If the cost we are paying for wimbledon / rosslyn park and richmond in 2021 is less than trailfinders would be in 2021 then moving was the correct choice, if the funds saved then can be repurposed towards the squad

If we are paying more for this, considering we are at least 2-3 years away from being SL ready unless somebody spends alot more on the squad we should not have moved.

Thats my only point here

Forgive me. But werent we told £250,000 year at Harlequins was too much.
At least we'll get a.lonfon derby next year when were down with skolara

I thought we payed Quins 400k???

Your second paragraph is spot on.

Yeah I've had that feeling for a few months that this might be it.... Or League 1 status.....at least we'd get the competitive London derby

Agreed

You claim you only state the obvious but in reality Wimbledon fans have been asked to vote on the groundshare deal based on finances that depend very much on numbers through the gate.

Specifically:

The range given was between £200k and £500k per full London Broncos season. The primary reason for such a wide range is that the higher end will only occur if the London Broncos are in the Super League. The lower end is the minimum net amount based on the Broncos playing in the Championship and for a full season at Plough Lane with attendances slightly higher than they have currently....in essence, the more people attend Broncos games, the more revenue we are likely to generate. And the more successful the Broncos are, the more rewarding the deal is for us.

The accounts that were "leaked" back in 2012 showed £257,000 as a figure for facilities hire. This could have included the training facilities and I'm not sure when the desk space at Quins was given up, but there's not a chance it was £400k at the end.
It would seem that one of two things, or maybe both are true here.
1. Mr Hughes falls out with partners and landlords and decides to leave
2. Mr Hughes employs peoe.out if their depth who then scurry to.find a distraction that will make their shortcomings secondary. Like moving grounds.or changing names.
My theory is that we are being touted to wimbledon as a potential addition to their stable when Mr Hughes steps down.
I'm no fan of David Argyle, but what he and his marketing team did in attracting fans to a new sport in decent numbers on a regular basis, regardless of free tickets or not is a beacon of what London could have achieved. Especially at Trailfinders, where there was room for a beer tent/festival scenario.
Now all we have to look forward to at best is being called Wimbledon Broncos, playing in the 3rd tier and praying for the end.

Where in the deal we have seen is there any statement on numbers?

My theory is that we are being touted to wimbledon as a potential addition to their stable when Mr Hughes steps down. And that would be a bad thing why?
Is a new owner not what everyone is suggesting is needed?

This bit should give you a clue as to how the deal is structured .in essence, the more people attend Broncos games, the more revenue we are likely to generate.