RP London

jeez that was a long build up for that joke... worth it though

is that boy standing there with a razor ready to shave the lobster claws off the Orca??? (for older viewers this will make sense |)

absolutely right or wrong its go at it 100% and make the most of it..

That's an awfully long time ago when all member clubs had a chance of winning something... as soon as there is more than one division your alienating all those from the other divisions realistically In terms of being solvent there would definitely be some who would go immediately and others who would go over time and yet more that would have enough time to cut their cloth accordingly and therefore stay afloat. However, its an odd analogy becuase Sky money is income that they know so they plan on how to spend it and plan it into budgeting, its almost like saying "well without your wages you'd be skint" well yes, of course most would... some wouldn't, and some would be fine over time as they get another job. if we lost sky money they would need to find another income stream..

In terms of a name change there does have to be a question mark around "london". is it necessary? does it work? There is a big amount of work that could be done on that, probably several doctorate thesis on the subject to be fair. I would be wary of going for a borough because you never know whats next around the corner. The Dolphins, lets be fair, have history on this getting rid of redcliffe and not wanting to take on Brisbane or anything similar so perhaps you just lose the reference to an area completely. Arsenal to be fair have made it work in football, even the likes of Saracens and Harlequins get it to work (to an extent). Just being the Broncos could be interesting, or find something that is unique and really "brand it up"... its an interesting one for sure.

Not disagreeing with you.. but whats the aim now? there is an element of cutting off your nose to spite your face. IF there is no takeover then they go at the end of the season. IF there is a successful takeover with the money that brings then this could actually end up being good for RL as a whole. If there is good to be had in the end then maybe thats ok... however, the RFL need to take a long hard look at themselves and the handling of this once we get there.

But thats not how it works now so deducting points just makes them finish bottom. IF you were to relegate them does the takeover (any takeover) go through? would it be good for the game to destroy Salford? IF a takeover goes through with good money then the extra points they pick up on financials will outweigh the loss of points for coming bottom, and that might be a good thing as a strong salford would be good for the sport. If there is no takeover they will be relegated anyway as the RFL cannot possibly let them stay in super league after this, and I cannot imagine the gradings will improve for them. Either way the points deduction doesnt really do anything, except potentially make any takeover not happen, and mean they are even more of a lame duck than london were last year.

I agree its damaging the competition. However, the idea behind it, which IMHO is actually working is that the club get no gain for over spending. On the field they have gained quite a lot in the past few years by having spent over what they can afford. Now they are being punished by not being able to field their full squad etc. So I think as an idea it has worked. The idea though has plenty of negative side to it and probable doesnt outweigh the massive downside of the poor games. The problem as I see it is that they couldnt force them to sell players, there is little point deducting points, there is no point fining a club that has no money so not sure where else they could turn without kicking them out (which arguably should have been done but back in november).

Again not everything is economic and if it were the economics is more than just simple, we do this we sell 2 more shirts for 20p profit more each. There is the economics of buying the letters/numbers and stock not being used etc etc.. just to be really simple.. There are 13 "playing positions" there are normally squad numbers into the 30s so no they don't "generally represent the players positions".. anyone coming into the squad late, coming through the ranks etc etc wont have this. Players swap positions but it also shows what extra players can do in position but you know the second row can play centre (for example) it doesn't negate the argument to use that, it can enhance it (depends on how you want to look at it). I cannot see any real benefit in it, you cannot see the issue. As I have said the matter is largely personal preference there is not firm case for nor against, Football kept with it RU has not (except for 7s when it is more complicated round keeping the same shirt on). You don't want to agree to disagree but I'll let you argue with yourself going forward.

Personally, for a sport like ours, I think it allows you to understand what is going on on the pitch and why and who is doing it, it allows you to understand what your position is doing (if your a kid for example). even in American Football while they have squad numbers they are within brackets so you still know who your D-linemen are or your Linebackers or defensive backs for example. As I said at the beginning i think there is a lot of personal preference in this argument as I dont think there is an economic argument either way on it. but again i'd say agree to differ on it, though you obviously dont.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.. while I do understand your point (I think he played at 7 enough for that to have been seen as his number until the end of his career) I dont see the massive upside it has... would those shirts still have been sold without that number and name? what extra profit is made from it etc..

I get that but that would have happened without the squad numbers also to be honest.

AML includes every transfer technically but really they only have to be done once per customer its not about every transaction per se (it could be but that is unusual and would be a suspect red flag anyway). They just need to prove where their individual wealth has been earned and that its legit. From there the rest tends to fall into place, unless the person suddenly has more or the transactions are really weird. With people who have good business connections this should be fine. Its not a concerning pattern as its a purchase of a business. The AML checks should, IMHO for this, be a one off check. Then its a case of getting the money across. That is a conversation with a bank (many weeks ago) and within 48hrs or so the money would be in the right place. Even on a personal level when buying a house the banks move massive sums around accounts becuase they understand the transaction that is happening and make it work. Even bog standard you and me can make this happen if the will is there, for someone with the funds these lot purport to have they would have a bank manager on speed dial to sort this type of thing out. Something doesn't sit right with all this. I hope its just incompetence (which is what it sounds like, but is not a good sign either) rather than anything more sinister.

seriously only meeting his bank manager now?? this is utter rubbish.. if they have the sort of money they are talking about then this isn't something that would stop them, and a quick phone call to your Barclays Premier manager (other banks are available, and recommended) would get it sorted! every excuse is implausible.

not to the extent that they'll be making a bucket load on it no.. and to be honest I am racking my brains to think of when I have seen it at an RL match when I have been to them..

Double header?

Thats a very good point (but its also sad, i liked programmes too)

Spot on, "growing our revenues" is the rising tide lifting all ships... We have to look at what everyone brings to the table.

I totally understand this... My big counter would be how much could their successful inclusion bring in.. and successful is key... 2 major french teams in the league etc what is the upside, how big could it be. I don't think its possible to really know. It's a risk but maybe one worth taking maybe not. Personally I'd take it but that is 100% a personal risk call and I understand that. I also understand your position. It's really tough to know the right way to go on Thai. 14 with 2 french IMHO would be the way forward but I think that 2-3 years down the line.

My guess is the legals are really tough but AML is an easy smoke screen or they're having major second thoughts. Maybe thinking they can do the same in a few weeks for a lot less money

I was an AML officer for a major financial institution so I can assure you what I said isn't just conjecture. As you say the only thing that holds up AML stuff are problems.. for it to be held up this long is alarm bells ringing quite loud..

Rfl having double standards??? I'm shocked... Supporting heartlands teams but not expansion teams... Shocked again!! But we all know they don't help heartland teams nearly as much as expansion don't we?

While I do understand that it's negligible extra cost (Aussies are ok with it).. players playing in positions will tend to be similar sizes (don't throw in random exceptions to the point.. there always are hence "tend to be").. It just tends to be a personal preference the cost/benefit aspect is negligible on this.. The Aussies don't like it we seem to.. I don't but can live with it, you might do.

It's often the commercial argument for doing this, you can sell shirts with names and numbers on the back of your favourite player.. I've never seen it at rugby which is my point

Squad number work IMHO if people don't desperately want to be 1-13... So they keep their number and people want that number. Other than that 1-17 is good . No names no numbers... I wager, with no evidence, that no extra money (except printing and actual cost of the number material) has been made due to the fact you can get name and numbers on your shirt