Quote ="lefty goldblatt"No. They are all correct.
From SL's inception, to number of years later, London had a "get out of jail, free" card, SHOULD they find themselves in the relegation positions, come season's end. Whether they were in those positions or not is irrelevant. The Veto was there.
London breached SL cap on more than one occasion, and walked away with tellings off. I remember Cullen going on a rant about the RFL treating everyone the same, and was sick of London getting preferential treatment.
Surely you've got your head in the sand Re their overseas allowances. They had more Aussies than Earle's Court on a Saturday night, each season.
As I said. All 3 correct'"
Thanks for the reply - I mean this in a genuine way but do you have any proof of the first two? I wasn't aware of the first one so be interested in reading more. On the second again I've never seen them charged with a cap infringement unlike Wigan. So be interested to see read more if I missed that one.
Your third point is correct they did have a dispensation to play more overseas players for a period but this reflected the fact they struggled to attract Northerners to play down South but this was only fair as expecting them to compete on the same salary budget in one of the most expensive places on the planet and somewhere like Castleford was unrealistic.
However, that dispensation was only for a period and when you look at the players produced in London - LMS, McKeeken, Clubb, Sarginson - Ogodo making his debut for Cas on Friday another one. It shows what could be done even with meagre resources.
