They did, but Hull KR compete in the SL. We've had 70 points put on us in the past, so have Leeds, Wigan, Bradford, etc, but this season London have conceded an average of 37 points per game. Of late (last few seasons) London haven't put up much of a fight and with Gower going, it just condemns their situation. I hope they can come through it, but they can't draw the crowds in to get behind the team. Gower was probably one of the players getting people through the gates, so his departure hasn't helped on and off the field.

has sky ever said that we will receive less money if there isn't a super league team in London?

[size=150=#BF0000Right not having anymore of that. Also I've noticed over the last few weeks the use of the * coming back to hide swear words.

Either post it and let the filter deal with it. Or don't post it, but stop trying to get around the filter.[/size

How long do we give London ?

They get shocking crowds, they ain't stable financially, don't bring much in terms of being competitive these days either.

Catalan have gone very well and they only about 5 years old.

Sky never say anything about anything and nor does the RFL. Nobody knows outside of those in the know whether the presence of London makes any difference whatsoever to the Sky deal. However, if you watch any of their other sports, I can't think of one that is restricted to one region of the country.

In no way would it be a good thing for London to go. However, they continue to do the sport's image some damage by not being competitive. On their website the BBC have opened up comments on the London debacle (can't really call it a match, since London clearly didn't bother playing). The BBC never opens its match reports up for comment. They have done that deliberately to cause trouble and those of us who have contributed to the comments know this.

The Dragons may be only about 5 years old but rugby league has been going in that region of France for almost as long as it has been going in England, so the area was a traditional heartland region for rugby league.

To offer up an accurate comparison in cross channel expansion you would need to look at Paris St Germain which lasted how long exactly?

London has been around in various guises for around 30 years. That's a generation. So what is now happening is that the first generation of players who grew up with rugby league - something we in certain areas of the north have taken for granted for a few generations - are coming through. We need to give it another generation to be able to judge whether it has been successful but the RFL burying its head in the sand and doing nothing to assist - and it never has assisted London (not financially anyway) - is utterly negligent. Take one look at Melbourne, which was centrally funded for years (I think may still be), to see what can be done when expansion is managed properly.

But in all honesty how much do they contribute to super league? I cant imagine that many people from down south watch rugby league to watch London, and i guess what matters the most to sky is viewing figures. Personally I think they should go down for a couple of years till they can get enough finance together with the help of the RFL to come back up and spend above the salary cap with out being scared of going bust for a period of 5 years.

That's my point, they been going 30 years and its not worked in that time.

The south of France is also a union area. I've toured the south of France and it was heavily Rugby union but I agree its more rugby league than Paris was or ever will be.

You could say the same for Salford, given their crowds and competitiveness, but they've been going as a rugby league club since 1896.


The heartland area though was Catalonia, I believe, rather than the South of France per se.

They beat us...

Most teams do, that's nothing out the norm these days.

I just don't see what London bring. Nothing against them and I'd love them to do will but IMO its never going to work. Maybe the money keeping London going could be used in a place like Cumbria