Joe Grima "Out of the 31 players we've got contracted, 23 will be moving on whether they will be taking up opportunities at a Super League club or have been advised that they are not required at the Broncos next year."

So it looks like we might be jettisoning all those London youngsters for more Aussie journeymen next year?

It's not really a very surprising statement, but not one that fills me with hope.

In a way I am sorry to see them go, but on the other hand, keeping them going at this level would be futile.

We had years of moaning about them having a larger overseas quota, more favour from the RFL etc..

Personally I would have been more open, as the lack of openess gave that impression were as it was never that way.

But comments like RL can't survive without London, (basically excusing any outcome) rubbed people up the wrong way.

I would hope they can return to the top when they have managed to do what everyone needs to do, which is cut their expenses.

If you rolled back 20 years putting the London club out their on their own would not have been my choice, but they did have some years where it looked like they may make a go of it.

With any relegation it's not going to be a pleasant experience for the fans or the club. But neither is it the end.

I hope the London Broncos keep going and develop into a vibrant club. The priority as to be to find a permanent home and get a sense of identity. If that means dropping the name "London" and having a more localised name i.e "Leytonstone" or "Barnet" for example.

"Barnet" is not going to give the team much prospect of returning to Super League.

It's just as much chance as "London", if the club can build a proper identity to the area where they play, they will then hopefully develop as club, where people are proud to be identified to the club. No team as a right to promotion just like no team as a right not to be relegated. Promotion might not happen next season or the season after, it may never happen but it can still become a vibrant club.

Why ever not? AFAIK SL composition will be decided by results on the pitch. What the team's called is irrelevant.

Sad day for the Broncos and hope they can build and come back the right way. TBH IMO they should have never been parachuted into SL when SL was formed and should have been made to earn their way in through natural growth and on field performances.

Agree with you there, I've never liked the 'London' moniker, it's a bit like Salford calling themselves 'Greater Manchester'.

or Leigh being called 'Leigh, borough of Wigan'

WHAT HE SAID

I don't agree with dropping the London moniker. We're talking about the world's most famous city and people are wanting to drop it in favour of one of its dull suburbs half the country will probably have never heard of. Madness.

I've always been in favour of going all guns blazing with the branding and calling them London Rugby League.

I just don't think trying to appeal to the whole city will work. Especially with them being relegated and having no home. I think their best bet is to find a permanent home and rename as whatever area that's in. Try to build by getting the locals interested.

Trying to appeal to the whole city is like Hull KR when they were in the Championship trying appeal to an area stretching from Hull to Leeds and with approx 3 times the population.
Then add in the relatively low level of RL awareness in the area, the current weakness of the club & the dominance of football & Union in that area, I can't see how it could work.

What your saying is that basically they should have small ambitions.

This version of london are clearly dead, the last rights were given a couple of years ago. They are and have been winding back and it is virtually impossible for an expansion side to get promoted in a salary capped P+R league

Whatever new club comes through (if any) will be a London side. Calling them Barnet or Twickenham or Charlton or whatever would be like the Rhinos renaming themselves Headingley Rhinos.

Not the same in the slightest. As the chap or chappess above says, London are more recognizable to the rest of the country. However, when looking for paying fans the rest of the country is irrelevant.

They need to attract a community first before going for any wider appeal.

London is that same as saying West Yorkshire. No one will follow that team ahead of Leeds.

No one will follow team Lancashire ahead of Saints , Wire, Widnes, Pies.

It's not the major flaw, but it does add a limitations. Once you are big enough, like Arsenal, West Ham, Chelsea, then you will pick up fans outside of your direct locality. But you need that solid base first. The London FC would never work as they could never reach a mass big enough.

Add to that, moving around every few years.

Internal management issues.

And stuff that those closer to London are more qualified to answer, it does not help breed a stable team.

No it wouldn't and it's not about them having small ambitions. It's about them having appropriate ambitions and appropriate marketing. Nothing stops them going beyond and appealing to people beyond their "home town". In the same way every football club in London does.
But when they've had a nomadic existence, have pretty much no current support and have no roots at all, I don't think it a bad idea to put some down.

By the way Leeds weren't originally called Leeds RLFC. They had a name that most certainly wasn't aiming to appeal to the entire city at the time. As it grew it did and changed its name.
But anyway the comparison is daft as Leeds is a city with a high degree of RL awareness and a lot of interest and participation in the city. In London there isn't.

Thats right, the name London has no association with anywhere. Its like calling Rochdale Manchester North, Oldham called Manchester East and Salford called Manchester West.
Being Nomadic is destroying any fan base, probably at Brentford was there best period, was it the RFL that wanted the title London to prove that expansion was in full gear.

a quid'll get you a tenner that the majority of London sports fans would ask who was in this London Rugby League?

