I have just read this article on the independent website, Must say I agree with this guy, any thoughts? www.independent.co.uk/sport/gene ... 61145.html

I have just read this article on the independent website, Must say I agree with this guy, any thoughts? www.independent.co.uk/sport/gene ... 61145.html

Get rid out of Superleague ASAP. We've tried to expand and it's never really took off. Stick to the m62 corridor for me. Plenty of other teams with a good fan base could come in instead.

My view is that the RFL either do London properly and invest large sums of money (as the NRL/News Corp have done with Melbourne) or we drop them to the Championship or Championship1 and let them grow organically (like Crusaders are now doing) this half-hearted approach just isn't working.

The problem is the bloke who owns London and (literally) his mates that 'run' the club.

No matter how much the RFL/Superleague gave London, the money would be grossly mismanaged, just like it is now.

The RFL have made big inroads in grassroots RL in London, participation figures in schools and clubs are pretty decent now. It'll be a shame if there isn't a clear pathway to get these youngsters into the pro ranks, the same pathway that Dixon, Sarginson, Clubb, McCarthy-Scarsbrook etc have followed.

Personally, I think London should be treat like any other in SL. Flounder at the foot of the table, with poor crowds etc, and you lose your license. Maybe 3 years in the Championship will give their board the kick up the arris it needs.

London bring nothing to Super League and Super League would be no worse off without them.

I would look to strengthen the game in the south of France. So much potential around there.

Expansion has worked, just look at Catalans.

However compare what Catalans have achieved in a fraction of the time London have been established and it's clear that expansion at the top level hasn't worked in the capital.

Drop them down a league for me and let them develop sustainably as others have said.

A Superleague without London could severely impact on our ability to bring money into the sport, especially from Sky.

London have suffered not only from a nomadic existence but also an identity crisis. It's all very well shouting about a city of 8 million people but those 8 million have the very best of anything to entertain them and we can forget sport, we are in the entertainment business and are competing not just with soccer, RU etc, we are also competing for the attention of a generation of couch potatoes, who'd rather play games on an X-box than a field.

Even if we go back to the Fulham days, London has had a relatively short time (compared to the 100+ years of many clubs), to develop and grow a game that was and is, an alien concept for many. I can't claim to have the solution but I do feel that RL will be poorer with London in Superleague

Kinda my thoughts to. Think there needs to a be a shake up with the idea of a team in London and a proper structured plan to make it successful.

You've also got to remember that London isn't really a single place.

I live 15 minutes walk away from Waterloo (the mainline station where you get trains to The Stoop from). In theory, I'm really well placed to go to see The Broncos. It still takes me over an hour to get to The Stoop by public transport (generally the quickest way to get round London). It generally takes me at least as long if I drive.

It's an even longer journey for people who live in most of North London, all of East London, and most of South London. If Broncos attracted fans when they played out in Sth East London, those fans would have a hell of a journey to go to Twickenham every week (albeit that some of them do).

Whereas if I lived in Leeds (it would be rubbish, I know, but), for instance I could probably drive to any other SL ground apart from London and Cats in the same time it takes me to travel from Waterloo to The Stoop.

I do wonder whether there's the potential for a bump down to Championship 1 to do London some good. The gates aren't there now, so it would be hard for them to take a knock, but maybe if they were actually competitive in their league for a spell people might find it more appealing to watch. It's already a hard sell as a minority sport in a non-traditional RL area, it's almost impossible when they are being made to look like a bunch of amateurs who are hopelessly out of their depth most weeks.

I've said for years that playing in Twickenham doesn't do them any favours either. Its a bugger to get to even if you live in London. Plus it doesn't make it attractive to the vast majority of Londoners who don't live in the South West of the city.

Moving more central is unlikely (ground share with QPR?) and I'm not sure that a move to Barnet is the answer (as has been suggested), but they certainly need to do something to get bums on seats, from home as well as away fans

Its time to stop quoting population figures with regards to London. The club need to be run like a local club. For instance Hull KR with their Pride of East Hull tag. A community team with community loyalty. You will not grow when you look at the entire area of Greater London. It can take me hours to get across London on a good day and thats without rail replacement services etc which often blight the capital.

The problems with the current set up at Twickenham is that they are not attracting the local community. Be it because its a RU stronghold (I don't buy that, look at the clubs that have moved out of London since RU became professional, especially in the Richmond Twickers Putney area) or simply because the club have not targeted them and the opportunity is now lost. Look on their forum at what the genuine London faithful think.

The "they bring nothing to SL" need to look at the grassroots work that is taking place in London. I suspect there is a far greater number of kids playing the game in the SE now than ever before or ever likely to have been without the Broncos. Look at the Hull leagues and you will I am certain notice that players are being lost to the game at junior level. That is not the case in the SE at the moment. Would you argue that the Hull clubs bring nothing to SL? Or does that measure simply go down to the number of supporters a club has that pays to attend a game?

What London needs is an owner that is not pouring the cash down the drain and a team that can compete despite paying the full cap. The worst thing that happened was Powell being installed as coach and Lennigan (sp?) having to relinquish his control of the club.

If the club is relegated (they have yet to finish bottom of SL) it would signal the death of the game in the SE. Do we really want that given its a major area of growth for the sport?

I could go on but work is calling.

Think the view expressed in the article is a sensible one, provided some actions follow. There are many issues with London but just walking away right now would not be a good move IMO. The trouble is I've no confidence that anyone involved can come up with and implement a plan to change things.

keep london, i like the swill that goes with the big smoke!!