We are in SL in 2014 playing out of the Hive, albeit with a reduced level of finance and at present, a paper thin squad.

The way things are looking at present is that any "other" investment is reliant on a number of assurances regarding P&R protection, which is, as far as I can make out, the $64,000 question........

If the RFL want a London Side, but aren't prepared to finance it, then are they willing to offer assurances to private investors regarding protection from relegation?

The Federation rules that are in place hamstring the club to a certain extent, because whilst the talent pool is growing in London, we are 5 or 6 generations behind the rest of SL and therefore have far less talent to choose from. Northerners wont come south as they understand their money goes a lot further at home, so we are left looking for bargains.....the places we have finished in since the Fed limits came in would seem to point to it putting us at a massive disadvantage.

The question is, do the RFL/SKY/other SL clubs want a London team in the top flight? If they do, then we will be safe from the drop for a few years and full of overseas talent.....if not, we will be lucky to win a game next year and will be a championship club in 2015.

Gutterfax - surely it would be a cheaper option to employ british based players than overseas ?
I can see LB getting the dispensation for this but asking for protection from relegation will surely be kicked out by the other SL clubs. The only way this would be agreed IMO would be for one year only with no relegation for anyone. Turkeys aren't going to vote for christmas on this one.

I don't disagree with you and the club asking for special treatment doesn't sit well with me, but I am simply saying that if London are needed, but the RFL won't pay for it, then it's naïve to expect private investors to bankroll the games experiment and run the risk of losing their shirts.

The guy who I believe is considering investing is the real deal......he doesn't throw his cash away, he expects every penny to be accounted for and is a massive fan of "community" club ventures. If the Broncos were to get 3 years protection from the drop, I reckon he's have their crowds over 5k and the club on an even keel........if they don't get protection, then it will be one more year on a shoestring, relegation and eventually, liquidation.

If London are a bargaining chip in SKY deals...the turkeys may have little choice.

Exactly Gutters. DH is at the end of his rope and cant keep putting money in like this. A new owner will only do it if he thinks there is an environment for it to work within. The format must change to give a new owner time to tun it around, although i doubt 3 years will do it. The franchise system is preferable IMO.

I'd suggest the main reason we are seemingly after an import exemption is that most UK nationals of the right standard are already under contract for 2014 and we just couldn't recruit British across the board if we wanted to. My suspicion is the are looking at non NRL South Sea islanders.

One of the reasons I am so uneasy about an exemption re foreign players is the presence of Tony Rea. He did very little to develop a youth system, that I am aware of, as either CEO or coach first time. Remember Peter Lupton playing for Charlton Park RU as we didn't have a team good enough for him to play in? Brian came in and gave Phil Jones the support required and we have begun to see results.

I live in Aldershot and watch the youth reasonably often. I haven't ever seen Tony there. He may attend every game I am not at but I doubt it. I did see Brian at a game in Aldershot this year though. I fear any exemption could see a return to the 'just bring in another Manley player' days. I think the one strong argument we have for protecting our presence is that we are expanding the player pool - Kieran and Illiess are highly promising. Louis and Tony are full caps. The likes of Mikey and Dan were capped in junior RL etc. Our head coach needs to be someone who buys into the development ethos to my eyes. I'm not convinced Tony does. (Which is valid as head coaches are judged on today not tomorrow. I just don't think it is a good fit with the position the club is in.)

Not too sure why the RFL would want to fund an Academy in London if we are pulling in imports all over the place either.

Interesting to see Wigan so heavily involved in the Welsh RL academy. Will a richer SL team be tempted to do the same down here?

I'd also suggest shocking player recruitment has as much to do with our recent struggles as any rule changes re imports. Doesn't matter how many imports you have if they are as dis-interested as sone of our recent ones tbh.

The RFL said that Sky wanted expansion of the game i.e. more viewers but didn't care where they lived. It's in their policy review document that was released recently. The same document referred to the difficulties in clubs such as Crusaders and Broncos (the only two names mentioned) running on small crowds and said that teams like Oxford, Hemel etc seem to be a better idea.

The RFL would get shot down by such as Sport England if they dropped the London Academy after the players it has produced, so at this stage no way can they afford to drop it.

Yes we have had imports who lacked interest, but with a good coach look what Sheffield Eagles have done with some wise imports!

Players that were brought through their formative years by the development coaches who were made redundant recently. Seems a lack of joined up thinking to me.

Completely agree! I can't work out the thinking behind this decision, these are things The RFL should be involved in, sadly they have too many more serious problems at present! Super League Clubs have to follow the football and rugby union plans which have brought them success, looking after their own destiny, this chance can't be wasted, just hope the 6 club chairman who walked out will stand firm and others will see sense, miss this chance and we may regret it for a long time to come.

Its desperately sad if the people running our game believe this. Crusaders and Broncos are the 2 worst examples of top down expansion possible. No stadium, no business plan, rushed in without thought. Had they done a proper business plan and started in Wrexham, Crusaders would have worked IMO. Broncos was never going to work without a home or a plan.

Why is it one or the other? A new franchise straight into SL can work, but not like these 2 clubs tried to do it.

Did we not start off at Craven Cottage? was that not a proper plan, just unfortunate it did not last!

Our franchise started with Broncos when SL started.

Crusaders owned the Brewery Field, Fulham RLFC were owned by the football club and had their home at Craven Cottage.

They may have both failed (short of a miracle in Broncos' case) but neither was entirely unplanned. The problem was that when Plan A failed, there wasn't really a Plan B and this led to the clubs moving around and changing their name. Never a good sign.

Yes, but we had been around as a London RL Club before that and Ernie Clay was a rugby league enthusiast, it was just not a football club thinking of having a rugby league side. It was not just franchise time, lets have a London Club.

As Hedgehog King states Crusaders had their own ground as well at the start, give them credit they seem to hold their own in The Championship like Sheffield Eagles and have attendances which are better than many Northern championship clubs.

For some reason the sport does not seem to work big outside of that M62 corridor, however development area sides seem to try, that is why if the Broncos went down to The Championship, unless there is big money will they ever develop. London Skolars have been semi professional now 10 years and so much hard work goes in, but how far have they developed as far as attendances go?

I agree clubs should have their own grounds, that is their roots then and you build from that base, I just wish Wigan had their own stadium still.

The nearer you are to the M62 corridor the more likely you are to make it as although your own support base may be low initially the much larger away following on your doorstep makes up a lot of the shortfall. The less the owner has to dip into his pocket for the more likely he is to hang around for the long run.