and York despite being called Leeds and being based in Leeds. Obviously there aren't as many fans from those other places as there are from Leeds, but based on your argument there wouldn't be any at all.



In relation to London, the argument is the same, they also wouldn't get a huge amount of support from outside the local area. A team called London based in Twickenham would still get the majority of its support from Twickenham and not from East London or North London.



Obviously if the net gain was higher then it would be the right move, but I don't think that would be the case at all. You're neglecting developing a local base in favor of targeting the huge area of London and getting completely overwhelmed. RL in London is a drop in the ocean, decreasing the size of that ocean is likely to make a far bigger impact.



They haven't gone from clubs the size of London (or other RL clubs) to huge entities overnight because they 'targeted large populations'. American sports are operated on a franchise basis by billionaire owners, many of them have been relocated thousands of miles to opposite ends of the country. It's nothing at all like RL and completely irrelevant to this discussion.



There's a huge difference between Rockhampton and Townsville and Barnet. Townsville and Rockhampton are relatively remote, isolated places that probably couldn't support clubs on their own. Barnet as you've said is a suburb, with a population more than big enough to support a club and also a huge population in the immediate vicinity. Your argument is completely ignoring the different nature of these places. It's like trying to compare Fulham and Whitehaven.



So this entire argument is based not on logic, but on the arbitrary measure of whether something is a 'suburb' or not. And the fact that 'other sports do it' despite the only relevant examples (soccer in London and RL in Sydney) being operated with clubs based out of suburbs.



We do, we want as many strong clubs as possible. But 13 million people is far too big a catchment area for just one club, especially in a sport the size of RL. Even the aforementioned New York Giants and Jets playing in the biggest, most prestigious and well-known sports league in the world don't market themselves to that many people. For such a club to grow to a level relative to the likes of Wigan or St Helens would mean they were playing in front of hundreds of thousands of fans every week. It's just lunacy.



12 clubs all called London FC. Great.

The new Perth NRL team will be called west coast, not Perth or a suburb of Perth. The reason, to appeal to the whole state not just the city or a part of the city. Would be silly to not call a team London.