My point is that apart from having a poor supporter base they bring little or nothing to the SL. Their youth development is poor, their identity is confused, they consistently under-perform and despite all the assistance that the RFL have given them over the years they still look like they're going nowhere.

Is it not bums on seats that generates a majority of income for the club? The more folk that pay through the door the more merchandise they are likely to buy. The more people, the more pies, beers, burgers, etc. Now do you honestly believe that there is no relationship between the finances of a Rugby League club and how that translates to on-field performances? (just to remind you that the most profitable RL club of the past decade has also been the most successful)

IMO (obviously) either Halifax or Featherstone will offer much more to the SL than London have done or can do.

Absolute rubbish re-SL crowds have you seen the attendence figures for Cas lately or Salford and London??
Also Fev and Halifax have stronger and more astute board-rooms and owners these days and to say that they need 10's of millions of investment how do you know that?
Hughes walks away from the Broncos they go under and he will be close to doing so after another diabolical season with an average squad.
Fev and Fax aren't the same clubs they were 20yrs ago whereas london are another Crusaders but they've managed to keep their owner but still don't even have a ground .

See right there, any credibility you might have had just flew out of the window.

When London played Bradford, they fielded more Academy products than the visitors. Given one of those clubs lies in a hotbed of the game surrounded by dozens of well established junior and amateur clubs, I'd say that proves that London's youth development is anything but poor.

The recent England Youth squad that played against Wales and France featured two Broncos players. A better contribution than the likes of Castleford, Wakefield, Bradford, Hull KR and Salford. Again, evidence that youth development is anything but poor.

You can level plenty of accusations at the Broncos. That their youth development is poor isn't one of them.

Andy-It's great that the Broncos youth get international recognition but is that enough to sustain a SL club?
You mention the team sheet v the Bulls which is fair enough and against us they had some homegrown talent on show but imo some of them are picked because they really dont have anyone else rather than their actual talent.
I've seen the Fev Acadamy play and they have some good prospects aswell indeed some of their homegrown lads get into the 1st team aswell.
I'd also say just because some kids are picked for England at Youth level it doesn't guarantee they'll make full time pro players either just the same as those that dont get selected won't make it either.
From my own pov i honestly think London are a very weak at best SL club and IF we are gonna reduce the league or even revet to promotion and relegation they'll be gone soon enough.

Well that depends on on your field of reference doesn't it - their 30 year existence has produced very little in the way of top draw players.

Also filling your team with academy products doesn't prove the quality of those players now does it? Did London win that game against Bradford or did they get comprehensibly beaten?

Personally think cas should be the first to go

By which set of criteria?

Halifax made one play-off series in six attempts, London have so far made two in fifteen. Both have played two play-off games - both have lost two play-off games.

Halifax's average SL regular round finish was 7.88, London's is 8.24.
Halifax's win % was 36 London's is 39
Halifax's average SL result was 22 - 28, London's is 22 - 26

Halifax's average SL home attendance was 4,724, London's is 3,669

Doesn't appear to be a great deal to choose between the two.

What assistance would that be then? Your own coach said this week that we were handicapped by not having London weighting on the salary cap.

I don't disagree Andy and I understand the value a London team bring but your example is a little harsh on the Bulls who, I understand, were somewhat upset the other year that London had a plethora of development officers subsidized by the RFL and the Bulls were given about 1.

Yes, i have. I have seen Salford go bust, I have seen Cas lurch from crisis to disaster, and London survive solely on their benefactors benevolence. I have also seen teams with even bigger crowds like Wakefield go bust, or Hull KR who are averaging about a thousand more than Fev's stadium holds publicly state that they wouldnt be around without his input, and he has lost patience with the club. Why on earth are two clubs who have never averaged the levels of Hull KR are doing right now going to be sustainable when HKR arent?

Fev need to double the capacity of their stadium at least. That will cost upwards of £7m just for that. Never mind the costs of setting up an SL level infrastructure and covering the losses whilst they search for the near 500% increase in attendances they would need.

Under what criteria are Fev and Fax new clubs from 20 years ago where as London, with their changes of name, location and ownership (as well as literally being a brand new entity since 2005) arent?

Only one of them however managed to both go bust and lose points for salary cap infringements in the same year, and only one of them finished a 28 game league season on 0 points.

London were trailing 26-0 with about 15-20 mins to go. They were 40 metres from our try line and on the last tackle what did they do? A big bomb with a gutsy chase? No. A little dink over seeing as we weren't operating a sweeper? no. Anything attacking minded? No. They drilled it into touch to play the clock down. Leeds wanted a solid win, they got that. London played to keep the scoreboard down, they did that too. 2 content parties at the end of the evening.

Leeds should never have been contented with that result. We won't get another easier match this year. Our under 19's would have beat that London side on Friday, and perfectly illustrated how ridiculous it was not to have made changes last week and rotated players.

Leeds in second gear, that's all they needed to be. Both teams went through the motions.

Singleton caught the eye with a busy spell. Least JP came off.....twice as well !

So earlier when you said



you meant that London are nowhere near as bad as when Halifax were at their lowest ebb in their final season of six in 2003.

And yet when you take a broader view and look at the averages over several seasons you see two clubs with reasonable similar stats. Harlequins/London in the last three completed seasons have ended their campaigns with 13, 14, 13 comp points, Halifax bettered those returns in every season bar 2003 that they competed in SL.

I agree that the rot had set in and Halifax's time was up in 2003 as they lost their SL place to Salford but feel they had made a contribution on the field to SL prior to that not least the 3rd place Regular Round finish in 1998 - but an inability to draw the crowds or a wealthy benefactor left them teetering.