Harlequins, Wasps, Saracens......?????

Harlequins RL on our shirts was mistaken for Harlequins Rugby Lessons

.......it was one of the lame excuses MacKay/Hughes rolled out to explain why they changes us back to the Broncos.



What we have been called has not one jot of influence over the demise of the club.......bad management with a massive dollop of megalomania from Hughes, together with "lip service" from the RFL and SKY has done that.

Nobody thinks it is a bad idea for them to put down roots. And yes their support is small. Identifying as a club for a smaller area isnt going to change that.

And lets not beat around the bush, by appropriate you mean smaller.

Every London football club would love to be THE London club. The reasons they arent are historic and not really beneficial to them.


The degree of RL awareness in Leeds is nothing to do with why the Leeds Rhinos are the Leeds Rhinos and not the Headingley Rhinos.

There is a reason why Leeds are much bigger than Hunslet, Why Bramley arent a pro club.

There is a reason why Otley and Roundhay became Leeds Carnegie and now Yorkshire Carnegie.

The reason why people argue London shouldnt be London but some smaller area of it is the same reason people argue against a rise in cap, against marquee exemptions. If only the clubs spent a bit less, it would be easier for everyone to compete. The unavoidable consequence is the game is smaller.

Why? Would you think Leeds should call themselves England Rhinos then? Missing out on all those Cornish supporters.


No I mean exactly what I said. Appropriate. And there is a difference between having ambitions and being able to fulfill them.


Dear god smokey. Honestly, one of these days you'll actually admit that black is in fact black and not actually white.


Just the one? Seriously?


What were Leeds called before they built a decent following Smokey? You seem to have missed that part. Come on, time for a quick Wikipedia check.




once again there's more than 1 reason.

and the main one is the areas where Union support is stronger. You need to stop now Smokey, because you haven't got a clue with this one.




Where did I say that, oh wait I didn't. It's just another of your attempts to divert the argument away from its origins.

The reason why I argue that London shouldn't call themselves London is that London is entirely different to any other city or area in the UK. It's not the same as Manchester or Hull or Leeds.
London is sort of like an area stretching from Hull to Leeds and from Doncaster to York but with around 3 times the population. Then add in the massive cultural differences & the lack of any meaningful RL interest across the City why would you try to market to the entire place BEFORE you've appealed to and built interest in a smaller area first.

You know, like Leeds did.

But try and tell me it's about ambition instead, go on. It's hilarious.

I repeat...it has nothing to do with the name of the club. Nor has it got anything to do with the public not knowing what game it was we played, or mistakes about us and the other code.
It is 100% down to some really bad administration at Club and game level combined with not the slightest clue how to market the game/club, or even who to market it to.
The result?
19 years of SKY cash, combined with a bunch of creditors out of pocket in 2005 and god only knows how many Millions of private investment wasted, just to placate a few SL chairmen bereft of ideas of how to boost their own clubs attendances and finances, whilst pulling the wool over the eyes of a couple of ambitious Championship club owners with the "hope" of promotion.

London Broncos will be gone before the start of the 2016 season and the "expansion" of the game in London will be passed to the Skolars....who I seem to recall had trouble winning even just 1 game a season before London academy players started to trickle down.

Yeah, except the population of Headingley is 20,000 and the population of Barnet is around 360,000. Barnet alone is bigger than St Helens, Wigan and Leigh combined and has 23x the population of Featherstone.

There's absolutely no conceivable way that a club in a sport the size of RL could attempt to effectively market itself to the entirety of a place the size of London, it's just stupidity to even try.

Spot on, before the Sky,RFL, SLE backed Brisbanne's hi-jack of the club, we were so close to promotion anyways, we finished 4th in 91/92, 5th in 92/93 and 3rd in 93/94. The "election" to SL robbed us of our credibility and why exactly did Brisbane just suddenly decide to buy a tiny club with just 500 fans 12,000 odd km away, eh?

You can imagine the scene "Oh, what a suprise, your going to GIVE us promotion to SL, we didn't expect that".

lmao!

As for London disapearing, they said that when Fulham pulled the plug, but a hardcore kept them going, when the club became London Crusaders, it was recognising the fact that a) the club wasn't based in Fulham anymore, b) most of the fans weren't from Fulham either and c) we had no permanant base, hence "London" Crusaders and not Crystal Palace, Barnet Coptal or Chiswick Crusaders.

We will still be London RL, we will not disappear, and when we eventually EARN top flight status, I will wear the self-satisfied grin of a smug b'stud with pride!

Only if the mortician likes you.......because it ain't font happen in either of our lifetimes!