Don't expect a reply from the troll. A glance at his posting history shows he pops in now and again to offer his "antipodean" point of view on his hatred of the Burgess Brothers, James Graham and a lack of understanding about London's unique set of challenges.

Back on thread, if London don't make it, then I would suggest any Championship Club that is given the nod will be protected from Relegation.....causing uproar at certain other clubs and therefore negating the need for "changes" and giving the RFL a way to back down to Lenagagn and the rebels without losing face.

The Irony of this is that the new investor the club had lined up wanted assurances about P&R.....the chances are as a result of us going to the wall their will be no P&R Next year.

London Broncos were included in the fixture lists by the RFL because they had to be included. Nobody has said thus far that London Broncos no longer exist as a RL club and nobody has said that they will not exist as of (insert date) as a RL club. Therefore they still have to be considered by fixture compilers as an existing club that will take part in SL in 2014 and be included. If the Broncos don't sort out their current problems and were to fold before the season begins then it is a very simple thing to amend the fixture lists by deleting 'London Broncos' and replacing it in every instance with 'Featherstone Rovers' or 'Halifax' or 'Leigh' or 'Bye Week'. It would look pretty incompetent if they were not included now and then had to be added later when they did put together a squad etc. It would also look like a new club had been fast tracked to SL due to being in London when the last 5 new clubs (SWS, NWC, Hemel, Oxford and the All Golds) all had to apply and be accepted to Championship 1. This would surely also cause a lot of anger among leading Championship clubs who had not been allowed to step up.

The inclusion of the Broncos in the fixture list is not an indication that the RFL don't know what's happening or don't know that the club is in trouble it's just a necessity. Even if the RFL made a contingency back in September (or even earlier) and told SL clubs that there may have to be a 13 team comp in 2014, or sounded out Fev or Fax so that they could get things in place to step up straight away if needed. So that that they had a ready to go plan in the event of the loss of the Broncos, they would still have to include London in the original fixture list so long as that club has not ceased to exist.

To not include them in the SL fixtures tells any prospective buyer that the club has been kicked out of the elite competition and so serves to put them off buying. A club still in SL no matter how bare a shell it is has the opportunity to fight to maintain its place in SL, a club visibly kicked out of SL (by not being awarded fixtures) has no competition it can say with certainty that it is entering into. Someone considering buying the Broncos goes from looking at a struggling top flight club playing the sport's big names on Sky Sports to a club that has to apply to join Championship 1 or face starting even lower down. Remove the SL carrot from what was previously a SL club (albeit a poor one) and you will get zero interest or you will risk killing any on-going negotiations. Even if ultimately a prospective buyer is making unreasonable demands that the RFL will not accept and so the deal falls through, the potential money men need to see that the opportunity to preserve the club's SL status is there in order to bring them to the table in the first place.

The inclusion of the Broncos in the SL fixture list indicates that the RFL want them to stay in SL for 2014 at least and hope that a buyer can be found (if it was otherwise they would have been kicked out of SL). The omission of a set of fixtures for the Magic Weekend from the list could well be because the RFL are not sure of who will be the 14th team (or if there will be 14 teams) and are waiting to compile the most eye catching list of games when they do know with certainty the competing line up.

These are the FACTS as I have been told by the CEO of London Broncos over the last few months.

I was assured that the "deal", which I take to be the move to the Hive and associated investment from new parties, was alive and well as of October 2nd. Thereafter, the main areas of negotiation between the Club and the RFL have been the reintroduction of relegation, which the club oppose, the federation rule and how it has hamstrung the recruitment in London, given the fact that a 40k wage goes a lot further along the M62 than it does down south and we are still on out first generation of cockney RL players and the funding of the academy.

As of October 25th, the Hive deal was still alive and our Benefactor was still prepared to invest in the club for 2014, but the RFL hadn't moved on any of the issues other than ripping our academy and its prospects from us. The 6 Clubs that walked out didn't include London Broncos BTW....but we fully supported their actions.

