Well that was enjoyable. Result helps of course. When I saw our Interchanges I thought we had a chance. Some true physique and impact off the bench. And great to see Lewis back, I'm a big fan and he had some big moments; impressive in his first game back. Played some good minutes for a Prop; just short of 40 I believe.

Had we not conceded today we would have jumped above Hull; okay that was asking a bit much.

I thought London played very well today and whilst the kicking wasn't devastating, it was pretty effective; the kicks to Kershaw especially as Hull were pinned near the line many times. Thought Kershaw was clever on the last tackle in the corner late on. I was expecting the ball back to Leyland for a Kick for Kershaw to challenge. Instead Kershaw ran the last tackle. Didn't quite make the line but ensured Hull started their set 2 metres from their own line, rather than potentially making a big gain recovering our kick.

I'd like to think the majority of these players will return next year in the Championship. Add a few Southern Hemisphere players and we should be very competitive. Not sure any of our team is a certain Superleague starter elsewhere. If they enjoy playing in London, I'd suggest every player is at least open to discussions on another season.

Just maybe this Superleague season has layed the platform for starting the next season in a strong position; it would be fourth time lucky at Plough Lane.

Seems this story isn't over yet following the club's statement to seek legal advice.

Why was the RFL statement made jointly with Hull FC ? That doesn't seem appropriate regardless of whether a charge is progressed.

Agreed Buzz but in any event with a charge like this, you need transparency & that should result in a hearing deciding on the evidence provided by Hull & the views that Sid wants to put forward. Whether he said something or Sid misunderstood who knows, but dismissing it as "nothing to see here move along" does RL no favours.

OK so on the face of it the issue is slapdash process rather than the substantive issue. One assumes Broncos have heard the recording- if not, that is odd. The actual issue itself remains a he said/she said where the ‘he’ actual has, seemingly, proof he didn’t say what he was accused of. If the tape provides that proof, let Broncos hear it and that would seem to be that. Lack of transparency and the optics of a joint press release are valid points but I’m not sure what mileage there is in pursuing. I recall us getting all bent out of shape about the game in Toulouse a few seasons back. We had a ‘moral’ point but got nowhere. Net result money out, lost points and we ended up 7th in the league.

Without wishing to rehash that farce, which of course if it did anything, it showed that Broncos often aren't allowed a level playing field, the wording in the Broncos statement suggests that either they haven't heard the tape or the tape was provided after the RFL/Hull released the "nothing to see" statement. Either way, that is wrong. The use of the word "unequivocally withdrawn", is tantamount to saying Sid is telling porkies, which I am sure he is not & heard something. What it would seem is that the RFL don't want to know in great detail what that something might be which you would have hoped a hearing might determine. After all, it isn't unknown for Islanders in both codes of rugby to use, shall we say, intemperate language at times.