It's not really a very surprising statement, but not one that fills me with hope.

In a way I am sorry to see them go, but on the other hand, keeping them going at this level would be futile.

We had years of moaning about them having a larger overseas quota, more favour from the RFL etc..

Personally I would have been more open, as the lack of openess gave that impression were as it was never that way.

But comments like RL can't survive without London, (basically excusing any outcome) rubbed people up the wrong way.

I would hope they can return to the top when they have managed to do what everyone needs to do, which is cut their expenses.

If you rolled back 20 years putting the London club out their on their own would not have been my choice, but they did have some years where it looked like they may make a go of it.

With any relegation it's not going to be a pleasant experience for the fans or the club. But neither is it the end.

I hope the London Broncos keep going and develop into a vibrant club. The priority as to be to find a permanent home and get a sense of identity. If that means dropping the name "London" and having a more localised name i.e "Leytonstone" or "Barnet" for example.

"Barnet" is not going to give the team much prospect of returning to Super League.

It's just as much chance as "London", if the club can build a proper identity to the area where they play, they will then hopefully develop as club, where people are proud to be identified to the club. No team as a right to promotion just like no team as a right not to be relegated. Promotion might not happen next season or the season after, it may never happen but it can still become a vibrant club.

Why ever not? AFAIK SL composition will be decided by results on the pitch. What the team's called is irrelevant.

Sad day for the Broncos and hope they can build and come back the right way. TBH IMO they should have never been parachuted into SL when SL was formed and should have been made to earn their way in through natural growth and on field performances.

Agree with you there, I've never liked the 'London' moniker, it's a bit like Salford calling themselves 'Greater Manchester'.

or Leigh being called 'Leigh, borough of Wigan'

WHAT HE SAID

I don't agree with dropping the London moniker. We're talking about the world's most famous city and people are wanting to drop it in favour of one of its dull suburbs half the country will probably have never heard of. Madness.

I've always been in favour of going all guns blazing with the branding and calling them London Rugby League.

I just don't think trying to appeal to the whole city will work. Especially with them being relegated and having no home. I think their best bet is to find a permanent home and rename as whatever area that's in. Try to build by getting the locals interested.

Trying to appeal to the whole city is like Hull KR when they were in the Championship trying appeal to an area stretching from Hull to Leeds and with approx 3 times the population.
Then add in the relatively low level of RL awareness in the area, the current weakness of the club & the dominance of football & Union in that area, I can't see how it could work.

What your saying is that basically they should have small ambitions.

This version of london are clearly dead, the last rights were given a couple of years ago. They are and have been winding back and it is virtually impossible for an expansion side to get promoted in a salary capped P+R league

Whatever new club comes through (if any) will be a London side. Calling them Barnet or Twickenham or Charlton or whatever would be like the Rhinos renaming themselves Headingley Rhinos.

Not the same in the slightest. As the chap or chappess above says, London are more recognizable to the rest of the country. However, when looking for paying fans the rest of the country is irrelevant.

They need to attract a community first before going for any wider appeal.

London is that same as saying West Yorkshire. No one will follow that team ahead of Leeds.

No one will follow team Lancashire ahead of Saints , Wire, Widnes, Pies.

It's not the major flaw, but it does add a limitations. Once you are big enough, like Arsenal, West Ham, Chelsea, then you will pick up fans outside of your direct locality. But you need that solid base first. The London FC would never work as they could never reach a mass big enough.

Add to that, moving around every few years.

Internal management issues.

And stuff that those closer to London are more qualified to answer, it does not help breed a stable team.

No it wouldn't and it's not about them having small ambitions. It's about them having appropriate ambitions and appropriate marketing. Nothing stops them going beyond and appealing to people beyond their "home town". In the same way every football club in London does.
But when they've had a nomadic existence, have pretty much no current support and have no roots at all, I don't think it a bad idea to put some down.

By the way Leeds weren't originally called Leeds RLFC. They had a name that most certainly wasn't aiming to appeal to the entire city at the time. As it grew it did and changed its name.
But anyway the comparison is daft as Leeds is a city with a high degree of RL awareness and a lot of interest and participation in the city. In London there isn't.