Quote ="Trojan Horse"I can’t agree with your bottom line. London were never a successful uk expansion club and your exaggerating that to a massive degree to have a pole at the IMG criteria. They have always been a basket case. You’re blaming img but it’s very much a mostly flawed club for many years. Placing that at the foot of IMG is exactly what I’m talking about being in poor taste.
12 months ago they were averaging barely 1k fans. Struggling for sponsors and finishing edge of playoffs. They had no sponsor for shirt early on in pre season sorted and they have been propped up by an owners funds. They have bounced from place to place and struggled to lay foundations.'"
There is no disagreement regarding their nomadic status or, their fanbase, which is largely due to them moving home so frequently.
Their primary strength and the main reason for them being a good option, is their development of players, from a pool that may note exist without their presence down south and from a sporting point of view, being condemned to relegation before a ball has been passed or kicked.
Maybe this is just teething troubles for the new criteria but, it doesn't sit well.
Ofc, we all have to wait for the IMC scores to be published in a couple of weeks but, there will no doubt be some surprises.
As for London, the look to be a busted flush.
Again you are right abouth their wealthy backer but, London are not on their own in this respect, not by some distance.
