Whether we have clubs to replace is irrelivant if they arent being replaced , you are aruing with yourself, and as regards your beloved Leeds United, it took them 40 odd years to win anything of note, they had a few years of success then struggled again to compete with real ' Big ' clubs, then managed to bancrupt themselves trying to compete, best place for them is the Championship, they have found their level

The title of this thread is mistaken. It wouldn't be a disaster for the RFL if this happened, but a disaster for us all, as RL fans. Recently we lost our only SL presence in Wales. If we lost our only SL presence in London and France as well, then we genuinely would be simply a shrinking M62 sport. No amount of going on about the amateur game, or the semi-pro competitions would disguise that. There'd be no defence against unenthusiastic editors or schedulers who dismiss RL as just a small-time regional game, and our detractors - of whom there are many and well-connected - would lay on the public agony.



In the short term, I think its very likely that London won't survive relegation. It's almost impossible to find investors for the top-level game, so the idea that someone will come along and sink hard-earned cash into a semi-pro outfit playing small-town teams is laughable. Hector McNeil at Skolars is a one-off. Moreover, I think people need to be aware of the likely outcome at amateur level in London and the SouthEast of the demise of the Broncos.



The game is currently in a worse state here than I can remember it. Long-established, previously secure, clubs like Souths and Wests have been forced to merge to survive. Other clubs have either disappeared altogether (Greenwich), or are purely transient. The kids' game is hanging on by its fingernails with the withdrawal of nearly all the development officer posts. It's not surprising, perhaps, that the fate of the whole pyramid here is tied closely to the fate of the Broncos. The amateur game was at its strongest, and growing fastest, when London were doing well. There has been stagnation while the Broncos stagnated, and now we're in decline.



I can dress things up as positively as the next person when faced with a journo, but amongst ourselves, it's important to acknowledge that we're in trouble here. I also imagine that the talent development programme which was actually beginning to bear fruit at Broncos despite the stagnation, is now effectively dead. When the Broncos go, a lot of the grassroots will shrivel and die. Many people won't, of course, give a stuff. But let's not pretend that somehow this is just business as usual, promotion and relegation and London can go down and build to return etc. If and when London go down, the whole game in the capital and southeast will suffer. The London SL franchise has never just been about the London club; it's always been about the whole sport in the southeast of England. That's what we'll lose.



As for Catalans, I'm much more confident that they'll somehow pull it together sufficiently to finish above London and A N Other club. But were they to go down, I do think it's very much a case of wishful thinking that they'd simply carry on in the championship as normal. I also think that some of those same championship chairmen currently demanding that two heads should roll, irrespective of who they are, would soon be going cap in hand to the RFL moaning about the costs of having to travel to the south of France once a year.



This is big stuff. There's only three states any sport can be in : growing, stagnating, and retreating. SL has seen some minor growth, and a fair bit of stagnation. But the demise of Catalans and London in SL, or their replacement with two more M62 clubs, would without question be a major retreat. Maybe the final defeat.

read back at the context it makes it pretty clear.



Regarding leeds the championship isn't their level, as is clear with anyone with half a brain. They may not be a Barcelona, but even in the championship they were comparable attendances to clubs like Swansea, QPR, Palace, Hull. If Leeds were to go up they would immediately be top 10 in attendances, they aren't far off that now.



What they don't have is someone bankrolling hundreds of millions in losses, football is a success in spite of P+R and most clubs are sitting on losses bigger than Rugby league as a whole. Despite incredible sums bein given to tfootball in this country, billions every single year, ther are sitting on a debt bubble which would make a tinpot dictatorship blush.



Btw I'm not sure where you got 40 years from, there was 17 years between Revies league title and Wilkinsons.

So which Championship Chairmen are now running the RFL and SL?

So its only about attendances? , no it isnt



It took Leeds 40 odd years to win anything of note, many of those years spent outside the top tier, they assembled 1 good team that were strong for a decade, then dropped again, 1 trophy after that, not much in the great scheme of things



IF franchising had been introduced at any given time in the last 120 years many ' Big ' clubs would have missed out, it doesnt work in british sport

I think that's possibly more due to the loss of Sport England funding. Development Officers have gone all across the country.

Unfortunately RL has been hit by a double whammy. The loss of Sport England funding and Council's cutting funding for everything but the bare essentials. A lot of development officers were funded by a combination of Sport England money (via the RFL) and local Council money.

The responsibility for development has passed from the RFL & Council's to clubs. Now, in an area like Leeds with a club willing and able to spend money on it, it's actually looking better than ever. But sadly it's not the case in every area and obviously those areas without a club are going to struggle.

Honest answer : Nigel Wood.



A good rule of thumb in politics to explain decisions is "follow the money". The equivalent in RL might be to discover "who benefits" ?



There's a good case to be made that the big policy changes proposed by Wood are likely to most benefit small-medium-sized clubs in the upper half of the championship. Funnily enough, That's Wood's background.

The mad thing about London is everybody virtually agrees what should have happened, so why didnt it?

You are being serious, his record at Fax was, well Outstanding

is the best way to describe it

it does not work for teams who are to small or lack the investment to make them work at a higher level, this new 8X8X8 is only in place to give the championship teams more cash so they will stop bleating about not been able to go up, widnes are the prime example on how it should be done our money is going into the youth another 3 years and we will be on par with most of the big boys but P&R might scupper that in 2 seasons what will the next thing be, the championship sides will shout its not fair we want the sl sides to play with 10 men to even out as they are stronger than us as they have their own gyms

Imagine the response from the clubs if after announcing that the new Super League would include London and Paris at the expense of teams who had actually won the right to be involved, that they added



"By the way...we're going to give these 2 teams 20 years exemption from relegation, 10 more foreigners on their allowance, a bigger salary cap ...oh and an extra £1,500,000 each a year too"



...not sure how many defibrillators there were in the pubs and clubs up north back then, but if it happened today, the national grid would fall over

Obviously its working well, last thursday you got around a 1,000 more fans watching your upwardly mobile club play a local club in SL than you were getting against us in virtually identical circumstances in the 2 nd tier, well done





So you think this new structure has been railroaded by the Championship clubs? , like some ' Jedi mind control ' ?