1. Oh come on. There are many RL clubs that don't deliver what the customer wants in traditional places. Inadequate numbers of fans to sustain vibrant RL clubs can be found in York, Rochdale, Widnes and east Hull as well as london. Hemel delivered to 122 fans the other week. HKR lose money on 7,000 fans - why pick on London again?
2. The reason for London in SL has been expplained by various RL luminaries down the years and the fact is those reasons have changed around and we have ended up where we are which was last years RLW article on London that stated their value was in the player production system.
So when you talk about the reason for London Broncos being to "make RL credible" it's not is it. The reason for London Broncos is to expand the player pool.
I've also posted the answer to chucking money down the drain. Do you want me to analyse all the millions of private money and SKY money thrown away on a whole series of traditional and expansion clubs? Why pick on London again??
Neil Hudgell spoke about how he's been chucking his money away on HKR as there is a glass ceiling in Superleague.
The problem is basically SKY provide £90 million for a professional rugby league. That money is pretty much shared out evenly wether your a club with a rich chairman and 10,000 crowds or wether your "important to expanding the player base".
London haven't nearly been killed off because londoners aren't interested. Manchester/Salford people are just as capable of gross disinterest. I posted Londons decent crowd figures 1996-7-8 on the other day. London have not been nearly killed off through just bad management. The game has merely decided it wants London to deliver a player development system and compete in SL but it won't allow the club a penny more than anyone else to achieve that.....
The expectations have been far beyond the practicalities.
I'm not interested in the vagaries of RL in other places, or of other times. My comments are regarding London, as of now as per the thread title. I have also offered my take on a solution.
However I will respond to your comments here and now and will not again to save the degeneration of the thread at such a young age.
The credibility comment I made is based on what other posters have experienced discussing RL in London at work with disinterested parties so what are you on bout? It's a big problem clearly. I never said it was the reason London exists but the majority of the stories and credibility of the sport in London fall squarely on the shoulders of 1 final, and x rounds of SL played out by a failing down-trodden team.
Also there are sustainable clubs everywhere, sustaining an SL club in London has it's own factors unrelated to those in York and clearly it is not possible to carry on sustaining it as it stands now. We'll worry about York if and when they make SL.
Regarding the player production system, you ignore the facts and back track on posts made a few months ago. Clearly SL clubs don't want the responsibility of developing players otherwise they wouldn't have dropped the academies. You and I also agreed that grass roots development was the way forward. Not having an SL club in London does not affect this at all. Class will always win through. The problem is whether more championship clubs in the conurbation of London will be enough. An untried phenomenon you either fear or embrace.
Also you accuse me of picking on London again. Boo hoo. You clearly like playing the victim.
Regarding the money side, what have London done to capitalise on it apart from create a new logo?
And finally Londoners aren't interested. Face facts. I'll bet there are far more exiles watching the Bronco's than bona fide Londoners. However I'll bet a few Londoners would happily go on a jolly to watch the world club challenge at Wembley.