I certainly believe we must protect London not replace them but Leigh do not need those gates to operate a successful club from the LSV with the world class facilities on hand already

So you seriously think that the RFL can afford to put in the 2 million a year instead of Hughes and that's just to remain as they are. To move forward it would have to be considerably more than that. Hey, here's an idea. We are repeatedly told that the Sky money belongs to SLE's member clubs. Well, maybe those member clubs could all agree to give London a bigger share than the rest of them, say 3 or 4 million, after all it is THEIR money.

Yeah, right, I can really see that happening.

Which other money do you think the RFL have?

Sport England money is solely for the provision of youth and amateur RL.

International money comes from SL Players playing international competition.

Where do you think this none-SL money they could spend on London is coming from?

If the RFL give any club money, chances are its SL money. There isn’t any other money coming in.

How about London get their act together, build a fan base and get some corporate support, you know like all other clubs are expected to do. The day sky come out and say a London club in SL is essential for a bigger TV contract is the day we should consider centrally funding London more than other clubs.

How about Hull KR do the same and stop whining that they are losing money and not breaking through the 'glass ceiling'? How about instead of moaning about how many support staff Wigan have Hull KR employ some themselves instead of a multitude of overseas players?

Our game in its entirety is set up to protect small failing clubs in the north. When all clubs are forced to face the inherent disadvantages London are, and they are successful, then they are in a position to dismiss them.

Sorry?

Read my post again. I'm not suggesting they fund London. I quite specifically stated that they can't afford to. IIRC, the RFL get the same each year from SL as ONE of it's member clubs.

I repeat, if the SLE member clubs believe that it is essential to have a club in London then surely it is in their interest to help fund it.

Yes, I understand that.

What I am saying is that if the RFL fund it, SL will be funding it. All the money the RFL could use to fund it comes from SL directly or indirectly.

You mean like improving the stadium, increasing corporate support, bringing in a new membership model to build crowds and making the playoffs most seasons? If London had achieved half as much in their time in SL they might not now be in administration and facing relegation or closure.

But the share of the Sky money which goes to the RFL is to fund the administration of the game, pay referees etc. It is not there to be given straight back to the SL members.

If London were just another club relying on overseas players to get them mid-table with sub 10k crowds we would have no need for them.

Whatever money it is it comes from SL. If the best thing to spend that money on is London, it should be spent on London, if the best thing to spend it on is something else, we should spend it on something else.

No, it comes from Sky. If the SL clubs wish to keep the whole lot without the RFL taking a share (which is what Lenegan and his cabal are wanting) I personally would let them. They can then sink or swim on their own decisions and have no further involvement with the RFL. This being the case, do you seriously believe that they would vote to financially prop up good old London year after year. I think not. They would drop them like a hot stone and split their Sky money between them and then wait for the next club to go bust and so on until Sky decided they no longer wanted to sponsor a rapidly shrinking SL.

Sky pay SL for a product. That money only comes from Sky in the same way Sainsburys money comes from me.

But if you found that Sainsburys started to give less value for money you would put your money into another supermarket instead.

I can't remember where i read it but someone stated they want the '3/8' structure because it means the top teams will play more games against each other so there'll be more intense games week in week out.

If that's something that will help england, then i'm for it.

i think you misunderstood the analogy there.

once i have bought something from Sainsburies that money is no longer my money it is sainsburies money. Just like once Sky by a product from SL, that is no longer Sky money, it is SL money.

Doesn't the Sky money go to Super League Europe and not to the RFL?

I'm not sure about it but I seem to recall seeing somewhere that RFL revenue streams include monies the Challenge Cup final and England internationals.

....and, by extension, once the RFL takes its share it is RFL money and not SL money.

IIRC, the Sky money is currently split sixteen ways. 1/16 goes to each of the 14 SL clubs, 1/16 to the RFL and 1/16 to be shared amongst the Championship and Championship 1 clubs. I'm open to correction. Anyone?

Yes it is.

Which bring us back in a pointless circle, to the money which the RFL have comes from SL (not only in this form but the principle is pretty much the same). If the best thing to spend that on is London, they should do that, if it is something else do that.

thats correct.

SL give the championships and RFL money from their TV contract.

.... and who got them that TV contract in the first place? The RFL.

No. IMG did.

No. Mike Smith of Keighley Cougars did. Well, he got the original £87 million deal with SKY in 1995 by negotiating with them, the basis including that he wrote 'Framing the Future' and got the RL to agree it along with a move to summer. I know the contract's been renegotiated since then. BTW, the High Court ordered a higher proportion of the deal be distributed to clubs outside the SL than the RL originally planned. The resulting proportionate split ought legally to continue to apply. SL clubs are part of the RFL - which gives them the ability to operate the competition (referees, discipline, monitoring salary cap, player registration etc etc etc). I don't want SL clubs to break away from the RFL. They can if they want. They'd then need to pay for their own central infrastructure. Their players wouldn't be eligible for England, they couldn't play in the Challenge Cup etc. It would of course be a nonsense. But as part of being members of the RFL they have to pay the due and fair 'fee' for membership, thereby supporting the whole game, to the benefit of us all.

No. IMG negotiated a contract for SL(Europe)

You need to look again at the reasoning of the solidarity contribution, contract negotiations for a different contract which has not only been renegotiated but expired since being renegotiated aren’t relevant to that.