IN MY OPINION as of today, we have stepped into Administration to make the RFL act one way or the other. It is not the first time our chairman has played chicken with the RFL and personally I think he's lost the plot, but the RFL now need to be seen as doing something to help the club. They assisted Salford in the location of a new owner and they have a well documented investment in Bradford staying afloat....David Hughes for all his faults, has invested close to 10 million quid into the broncos in 6 years since IL was told by the RFL to back away......a decision by the way that has led us to where we are now.

The RFL now need to decide if London offer value to the game as a locality and a professional club. If the answer is yes, then they will need to act decisively and quickly.

I believe that if we fold, then a Championship club will be promoted and there will be no P&R for 2014.......if we are to survive and be attractive to a new investor, then either the RFL buy a majority stake in the club or they issue another set of 3 year licences from 2015 onwards and make everyone apply again.

Either way, I don't see P&R being in place in 2014.

I'd just like to see a short message on the Super League site today from the RFL / SLE saying "We're doing all we can to help them."

Keighley should have got the spot all along.

So the re-introduction of P+R which would attract all these investors in to the game who were staying well away because of franchising is in fact driving away investment from an SL club because of the instability of P+R.

Someone mentioned that that if London are to have a team they will have to have exceptional dispensation about their number of Federation trained players.

Which players from the NRL have not been signed as of now?

The only quality ones whom I know of are Anthony Minichiello and Blake Ferguson. Ferguson's future in the NRL is clouded. Ferguson, if he was signed he would be far and away the best centre in Super League. But he has a court case to deal with sometime in the coming months. And he would probably be a bit expensive. Minichiello (who may yet be re-signed by the Roosters) would be more affordable and give stability in the backline. But he would not come unless he knew that he had some other quality players to make up the team. Then there is Anthony Milford, who wants a release from his contract with Canberra on compassionate grounds -- which entails him going to Brisbane. So I cannot see him being luredf into going to London or Canberra releasing him.

The club needs three quarters, halves and forwards. I cannot see where these players are going to be found, and if they could be it would require a lot of money to be invested and a guarantee of a new quality coach and a new CEO.

Agreed.

Keighley Cougars won the 2nd division in 1994/5 (finished above London Broncos), had an average crowd in the second division that had just overtaken first division Bradford's (c5,500), a squad capable of a top half finish in the then first division - but were denied promotion and excluded from the new Super League. All water under the bridge now of course. But likely Keighley would have been in a much better position now than are London.

Is it just me, or, does anyone else think the RFL are going to offer a SL lifeline to the London franchise?

There’s London going into admin, Wakey selling off the crown jewels, Bradford chopping & changing the money men.

Then there’s the alleged changes to the quota structures & all with a backdrop of certain clubs posturing over Red Halls ineptitude.

I don’t know what’s going on behind the scenes, but I feel something is going down

.

Ah yes... the classic 'you're a troll' comment from someone who can't provide an answer to a question.

It was actually a genuine enquiry on my behalf. You are well known for your outspoken (and usually incorrect) views on all things 'London' and I was curious to know exactly what your club has brought to the world of Super League since 1996. I freely admit to not knowing the ins and outs of that particular franchise but I'm genuinely struggling to think of any positives.

The RFL [i:3pbcb6jchave[/ithrown in our direction if the club is just allowed to die.

Save the club and sort out the rest later.

the only thing more boring than trolling is this -level of trolling.

I think something is going down, but I don't think it's a planned event. Always believe in cock-up over conspiracy, and especially when you're dealing with an organisation of such limited competence and resources as the RFL. I suspect that the approach of the RFL to London's impending implosion has been similar to that of a rabbit watching the headlights come nearer, and their "plan" has been to hope that something turns up. It hasn't.

In a nutshell, the issue is whether the game as a whole wants/needs a top-tier London presence, or not.

At the moment, the RFL has acted as if London is simply A. N . Other club, and its problems are therefore its own. In fact, I'd go further, it's acted as if London is very much a stand-alone "outsider" club, without call on the sort of special beneficial treatment which Red Hall have provided for some other clubs in recent years. As a result, they're simply standing by and watching as London collapse.

