Directors of clubs should IMO pay basic salaries they can afford under any scenario and then, on top, agree a schedule of player bonuses that increase in line with the home crowd they they play in front of. [A bit like the rental deal London Broncos has with Barnet FC].

Don't misunderstand me. I think RL players 'deserve' all the money they get and more (especially when you see what soccer players are paid).

But it stands to reason that directors can only afford to pay them more as crowds go up.

When the potential of relegation comes in under the 2x12, 3x8 structure, it will be up to club directors to decide if they want to try to 'speculate to accumulate' by paying higher salaries using their own money. If they fail and the club does get relegated (for which they have to be REALLY poor given the way the 2x12, 3x8 structure will work) another club will step up from the league below and see what they can do with the £1m+ Sky money each year (& the crowds they will then get).

There needs to be much clearer penalties for entities owning clubs suffering an insolvency event including points deduction for going into Administration and relegation to the bottom division for going bust.

THEN the Salary Cap nonsense can be scrapped. It costs a fortune in time, effort, avoidance activity and money to adminster. And it is serving no purpose. Apart the the game in this country shooting itself in the foot.

If an owner wants to boost his club (and the game here in general) using his own money to sign Billy Slater, Cooper Cronk, Shaun Johnson, Leigh Halfpenny or whoever, let them.

Sadly it would appear so.

I think the move is potentially a good one. Looking increasingly like another stop gap, though as the 'deal' is utter speculation, unless someone can point to real and public information on what it actually is?

As for a name any specific geographic name of an area within London could as equally limit the interest as a non specific name does. Problem is Barnet are currently based in Harrow! So which are we rebranding as?

They should NOT be in SL until they have at least capital of £3million per year to manage the club. This should be for all SL clubs.

How many clubs would be left in SL if that was applied?

Genuine question, I really do not know.

Capital is not the issue, it's [iincome[/i. If you start with £10m capital but make a trading loss of £2m every year you are just in the David Hughes situation, and basic arithmetic shows where that takes you. Clubs don't necessarily need to be highly profitable, but break-even , ideally a small surplus, is what most clubs aspire to.

As a London Crusaders fan, I wasn't happy at becoming a Bronco, I wasn't over-the-moon at being gifted a SL spot as it was clearly going to cause resentment, since then, apart from the one Wembley appearance and the WCC victory against Canberra, theres not been a lot to smile about.

Attendances have been allowed to dwindle back to not much more than in the Crusaders days and once again we are Nomads.

Maybe Barnet will be the answer, maybe it won't, I just don't know but after 22 years of following I'm just about ready to give up!

Ofcourse being allowed to stay in SL with a Stadia that just about holds 6k, is no doubt gonna cause' further resentment, Keighley, Fev', 'Haven immediately spring to mind (No promotion cause yer ground ain't big enough).

I'm sure there is resentment from some quarters, but I do think that for the majority of SL fans, if there is any bad feeling it's mostly disappointment. Disappointment that the club could not progress from a promising start. The whole ground thing for me is far less of an issue than the drop off in fans. If London where pulling in 5-7k I doubt many would talk about them at all.

Lets be fair, London never merged to escape relegation, never broke the cap, have not been in administration (although have sailed close to the wind), never lost a Franchise, never been relegated.

I do wish London well, but I want them to do well, not to have to be seen as unviable constantly moving, with no real base.

2005 was a "dallasesque" dream then was it ....we went under but then Ian Lenagan steps out of the shower and it was all a dream?

Londons problems as they stand are entirely of their own making. Yes, I would have preferred a centrally funded model for expansion but as that didn't happen, then quite simply, a business plan should have been put in place to grow the club. Instead, a megalomaniac owner has flushed millions after million of pounds down the drain and when the public had the cheek not to turn up when he announced KO times, has decided that this is his last year.

London, depending on relegation arrangements being confirmed in January, will be a championship club in 2015 or 2016 and have only themselves to blame.

All I can really think about that is "What a waste"

What I really mean though 'shadows, is London should have been left to "evolve". We had a club emerge outa the defunct carcass of Fulham RL. We gre from around 600 or so diehards from Fulham to around 1200 Crusaders (I know I was one of those noobs). Then we get 'bought' by Brisbane and suddenly Sky TV are demanding a 'London' club in the new Superleague.

You can't make Bread until you've properly prepared the dough, well ye' can, but it comes out crap!

Yay, they finally updated the website to essentially tell us there'll be an update in January!

Well like all RL clubs, I wish you the best financially and fanwise so long as you all finish one place behind us and one ahead of Wigan.

viewtopic.php?f=27&t=562766&tsmp=1388353430 One down 16 to go

viewtopic.php?f=27&t=562766&tsmp=1388353430 One down 16 to go