Thanks for the reply but I am talking currently active players. That list is mainly obsolete now bar the odd couple. And even that list over many decades is very slim compared to most SL clubs.

It was more in response to that being the reason the poster highlighted that London were deserving of SL or exemption. Nobody can ever provide an extensive list that matches most other clubs that’s all yet proceed to use that in justification.

I don’t doubt there are a handful but it’s nowhere significant to call it close to a success imho.

It’s a real shame that the Broncos have been run as they have because I’d hazard if they’d been smarter and more efficient they perhaps could be in a much more prosperous position today.

I don't disagree with any of that. I suppose what you would say is that a lot of those players might have never had a pathway and been completely lost to RL without the Broncos, which does kind of accentuate their importance.

However, what we keep coming back to is the fact that the club has been so badly run. Their much-improved IMG score this year is going to be almost 100% on the back of a year's SL occupancy and the boosts that gives - attendance, sponsorship, etc. They earned their previous lowly score entirely on merit. A lot of people like the idea of a club in London, and understandably so, but the reality is the Broncos have been nowhere near a SL outfit off the field for many years; they were basically London Skolars, but in a the division above, for a long time.

Eamon O'Carroll leaving Bradford.

While you do disagree with that you’ve yet just like the poster I replied to provide any list of players currently in SL, championship and League 1 even from the London pathway and currently playing and that this is of a level that justifies both Eccles and some posters comments that london broncos are a successful expansion team. As I said before a handful of players spanning a decade doesn’t convince me. You can disagree and that’s fine but if you disagree with that point I’m sure you’d have the knowledge of players to back that up. I don’t and honestly can’t think of many, certainly not to the level I’d call it a success weighted against other SL clubs. If you can list plenty certainly currently in the top flight full time I’d happily listen but I haven’t seen that forthcoming in your posts so can’t really shift my opinion.

We do agree on the second part though. I look at clubs like York and think the potential there is far more along with being much better run. I don’t want London to struggle as much as I don’t think they’re any where near worthy of SL and won’t be for years. But to do that now that the owner has pulled out alot will depend on if and who the new owners are and if they can plan continual improvement. Will likely take patience and money though and not the slapdash approach that their fans have been subjected to.

Finally had some time to have a look at the London players and from their first 17 squad members, 7 are very much homegrown, born in the south east:

Walker - Harlow
Mancani - Tottenham
Butler - Harlow
Beinek - Sidcup
Leyland - Maidstone
Stock - Milton Keynes
Williams _ Stevenage

Not bad for a badly run club with no cash

4/5 of their players already moving to SL and another 4/5 already snapped up by Championship clubs.

Their lack of a stable base has absolutely stuffed them over the years and nobody knows what may have been.

As for a list of super stars, there aren't many but, even Trinity, with our 25 unbroken years in SL, cant boast a huge list of homegrown superstars.

The fundamental point with them was that they gained promotion and were doomed to relegated before the season began.
now, call me stupid but, in those circumstances, who in their right mind is going to throw the kitchen sink at a squad that "may" have been able to compete.
3 wins for the season (the same as FC) is absolutely dire and would see them relegated in a "normal" season.
However, what is undeniable, is that the sport has managed to lose a millionaire backer and probably ensured that London disappear and by any measure and regardless of the fact that they're not worthy of a SL spot, this is a poor effort from those "running" the sport.

I agree. But the millionaire backer can't just say ill stay if I was in Super League.
He could have used his money to get a longer lease on a permanent home and aimed to get more IMG points.
He's got 1 point head start on us.

You can put a fairly decent 13 out of London-produced players that are in SL, have been in SL recently for other clubs, or top champ players:

Alex Walker (London)
Kieran Dixon (Widnes)
James Meadows (Bradford)
Bill Leyland (Hull KR)
James Woodburn-Hall (Halifax)
Joe Keyes (Bradford)
Oli Leyland (Warrington)
Lewis Bienek (London)
Sam Davis (Salford)
Rob Butler (London)
Mike McMeeken (Treble winners)
Sadiq Adebeyi (London)
Matt Davis (Leigh)

Then a small litter of other lads who have spent their careers in Champ and League 1. I’m not trying to say that’s a remarkable production line, but it’s a lot more than Leigh, Salford, Huddersfield, and - without looking into every club - many other SL clubs. So I think, on balance, it’s a fair thing for them to brag about.

I agree that London shouldn’t have been given special treatment under this system or any other, but I also understand why they tried - can you imagine what we’ll see if Huddersfield or Leigh are under threat?!

What London need, and have always needed, is a permanent home (difficult in a city that’s parcelled up into incredibly expensive plots with no appetite for community amenities and dominated by fickle football clubs), a community outreach team, and a boat load of money to spend on marketing (also exorbitant in London).

The player pathway is there, the potential fanbase is there (either diaspora league fans in west London or an untapped working class community in south east London). But if what’s happening to Wakey right now has taught me anything, it’s that RL clubs need money. And in London, you’d need twice as much. I don’t think Hughes is that rich.

As I’ve said before, there are two possibilities from here: either an extremely well off owner comes forward (unlikely given they’ve got about 3,000 fans in total), or they form a supporters trust and bounce between League 1 and Champ for a few years.

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" ?

Then you aren't agreeing with me.

I'm saying rather than saying I won't put money in because I'm not in SL, the backer should have put money in the right places based on IMG and guaranteed SL for London.

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.

Totally agree.

https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/sport/r ... ng-9644588

https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/sport/r ... ng-9644588

Do you actually think that from the point where the new criteria was announced that London could get all of their ducks in a row and achieve and A grade ?
Yes, that could have done things differently and maybe they should have.

However, the net result is that not only have they been relegated but, in hacking off their millionaire backer, as a sport, "we" have killed off pro RL in the Capital.
Is this what the RFL, SL and IMG wanted to achieve ?

Clearly the new IMG system (an organisation employed by The RFL) has created a set of criteria that, in the time scale given, made it impossible for certain clubs (London included) to achieve a sufficiently high grading to become/remain in SL so, in essence, either deliberately or in consequence, this falls on their lap.
Fundamentally, relegating a promoted club, before a ball is passed / kicked is just wrong.
Given the pre determined timescales, there was nothing that London could do to remain in the top flight, which stinks the house out.
The same situation would have occurred if any of the other smaller Champ clubs had been promoted last season, not just London.

Not at all. I'm just saying if he's a millionaire and wants a SL team in London, he needs to invest in the IMG targets, rather than moaning that the rules don't suit him and taking his money out.