I've suggested the same thing, but to play it before the Exiles game. The people involved in London RL need to be positive and do something about the public perception rather than crying about negativity.

We could put together a really good rep side and that would be an excellent way to showcase what we are producing and offering to the game.

These comments (which I am in agreement with) are a further nail in the coffin of London Broncos. If the game is doing well at the lower levels without a competitive team in Super League, why bother having them there? It seems "because Sky want it" is the only remaining justification, and how long that will last when they are rarely on TV anyway - because they are so uncompetitive - is the next question.

Having a successful SL team isn't a key part of junior development in the area, but having a SL team is.

London Broncos are the only full time club in the south and are a huge part of the development of these players.

If there's no fully pro club in the south you wouldn't have many of these players.

an article which backs up some of the good work being done...from a publication which you wouldn't really expect to run such a story hereisthecity.com/2013/08/08/rug ... s-the-eye/

an article which backs up some of the good work being done...from a publication which you wouldn't really expect to run such a story hereisthecity.com/2013/08/08/rug ... s-the-eye/

The rfl would better dumping the broncos, saving that mill grant and developing a London jnr academy set up and snr school programme instead. That 1mill could be far more usefully spent developing the amateur game than tipping into a forever failing prof club year after year.

Latest RFL ratings:

Broncos academy 3 (4 being the lowest)
North East regional academy 2
Midlands regional academy 2

How long will people continue to push the idea that the Broncos are vital for junior development in London?

Both the NE and Midlands have other SL clubs (other than Broncos) to them than the South does too.
Without a top level club in the south, there isn't a viable route to the top level for the best south based juniors to take.

spot on...and the NRL should bin any idea of adding a WA team to their East Coast klan.....

When London can generate a crowd of 20k like Perth can they can have a team. Until then stop wasting RL money and put it to good use developing the souths grass roots and not into a dead man walking Broncos.

London generates a one off crowd of 80,000 every year

Quote: Him "They are vital for player development. They provide a pathway to SL in the entire South of England. That their academy has weaknesses doesnt invalidate that fact. I'd imagine those weaknesses stem from a lack of funding. If the North East and the Midlands had a SL team nearby I'm sure we'd have seen players from there coming into SL.'" We have seen North Eastern SL players. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Thorman But generally the North East and Midlands has been playing RL for a shorter time than London. But even so there are a fair few Midlanders on the books of various SL sides. They just haven't made their debuts yet as they are too young.

Quote: Him "They are vital for player development. They provide a pathway to SL in the entire South of England. That their academy has weaknesses doesnt invalidate that fact. I'd imagine those weaknesses stem from a lack of funding. If the North East and the Midlands had a SL team nearby I'm sure we'd have seen players from there coming into SL.'" We have seen North Eastern SL players. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Thorman But generally the North East and Midlands has been playing RL for a shorter time than London. But even so there are a fair few Midlanders on the books of various SL sides. They just haven't made their debuts yet as they are too young.

The same as Cumbria then. And yet Cumbria has produced SL players.

Which regions are you comparing to? NE and Midlands as being a similar geographic distance to SL teams to Cumbria?
Or the South? What doesn't make sense there is your "and yet" statement, as the south has produced multiple SL players. If it's Cubria compared to the South, then there are some clear differences between Cumbria and the South (excluding Broncos):
Presence of semi pro teams for many years.
Past SL/top division presence.
Locality to SL heartlands - it's a lot nearer than the South.
Historic presence of RL.

I'm still not clear on which region you're comparing Cumbria to though, and the point you're making about it.