Quote: Smith's Brolly "I'd have been happy with Sneyd or Kelly this year instead of Brown. Wouldn't have wanted Kelly 12 months ago, bit of a messy exit from Hull KR, but would have chosen him over Brown as the more dynamic and free spirit to replace Sandow if we were looking for a like-for-like replacement. '" Smith was reported as saying he wanted a "steady Eddie" www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/spo ... e_Sandow_/

Quote: Smith's Brolly "I'd have been happy with Sneyd or Kelly this year instead of Brown. Wouldn't have wanted Kelly 12 months ago, bit of a messy exit from Hull KR, but would have chosen him over Brown as the more dynamic and free spirit to replace Sandow if we were looking for a like-for-like replacement. '" Smith was reported as saying he wanted a "steady Eddie" www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/spo ... e_Sandow_/

Kelly didn't play in the MPG last year!

Greg Bird

To those getting all dewy eyed about the possibility of Cats dropping down on Saturday. I've one word for you.....London

A population of7 million to attract. The RFL have bent umpteen rules for them. Richard Branson showing an interest for a year or two. How did that work out, after nearly 40 years, and countless rebrands.

I'm with Doris Day, on Saturday. Que sera, sera. However, I'm expecting a few of the dark arts of reffing to come into play. The RFL will not want Cats getting demoted.I'm not expecting many 50/50 calls going Leighth's way.

Now TS had gone I hope Cats stay up. We might start getting Sumner holidays in France and Spain again.
TS requests for February/March a thing of the past.

Yeh I heard Professor Snape is ref on Saturday,because quiditch as been cancelled.

What rules did the RFL bend for London? The issue with London I would say is the complete opposite. Ridiculous to expect them to just float on their own without additional support from the governing body.

Veto on them getting relegated for a number of years
Blind eyes to salary cap infringements
Unlimited overseas players



Just 3 off the top of my head. There'll be more.

I'm curious, what additional support do you think they should of had,genuine question not having a pop.

All three are utter garbage. In which years were they not relegated when they should have been?

No. They are all correct.
From SL's inception, to number of years later, London had a "get out of jail, free" card, SHOULD they find themselves in the relegation positions, come season's end. Whether they were in those positions or not is irrelevant. The Veto was there.

London breached SL cap on more than one occasion, and walked away with tellings off. I remember Cullen going on a rant about the RFL treating everyone the same, and was sick of London getting preferential treatment.

Surely you've got your head in the sand Re their overseas allowances. They had more Aussies than Earle's Court on a Saturday night, each season.

As I said. All 3 correct

Hard to argue that the RFL did not move heaven and Earth for the London project. Am I not correct in thinking that London did not need to gain promotion to SL (unlike Toronto). They also had no limit on overseas players. Indeed in 1996 they had 31 Australian and Kiwi players!

I remember watching Fulham vs Wire back in the early 1980's. Not much difference in attendance now even though London's population has increased from 6.5M to 9M.



*www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/will-our-home-grown-talent-win-the-battle-with-foreign-imports-1-2334280.

Thanks for the reply - I mean this in a genuine way but do you have any proof of the first two? I wasn't aware of the first one so be interested in reading more. On the second again I've never seen them charged with a cap infringement unlike Wigan. So be interested to see read more if I missed that one.

Your third point is correct they did have a dispensation to play more overseas players for a period but this reflected the fact they struggled to attract Northerners to play down South but this was only fair as expecting them to compete on the same salary budget in one of the most expensive places on the planet and somewhere like Castleford was unrealistic.

However, that dispensation was only for a period and when you look at the players produced in London - LMS, McKeeken, Clubb, Sarginson - Ogodo making his debut for Cas on Friday another one. It shows what could be done even with meagre resources.

No problem - not taken as such!

Really if you were running SL as a business you'd see London as a growth market and invest accordingly.

So as much as it would upset some of the game - London should have been run as a JV by the governing body and an investor. This is what has happened with Melbourne Storm where the NRL and News Internatinational had a stake and provided marketing expenditure and expertise as it is about expanding the game. This should have been part of a joined up plan including development officers across London / SE along with (as posted above) a London weighting added to the cap. Internationals played regularly in London and market off the back of them.
With investment, the issue of no ground could have been dealt with. It just took some vision. Saracens have managed to develop a ground at Barnet Copthall (a former London ground), London Irish with Brentford at its new ground (again a former Broncos ground share) - instead the RFL bought Odsal.

The RFL have provided more support for Bradford then they ever have London.