Look you have said that about 10 times. We know. You have also been told that every recognised sport receives some level of funding. With falling participation rates among kids in all sports why would you bitch about a sport being funding to address the issue?

You no doubt have an issue with netball, nothing to do with the topic, take it somewhere else.

Back to the OP.

I am not sure this change will have any significant benefit. They went into administration as Bronco's IIRC. Rebranding the same old product is a very temporary way to address a problem, improving its quality is the only way to long term success. I am all for a club in the capital, but not at the expenses of other clubs, either financially or with regulatory dispensation. What we do have proof of in RL is that fast tracking does not work no matter how much money you throw at it. The RFL needs to concentrate on stabalising the game at Championship level aswell as pursuing its expansionist dream.

My main memory of London Broncos is appointing Tony Rea as coach and keeping him there for far too long. I'm guessing the link there will be that perhaps the club couldn't afford to pay for a coach as well as a Chief Exec. Whatever the case it can't be Harlequins RL because that's just rubbish.

Rea got us into the playoffs several times, something that McDermott never managed. I think you need to have a lie down.

What's that supposed to mean? (Btw twice does not mean several times).

Alright, twice, whatever. Rea enjoyed relative success at the club. McDermott didn't Powell hasn't. Supporters now would love to see Rea back at the club. You have no idea what you are talking about in all honesty.

Are you ok bud? You appear to have taken my feedback on the name change to heart. I hope I haven't stepped over a line there. It was you who brought McDermott and Powell into the discussion to try and support your argument in favour of Rea not me. A couple of play offs appearances is hardly the stuff of legend. It might be successful in the context of what has happened since he left but it isn't in the context of what the club achieved before his appointment (I understand what you say about the resources but we can only assess based on what actually happened and not what didn't, should have or could have). Perhaps we are both not entirely correct and the truth lies somewhere in-between.

As for Rea coming back, why would you not want to take a chance on somebody who might have the potential to exceed Rea? Why would you go back to somebody who is, at best, average? I'd take any current coach in Super League over Rea, with the exception of Agar. Please note that I am not knocking Rea for his commitment, energy, enthusiasm or character.