The only alternative to this, would be for the RFL to take a strategic decision that a top-tier London presence is key for the game. If they do this, then they have to back up that decision with action, whether that action is guaranteeing no relegation, pumping in a greater "London allowance" for funding, granting a Federation-trained player exemption or whatever.

There are no other alternatives. Either the RFL recognises London's specific issues and offers serious support because it believes London is essential, or it shrugs its shoulders and lets London go to the wall. At the moment, the dishonesty of their position is that they will say that a London presence is vital, but then point blank refuse to do anything substantial to enable that presence to continue.

This is being treated as a tactical issue surrounding one club. It should be seen as a strategic decision regarding the game as a whole. But I don't think there are many strategists at Red Hall, to be honest.

I happen to think we need them. Time will give the younger players in the capital a route to top level rugby league.

Also as and when the economy picks up they might prove a better investment bet so keep them in, if possible.

Then again I am from the South.

It had though, the investor that was lined up wanted assurances over the P&R changes muted for next season, only to be expected when taking over a club with no players.

I have seen on numerous occasions where the RFL have been involved in major gaffs, whether not having water tight contingencies regarding rule breaking to the more recent inability to find a sponsor, but surely, like the rest of us, they’ve seen this coming.

Now, the guy at Barnet has expressed an interest, but with provisions. Presumably he wants a debt free club but more importantly I would have thought he’d be wanting a period of stability in S.L, with the added caveat of unlimited overseas players to make the team competitive.

The furore from certain clubs would be deafening & the schism would become greater still.

I just wouldn’t be surprised if the SL clubs just gave a big V to the championship clubs & pulled up the drawbridge.

As a Broncos fan I think unless there are new owners and an entirely new management structure we should be told to go jump. We've had enough chances to make a go of it.

I should qualify my earlier statement. I think the RFL plan was to hope something would turn up [iwhich wouldn't require them to do anything different[/i, and it hasn't.

Aye that's about right.

That's why it has to be a strategic decision. Only fools and the self-interested pretend that London's circumstances are the same as a standard M62 club. For London to succeed (as opposed to survive or limp along), then those unique circumstances require a unique approach. Without such an approach, then they will fail.

I don't think you should assume that the RFL [idid [/isee this coming, however incredible that may seem. One of the reasons why Richard Lewis was so valuable to the game is that he was capable of taking a longer view - when he was still interested in his early years - and his lack of connections with any particular club or section within the game meant that he was able and willing to face down the self-interested, and to put in place systems and structures which benefitted the game in the long-term, as opposed individual clubs in the short-term. Once he became detached, and you had a more traditional local RL-club chairman type guy in Nigel Wood, we saw the retreat from such an approach in favour of a make-it-up-as-you-go-along short-termism. That self-interested short-termism has now fully infested the game and can be seen behind the walk-outs, splits, abandonment of the licensing structure (which theoretically forced clubs to think long-term), bizarre league structures designed to appease less successful clubs, and the failure to deliver both sponsorship and decent TV deals.

To a certain extent, this World Cup is papering over the cracks. This is the traditional RL-on-the-field saving RL-off-the-field relationship. However, this season has been chaotic at the level of the national game. I can't work out whether it's incompetence or complacency, but it's probably both.

I'm for the thinking that this announcement is for the good of the Barnet owner who without the debts will now be willing to take over the club.

Given what's happened and the benefit to the game as a whole in retaining a presence in the capital city, I would be happy for it to be announced this week that London would be granted exemption from:-

- the salary cap regulations. i.e. they can spend what they like and

- the limit on overseas players. i.e. they can sign as many as they like

What should not happen is that they get any any more central money or get exemption from relegation.

didnt you tell us investors would be falling over themselves to get involved with the exciting 12x12 3x8 structure?

Seems the opposite is the case

Id be happy see to see the London club get extra funding too, but not exemption from relegation. Either it's a licensed league or it's not.

WTF is a licensed league?