They finished bottom because they knew that they would be relegated at the end of the season.
Even if they had won the challenge cup, topped the league and won the GF they were going to be relegated.

Yes, they could have improved their grading but, they would still have been relegated.

Their promotion surprised everyone, including them and in hindsight, they'd have been better off not being promoted.
Sorry but this is down to a lack of foresight or a heap of bad luck with the IMG format.

As for not looking at these things earlier, many people spotted the "flaw" just as soon as London gained promotion.

The bottom line here is that the only successful UK "expansion club, has gone from SL to "basket case" in the space of 12 months.
I'm not sure that those in charge of reimagining Pro RL will really want this on there resume.

They wouldn’t necessarily have been relegated anyway, had the IMG system not being in place they would almost certainly have recruited to avoid being relegated

We shall see if that actually translates into a championship club getting into the top flight. I'm all for long term planning but we're dealing with sport here and RL supporters don't think about LED screens and IMG scores - they think about scores on the field. You can't change that culture overnight and the longer it takes the more you risk losing people and clubs on the way.

IMO there are a few clubs in SL that are only in it because they were on the right side of the divide when the rules were written.

It's up to the club to take the fans on the journey.
They have to use what money they have to make the club sustainable. Those that don't will never make it to SL.

I can’t agree with your bottom line. London were never a successful uk expansion club and your exaggerating that to a massive degree to have a pole at the IMG criteria. They have always been a basket case. You’re blaming img but it’s very much a mostly flawed club for many years. Placing that at the foot of IMG is exactly what I’m talking about being in poor taste.

12 months ago they were averaging barely 1k fans. Struggling for sponsors and finishing edge of playoffs. They had no sponsor for shirt early on in pre season sorted and they have been propped up by an owners funds. They have bounced from place to place and struggled to lay foundations.

And hull wouldn’t have played half their academy most of season. You can’t surmise things like that just to try strengthen your point of view. It’s just pie in the sky lacking any substance.

There is no disagreement regarding their nomadic status or, their fanbase, which is largely due to them moving home so frequently.
Their primary strength and the main reason for them being a good option, is their development of players, from a pool that may note exist without their presence down south and from a sporting point of view, being condemned to relegation before a ball has been passed or kicked.
Maybe this is just teething troubles for the new criteria but, it doesn't sit well.
Ofc, we all have to wait for the IMC scores to be published in a couple of weeks but, there will no doubt be some surprises.

As for London, the look to be a busted flush.

Again you are right abouth their wealthy backer but, London are not on their own in this respect, not by some distance.

Leigh have signed winger AJ Towse from York. Good young winger bit of a loss for the Knights

I agree with you to a point. There is still an inherent bias toward existing SL clubs that seem to get more IMG points by virtue of which division they were in when the line was drawn.

Define sustainability. Is it the ability to be maintained at a certain rate or level regardless of how it's done or is it meeting the needs of the present without compromising the future?

One could argue that having a sugar daddy is the only thing keeping the wolf from the door at almost all clubs. Is that sustainability? You could argue that if the bills are all paid then it is but it's not exactly a steady foundation. One wonders what happens to loss making clubs if their rich owners depart. For example without Ken Davy are Hudders a sustainable club?

I don't believe RL is truly sustainable, never has been. It will always rely on people prepared to lose money. I worry that clubs outside of SL may be held to higher standards than those currently in it to preserve the status quo, but we shall see.

The sustainability applies to all sports clubs, even those well down the pecking order.
The difference is that as thy climb the ladder and gain success, inevitably the stakes are higher and the fall from grace much more dramatic, unless there is someone with money to save them.