Quote ="wrencat1873"I absolutely agree.
The whole issue with London is that, from the moment that they achieved promotion, regardless of any money spent, any on field or off field progress made, they were certainties for relegation.
In a sense, they would have been better off not gaining promotion.
The secondary point is that, throughout the SL era, we have often heard how much the comp needs a club in London etc.
The reality is that, through the composition of the IMG criteria, London have actually been excluded from the top flight and the question comes back to do those running the sport want a London Club in the top flight ?
Following their relegation and with Eccles now gone, it's unlikely that they will ever return to the top flight and they may struggle to survive at all.
Is this what people wanted and how does this fit with the IMG tagline of "reimagining Rugby League" ?'"
And your laying the decision, accountability and responsibility for London not being a top flight club at the RFL? It seems like you’re suggesting that the RFL should in fact treat London different and coach them up to SL.
Not imo and London should have nothing that the rest of the clubs get in terms of support or otherwise. The RFL should be nuetral and shouldn’t be wanting any team in the superleague above another. How you link that to failing their ‘reimagining rugby league’ is beyond me.
London are where they deserve to be and If they want to change that it should be under their own steam.
