I absolutely agree.
The whole issue with London is that, from the moment that they achieved promotion, regardless of any money spent, any on field or off field progress made, they were certainties for relegation.
In a sense, they would have been better off not gaining promotion.
The secondary point is that, throughout the SL era, we have often heard how much the comp needs a club in London etc.
The reality is that, through the composition of the IMG criteria, London have actually been excluded from the top flight and the question comes back to do those running the sport want a London Club in the top flight ?

Following their relegation and with Eccles now gone, it's unlikely that they will ever return to the top flight and they may struggle to survive at all.

Is this what people wanted and how does this fit with the IMG tagline of "reimagining Rugby League" ?

Then you aren't agreeing with me.

I'm saying rather than saying I won't put money in because I'm not in SL, the backer should have put money in the right places based on IMG and guaranteed SL for London.

And your laying the decision, accountability and responsibility for London not being a top flight club at the RFL? It seems like you’re suggesting that the RFL should in fact treat London different and coach them up to SL.

Not imo and London should have nothing that the rest of the clubs get in terms of support or otherwise. The RFL should be nuetral and shouldn’t be wanting any team in the superleague above another. How you link that to failing their ‘reimagining rugby league’ is beyond me.

London are where they deserve to be and If they want to change that it should be under their own steam.

Totally agree.

https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/sport/r ... ng-9644588

https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/sport/r ... ng-9644588

Do you actually think that from the point where the new criteria was announced that London could get all of their ducks in a row and achieve and A grade ?
Yes, that could have done things differently and maybe they should have.

However, the net result is that not only have they been relegated but, in hacking off their millionaire backer, as a sport, "we" have killed off pro RL in the Capital.
Is this what the RFL, SL and IMG wanted to achieve ?

Clearly the new IMG system (an organisation employed by The RFL) has created a set of criteria that, in the time scale given, made it impossible for certain clubs (London included) to achieve a sufficiently high grading to become/remain in SL so, in essence, either deliberately or in consequence, this falls on their lap.
Fundamentally, relegating a promoted club, before a ball is passed / kicked is just wrong.
Given the pre determined timescales, there was nothing that London could do to remain in the top flight, which stinks the house out.
The same situation would have occurred if any of the other smaller Champ clubs had been promoted last season, not just London.

Not at all. I'm just saying if he's a millionaire and wants a SL team in London, he needs to invest in the IMG targets, rather than moaning that the rules don't suit him and taking his money out.

But they knew at the same time as everyone else.
We managed it.
If they leave it to the last minute then yes, they don't have time and need to have a plan over more than one season.

With respect PT, we started some way in front of them.
Critically, the measure is over a 3 year period but, clubs have had less than two years to comply.
Therefore, if your scores are miles adrift to start with, there is no possibility of rectifying things.

Ultimately, I'm more concerned with Trinity and how we progress, rather than any other club.

The demise of London just doesn't sit well and in a few years time when people are bemoaning the fact that RL is a "norther sport, played along the M62 corridor", they may look back with a different view.

Let's face it, each change that we've had to our structure over the past 30+ years, with the possible exception of SL itself, has pretty much ended in failure.

Let's hope this one works.