Championship Clubs Promotion

[johnthegriff]

There was a time when Exeter had very small crowds, they moved out of town to Sandy Park, they challenged for promotion, the crowds were still not great, they were lucky in the play offs when Bristol failed but on being in the Premiership they found new supporters that could not have been accommodated at their old ground. The same is true of Worcester, who would have been ok if Cecil Duckworth had found a worthy successor.
A Premiership club needs a ground, it needs supporters and it probably needs a benefactor until.it become a sustainable business which it will.only do if it can find sources of revenue outside of Rugby and for that it needs a ground, it is a vicious circle there is no one answer but in the beginning they need a team and a nucleus of fans, it would help if a couple of those fans are seriously rich.

[trendylfj]

It has to be about the number of fans and the total income of any club regardless of where the money comes from (Fans/sponsorship/benefactor). I would promote Ealing if they (a) earn it on the field (b) if they think that their income/expenditure balance sheet makes this a sensible proposition (c) that they need to meet the safety standards of the prem in order to be promoted. I am not sure how many visiting fans we get from several clubs but think they will not number above 1000 in most cases except for the Saints game. Some argue that the lack of ability for them not to be able to host loads of visiting fans is a good reason not to allow them to be promoted is a silly argument and not one I agree with. I know the game has moved on but we do need at least one more club in the prem, preferably 2, and if they can fulfil everything but a ground size I say let them in.

[Old Hob]

Relocating to another city's football ground did London Welsh no favours.

Yep, or as it turned out, Irish when they moved back into London.

I do wonder about the rigour of the "business case" that is made for these moves. Saracens started out recruiting South Africans not just because of the contacts they had but they said they were confident they would attract the S.A. Expat community in London. Didn't happen. London Welsh's move to Oxford looked shrewd. Lots of rugby supporters in the area of lower tier clubs and, of course, the university population which may be assumed to contain a fair few rugby followers. Again, no dice; as I have said before, at their first game in Oxford I estimate that Tigers' travelling support were the majority in the crowd.
And Wasps...

Brand loyalty is a different concept when it comes to sports teams. I might change my favourite teabag brand because they are more expensive but I'm not suddenly going to Franklin's Gardens because my season ticket has gone up.

[Ian Cant]

Simple question. Do Ealing Trailfinders honestly want promotion?
Compare their attendances to teams like Bedford, Coventry etc and it seems they don’t have a decent fan base: yes they have loyal fans but look at their website, it just doesn’t look like a club that is ready for promotion though if their wealthy own backs them this could soon be sorted!
Exeter had a great infrastructure a few years before promotion and just had a special aura about it.

[Rugbygramps]

Simple question. Do Ealing Trailfinders honestly want promotion?
Compare their attendances to teams like Bedford, Coventry etc and it seems they don’t have a decent fan base: yes they have loyal fans but look at their website, it just doesn’t look like a club that is ready for promotion though if their wealthy own backs them this could soon be sorted!
Exeter had a great infrastructure a few years before promotion and just had a special aura about it.

Honest answer I don’t think they do. I think they are happy being the biggest fish in that pool and run their club accordingly

[ourla]

This club statement would suggest they do

https://www.ealingtrailfinders.com/news ... -standards

[johnthegriff]

For me that answers all the questions as long as the local planning authority accepts the outline proposals. Ground criteria is not just about capacity it is about ground safety, first aid facilities and ease of evacuation in case of emergency. Personally I would also add the ability to stage matches on a Friday night as it annoys me that certain teams escape that duty. In the light of that statement by Ealing if they finish top they should be promoted.

[Hot_Charlie]

Simple question. Do Ealing Trailfinders honestly want promotion?
Compare their attendances to teams like Bedford, Coventry etc and it seems they don’t have a decent fan base: yes they have loyal fans but look at their website, it just doesn’t look like a club that is ready for promotion though if their wealthy own backs them this could soon be sorted!
Exeter had a great infrastructure a few years before promotion and just had a special aura about it.

Honest answer I don’t think they do. I think they are happy being the biggest fish in that pool and run their club accordingly

I'm 100% in this camp. I think they just thrive off the publicity that they get every year when they win the Championship the story repeats itself as they are ineligible for promotion. In the meantime, as they aren't investing in the infrastructure or paying to groundshare, they have far more money to plough into the rugby budget and, guess what, it means that they win. Which then means they get the publicity of being the brilliant rugby side who are "unjustly" unable to be promoted. Spot the cycle?

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

1) They've put 60+ planning applications into their ground in the past 10-15 years. None of these address the stadium capacity issue in any way near what is required.

2) In light of point 1, there's no public evidence that they've attempted to enter a groundshare agreement. There must be several 10000+ seat stadiums in London.

[Hot_Charlie]

This club statement would suggest they do

https://www.ealingtrailfinders.com/news ... -standards

A statement like that doesn't have to reflect the true feelings or ambitions of the ownership. That's just PR language that reinforces the victim narrative.

See my post above.

For example, the statement says this:

Because of this shift in focus and positive engagement with key Union decision-makers, we put forward a staged stadium development approach at our home ground, giving us the ability to have 7,500 capacity in Year 1 and build to 10,001 by Year 3.

This is fine, but the regulations say you need to have planning permission in place and evidence of the funding to complete the work.

Where is that evidence and where is the PP. They've had years to get these in place.

100% victim narrative.

[ourla]

Is this part of their victim narrative too

https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/rugby/ ... n%20London.

[ourla]

I hold no torch for Ealing but I am surprised at the question given what I've always read.

Is there any real evidence to say that they would turn it down were it on the table?

[Rugbygramps]

They may well have an internal plan in place but as has been said they have not submitted any planning applications to increase capacity. It may they any application would be a waste of time until they are invited into the premiership, but they won’t get invited without the approval in place.
Maybe they need to follow Georgia lead who have offered to play Wales and arrange a game v Falcons

[Cagey Tiger]

Is it?

What evidence is there for that?

Being slightly pedantic, there are minimum requirements around ground size that have that have to be met. There are none on crowd sizes. Obviously though, low crowds = low income = going bust.

Being even more pedantic, ground size is not that relevant either (it could be 20 acres!), it is more about capacity AFAIK...

Touché

[Pellsey]

Being slightly pedantic, there are minimum requirements around ground size that have that have to be met. There are none on crowd sizes. Obviously though, low crowds = low income = going bust.

Being even more pedantic, ground size is not that relevant either (it could be 20 acres!), it is more about capacity AFAIK...

Touché

Haha, sorry!!

[Hot_Charlie]

Is this part of their victim narrative too

https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/rugby/ ... n%20London.

They haven't actually done either of those things, have they? They haven't appeared to sue the RFU and there seems to have been no more mention of a URC move since it was confirmed that again they hadn't bothered attempting to fulfil the criteria.

Again, it's a narrative. There's no more concrete substance to it than the press release reference earlier in the thread. All words, no actions (as yet). Actual concrete evidence, be it planning permissions, confirmation of funding for either development or a groundshare, legal action being taken against the RFU, announcing joining the URC... where is it? Actual concrete evidence? There isn't any.

Personally I think there may be a lot of internal trepidation as to what will happen when their owner dies, and whether there's a succession plan in place to ensure that the funding taps remain on.