Aren't what?

Well we can argue all day as to whether London get backhanders or not but that's the problem with backhanders - hard to prove either way.

So what about 15 years of Sky money? Does this not count, could another club not have used it better? This is one of the big issues expansionists skirt around - have London justified getting a cut of this money for 15 years. This money is not London's by right or had you just assumed it was?

What about the expense of developing the game in London, some of which is RFL funded or is a percentage of the Sky money.

There are other smaller issues but let's move on.

I'm sure your opinion differs from mine as to whether this money has been rightly used to give London a franchise spot, but let's at least be honest. What can't be denied is more than any other team in SL depend on their Sky money without which they would simply fold never to return probably not even at NL2level. This at a club that never gained promotion on the field to the elite and never looked likely too.

If I could see any sign of London making it I'd back them but it's 30 years - I get your passion and understand your desire to make it work but in life some things are just not meant to be - how much longer before someone flicks the switch. I'm really torn over London emotionally because real people are involved and depend on the club one way or another but economically I find it much simpler.

Seriously? Lots of work to get your crowds above the desired levels.

As for London, when i find out they are on Sky, it makes me want to rub chillis in my eyes. Let them go on their own, if they die they die.

I think they missed a big opportunity by going back to the old London Broncos name and branding. To the outsiders who nothing of the sport or club, the London Broncos could be a group of wannabe cowboys who meet every Saturday in Twickenham! It didn't work before so why is it going to work now after they've just moved away from the rugby unionesque Harlequins RL? I think they should have been braver and gone with 'London Rugby League'. Keep it simple, let everyone know that it does exactly what it says on the tin.

Bust without Sky money and other SL revenues not available to Leigh - do you think Leigh would be bust with Sky money and SL gates. London could not do a Cas or HKR and survive in the lower leagues without continually folding like they did pre SL. All teams would struggle but most would continue to exist.

Accept the reality that London as they exist today are a sole creation of SL and Sky - whether you think that's a good think is a matter of opinion - then you use silly terms like utter tripe.

Oh and by the way I never said the M62 was the answer - I was suggesting logical organic growth outwards from the centre as happens in nature and tends to work - Sheffield then Nottingham then Hemel Hemstead then London. In military terms it means keeping your supply lines short.

All it takes for London to succeed is a good coach which they haven't had since Tony Currie left. I'm tired of saying that but it's true.

I know you have short memories up there but...

London are propped up by a wealthy backer. Whilst he is there then there are no financial issues

We've had Sheffield. What has Nottingham got to offer? or does this have a strategic military supply site on your mythical route to Marchwood docks

I mentioned the M62 as the strategic sites you used are located close by, but to your credit (covertly) and to strengthen your weak argument you have now moved your supply lines down the M1.

What is your argument as you are a moving target this morning?

London aren't bust because owner after owner has been prepared to fund them. If the current owner was prepared to do the same in the 'lower leagues' then they'd survive about as well as other teams in those leagues. If not they'd have problems - like Leigh, in fact.

The main issue is thier popularity (or lack of it)
No other club would be tollerated with gates around 2500-3000.
The issues surrounding whether London is critical to Sky negotiations are not clear.
Do Sky wan to show games with empty stadiums, because this never looks good.
I have nothing against the Broncos and always enjoy the trips down south, but they are going nowhere fast.
You say that we've HAD Sheffield and they were certainly had with thier "merger", but this was genuine expansion.
What would be your cure for the difficulties in the capatal ?

Slight amendment there RB.

Aye, replace them with a successful heartland club with a history of sound financial management - like Halifax for example.

Wow! Less Kiss. I'd even forgotten he'd existed lol.

I have no problem with the Broncos. They have the finances to be in the League and their team isnt that bad at all. Yes they may have considerably less fans than everyone else but the fact that they are sound financially and have one of the better stadiums in the League. The best idea would be to do what the Rhinos did with the Tykes a few years back offering discounted sometimes free tickets to watch the game and try and drip some of them into coming back more often. Even reduce the prices if they show their Harlequins season pass?

League fans are catasrophically one eyed. How are we meant to market and advertise our game to potential investors if there isnt some form of representation in the wealthier south? There isnt the money in the North to keep our game solely up here, like it or not we need the South to survive. Union will dominate the South but at the end of the day we cant just give up without a fight.

No. In the real world facts made up by you and actual facts are not given equal weighting.

I'm fed up of Wakefield. This experiment has been going on for 117 years and yet they still are playing in a crappy stadium and, despite those famous local playing resources, fail consistently to prove their worth to SL on the pitch. Get rid for mine. All that money could be better used elsewhere.