There is a big difference which you miss. But if you think it's "bloody crazy" then that's entierly up to you ..............

The proposal to go to SL1 and SL2 was all about Superleague taking control of the game. The actual "change" proposed was that 8 clubs split from the RFL and leave the championship to join 12 clubs in Superleague 1 & 2. At that time (couple of years back) there were 38 clubs in the whole league set up. Had eight Championship clubs broken ranks and joined the 12 then the vote would have been won 20 to 18. The championship clubs sided largely with the RFL. I don't know exactly why.

Superleague could have fully controled P & R and could have stopped the march of the phoney American club(s) had they won the vote. Superleague don't like how the RFL still have some power over SL clubs and their decisions. An example is the RFL allowed Les Catalans to sign Folau which Superleague were dead against, and were not allowed a vote on it. Another example is the RFL pushed TWP onto Superleague when Superleague did not want them one little bit.

There's a lot of unseen conflict, TWP are talking about getting back in Superleague once they agree a deal with a new owner whilst at the same time Superleague are pushing the RFL to work out a replacement for that 12th. place. This is another example of the conflicts going on.

Always been in favour of a London club being in Super League, the game needs a presence in the capital. Hopefully a settled one.

The North Anerican marketing team should be incentivised to get 9000 gates at London. (May be easier if they were closer to central London and not ground sharing with the enemy)

All the moans about Rugby league being a restricted and parochial game along the 110 mile long east to west M62 can be wiped out by a Superleague containing clubs 280 miles apart north to south on the M1/A1. A true national league.

But put this to the the moaners and they'll find any excuse to tell us why London and Newcastle should not be in Superleague. Both clubs easily fit the bill a far sight better than Salford. which is not to have a go at this fine club, but both the London and Newcastle clubs can take SL out of their Northern enclave.

Agree that big gates should be a target. But as someone who has lived in London, I think they need to be settled in a particular area. Living in West London, most people I knew actually couldn't be bothered going into the centre very often (except for work), preferring to drink and socialise locally at weekends rather than the West End ("for the tourists"icon_wink.gif, and there were a lot of people who would go to Brentford and QPR every week as it was easy to walk or hop on the bus a few stops.

When London Broncos were at The Valley (for just one season) they pulled in massive crowds - maybe South East London would be a good bet as there are fewer football teams to compete with.

Another argument in favour of a high-profile London club is the national newspapers might actually bother to cover the game a bit.

(I'm aware there is a reasonably competitive London club but nowadays they play to piddling crowds at a glorified leisure centre)

Interesting......

Looked it up and The Valley provided a 5,400 average crowd. Wigan 10,000 was the best and Halifax 3,200 the worst. Last year in Superleague 2,000 average, 1100 worst crowd.v.Salford, best v.Leeds 3000.

So the question would be would the the extra costs of operating at the valley be more than the extra revenue from an average 3,400 fans? I suggest they may be??

The other point may be that if the owner is happy settled at Ealing, and if the reserves and Academy and development foundation is working well out of Ealing then they really do need to stay there. That we have a formal RL player development system going on in London and a settled professional club is important, I would not like to see them move for the umpteenth time. In the end fans are not as important as a stable cost effective home, the development of southern players and the presence of top class RL in the capital...

Or are they?

I don't remember what made them move from The Valley.

But besides Chelsea, Fulham, QPR and Brentford, West London is also catchment area for Twickenham, Harlequins, London Irish (though they play out at Reading now), Richmond RFC. There is definitely a lot more competition around Ealing and most people I know can only afford the time and money to follow one sports team properly.

Funnily enough, I am usually a supporter of the BBC, but I have noticed that now the RU Premiership has restarted RL doesn't even get a mention. In fact this morning on R4, they didn't even bother saying 'and in rugby union....', they simply said ' In the Premiership Exeter won...blah blah blah....'

It seems we ra back to being those ' idiots up north'.

The Guardian coverage is also poor, usually just an afterthought. Notice the banner on the web site sports page - rugby league way over on the right whereas rugby union is placed with football and cricket. Clearly forgotten its Manchester Guardian heritage.

The Independent's coverage was always very good, but with Dave Hadfield unfortunately long term sick, the game doesn't seem to be pushed as much as it once was.

So, basically, the anti-establishment broadsheets can't be bothered with league anymore, and we will never get a fair go in The Telegraph because of what the paper is.

Very few newspapers are sold nowadays.
With the only apparent ambition for the sport of rugby league being the ability to repeat own goals,this may be a good thing.
I think having a club in London is a very good thing - as is having the 2 we do have.
However,the oft called requirement for adding press and tv coverage is a red herring.

Until,or If ever Elstone,Ian Lenagan,McManus et al can give rules,regulations,criteria for Super League clubs, then the sport should refrain from compartmentalising the sport.

It may sort itself out in another 125 years...

I don't think you can make a statement like that without justifying it.

Increased TV coverage raises the profile of the sport, which in turn encourages people to attend, buy replica shirts and merchandise, which brings in further sponsorship and investment.

I would like to see a study that somehow refutes this.

Yes exactly, look at the media cut through success Toronto had before the current calamity.

Obviously not tv but media nonetheless.

For those who want the truth here, it was TWP themselves who pumped out vast amounts of "aren't we great" stuff across social media and then made their own count of the number of "eyeballs" that supposedly read that rubbish. I think they boasted there were 80,000 people somehow following them. None of it at all verified and even if people did read it it didn't generate a cent of income.

They put out this particularly over contrived nonsense when they were under pressure to justify themselves, as they hadn't found a single cent of TV money or developed a single Canadian player. Moving into Superleague they appeared at Headingley for the opening double header and in terms of real eyeballs I saw a small group of half a dozen fans wearing TWP gear and shouting for their team.

That was it, so on real "I was there" evidence there was no [i"media cut through"[/i. Only 12 eyeballs.....So you've had your reaction you craved, no need to reply