Yet if it was (I assume your team) Widnes in that league, you'd be saying the exact opposite. Only by a stroke of luck of they managed to get a decent backer to enable then to get back into SL, otherwise they'd be dead.

I completely disagree with you that RL below SL is dying, let alone dead.

And again, this doesn't explain your initial post, that being expansion clubs getting protected shafts tradition. Completely different to what you're saying now.

So would you say RL below SL is thriving or what data are using to suggest the RL below SL isn't dying?

what expansion clubs are they london how long have they been going 30 years how long do they need why should they be treated any diffrent from the rest of us bottom feeders the cats are a top4/6 side now getting decent crowds so hardly an expansion team i still stand by my post the RL will make sure some how that london and the cats will be protected from the yoyo league

newsflash...London have never finished in a relegation position...the are not "protected" or treated differently, although they should be.
Melbourne Storm receive more cash than the other NRL teams and are owned by the broadcast partner who themselves used to own the comp.......london should be given twice the cash and a bigger salary cap.

Would that be enough though? I don't know what London's finances are like but I'm assuming on their crowds and profile they don't bring in much revenue? Would twice the cash, say £3m instead of £1.5m, be enough to give London the opportunity to flourish?

Not that I'm disagreeing with the premise, I wholeheartedly agree.

I believe the way forward is for the RFL to take a controlling stake (75%+) of the club, to inject 2.5 million (over the 1.3 Sky money) into the club a year with a view to building up awareness and making the club an attractive proposition for future investors, with the aim of the RFL "selling" their stake one London have built up their commercial activities to a respecatable level.

I reckon it would take 10 years, but what is key is the appointment of true professionals into the leading roles at the club.

David Hughes has simply pumped 1.5 a year of his own cash into the club since 2008 but has not allocated a brass farthing of that to any sort of marketing.....a series of people who were not qualified to do the jobs they were mistakenly given has culminated in the current CEO sheddig 42% of our fans over 2 and a half seasons, a poinless and fruitless name change and now another midnight flit to pastures new to cover up their ineptness

What absolute cr@p, twice the cash and a bigger SC ??? Why not give them the challenge cup every year and an honoury GF spot too

Could you stop giving people ammo please?

Renting a flat in Castleford is not the same as renting a flat in London. Buying most things is more expensive when done in London.....

[urlhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2013278/The-new-north-south-divide-Two-families-300-miles-apart-earn-50k-struggles-lives-luxury.html[/url


...now allowing for the mail to be liberal with the accuracy, the article does give you an idea of the difference between north and south....

As I have already said, Melbourne Storm, who until last year were owned by the owner of the NRL, receive additional cash as they are an expansion club.......very few, if any NRL fans bemoan this, nor the fact that they are owned by the same people who own the Brisbane Broncos...the very same people who propped up the Cowboys a few years back too......

But I am sure you know best.... I mean to say, what could the RFL learn from a competition that has just closed a $1 billion TV deal over 5 years..



By all means let London continue to waddle along at the foot of the table 100% reliant on the health and good will of 1 man.....you'll miss us when we're gone....let's hope the Broadcast partners don't though

Indeed, there is a huge difference between living in London and living anywhere else.

There should be a London weighting in the cap like there is for many many other jobs.

We are not in Australia though, any comparison IMO are (like the standards of both leagues) worlds apart. You want a successful side from outside the heartlands at the expense of the integrity of SL, the CC, the London club itself and the game as a whole. Very poor idea.

In that case all clubs must only run on the income they themselves generate. A rich owner financing losses also damages the integrity of the competition.

I know, ill compare apples and oranges.

nah...you're right. Fev v Halifax is a marketers dream......just so long as he's marketing brains faggots

You appeared worried about " the integrity of the competition", I mentioned another aspect within the same context that also damages that integrity. If you don't want to discuss that aspect it's fine, you're obviously a busy man with all that fruit to examine.

While not averse to the notion of the RFL investing in LB there would need to be a considerable improvement on-field. The best marketing in the world could not sell the game on the back of some of the dross served up in recent years. Would doubling, trebling the cap or whatever result in improved performances? Or would it merely inflate the salaries of the serial under-achievers that the club seems to attract?

No you were comparing 2 completely different things to make ridiculous rules seem less ridiculous. Nice try but it didn't work.

I don't why so many fans believe in the existence of huge sums of money just hanging around waiting to be invested in RL.

Point 1: The RFL do not have the cash to invest in the Broncos and therefore discussing whether they should or not is a waste of time.

Point 2: The Broncos are skint and if their salary cap was doubled or tripled, this would not make any difference as it would not create any new money for them to spend on players salaries.

I'm okay with that but London have only just started spending the full salary cap (reportedly) so the problem is largely one of not having the cash to spend rather than the salary cap itself.

Given that Wakey, Bradford and Salford have come close to bankruptcy in recent times, what makes you think that the Sky money could reduced to the M62 clubs without bankrupting them?

All I am saying is compare the expansion clun in the NRL to the exansion clubs we've had in SL over roughly the same period. I am fully aware that the RFL don't have the cash to break the bank in London, but without David Huhghes, RL would be a northern pastime once again in the eyes of the media (who will go OTT when we do fold by the way) and what few sponsors the game has already.

Central funding of the Melbourne Storm has enabled them to get a foothold in a city dominated by AFLin the same way London is dominated by soccer.........and I say it again, if SKY demand a team in London to assure us of the TV deal, then it'stime they paid for one. If they don't care, then let the skolars fly the flag.

Speaking of News and Melbourne......it would seem uncle rupert has a few bob going spare now....

RL is a northern sport in the eyes of the media, Broncos didn't change that nor did Crusaders and neither will Catalans. The only way that this will change is if we have lots of successful non-northern teams. Sticking one pro side in London and watching them struggle year-in, year-out doesn't fool anyone.

I'd welcome Sky taking a stake in Broncos. If their inclusion really is worth a premium to Sky (I don't believe this) - then it would be easier all round for Sky to inject a million or so into Broncos directly and the actual TV money can be divvied up equally. I just don't think that Sky really have that much interest in Broncos or British RL expansion.

and neither do certain power brokers at the RFL

The irony of saying that in a season that has seen the debut of three expansion sides in the pro ranks....When did that last happen?

I suppose rugby league doesn't exist below super league for some.

And if Sky did step in is it just a coincidence that the rebranded Broncos colours are similar to the Sky cycling team?