I received a flyer through the post from the Broncos today with a message from Hendo and a pic of the team

The open day is mentioned in the message. First team playing the academy in opposed training match

GF had that & then some & all you lot ever did was shoot him down in flames so don't give me that flannel.

As for toys & pram I give you the Wigan Challenge Cup game.

Hughes destroyed the club in a fit of pique because of that drubbing.

Which is why you'll be using a trestle table as a turnstile next season.

No CN feeds of those who feed him as we are starting to discover. Sadly he has little depth to back up his 'throw away comments' which are typically mischievous and.........

Cowgirl, humour please (sorry WQ).

Back to my original question - what evidence do you have that Ealing is part of the end game ? Please don't behind GF contributions because 1) he typically looked from 'what might have been' perspective and 2) as far as I aware he never offered Ealing as part of the end game.

So come on, can YOU outline how the end game will play out.

In terms of Hughes 'destroying' the club and 'throwing toys out of pram', here again I need to you to help me. Hughes watched his side murdered in a Challenge Cup semi on national TV, without the team offering even a whimper - it was painful for me as a fan never mind for someone who had pumped ££££millions in.

But we sit here today and he still bank rolls the club, not the approach of someone who has thrown toys out of the pram.

So once again, how can you rationalise what you say ?

You're the one rationalising I think.

Hughes destroyed the club.

The fact he had second thoughts doesn't change that.

Looks to me like you are being very evasive here - what evidence do you have that moving to Ealing is part of the end game?

Hughes has been scaling back his investment for years.

If in 3 years time Broncos are still effectively a 3rd tier club do you really think he's going to keep bankrolling failure?

Am interested in the concept here, in the opinion of some on here the current owner of the clhould pack up take his money and walk away from the club see if it can survive without him?
Not sure if I have it right here, is that not what he actually did, and we found out that actually there was no other financial backer and we would have folded.
So he destroyed the club by keeping it alive?

So you would argue this painful decline makes the club more attractive to another investor ?

To get a new backer or investment someone would have had to put the club on the market. Was that actually done?