We have to enhance the international scene. It's a no-brainer. And while I think a great many of the reasons given as to why Smokey's proposed games wouldn't be well received are valid, I do think we have to make a start and we have to stick with it and make it work. Even if that takes 20 years. Internationals are probably the one thing which the national media is currently willing to make a bit of an effort where the game's concerned. We need to exploit that, and the sponsorship opportunities that will arise along the way.

I made the original argument that games vs the likes of France, Ireland, Wales played during the season wouldn't be well attended and I made way back on page 2 so I don't see how I've changed and twisted my point in any way. You just didn't like what I said and have been screeching ever since.

You can play SouthernHempishere sides but as your argument was for more and more international fixtures it's ridiculous to just repeatedly play the Aussies and Kiwis, you'll dilute the fixture in a similar way when we use to find ourselves facing Bradford 5 times a year.

You literally cannot stop yourself. So having redefined 'more internationals' to only friendlies, only against northern hemisphere sides, only midseason and up against club games. You're now trying to redefine the southern hemisphere to only Oz an NZ.

try, just once, to address the argument as it is. Central contracts would allow more leverage for more international games and this is good. That is the premise.

exactly. It's like people think The RFU built an 80k stadium and out popped a fully formed 6 nations.

Yep. We need to start doing now what we should have been doing 20/30 years ago.

back on the subject of central contracts
IMO the ethos behind it is to stop the talent drain from SL to NRL and RU
Wouldn't the simplest implementation to be to set a budget for the year and any England squad player to be given a percentage (1/25) of the budget
Would this encourage the best players to stay in SL? Is this a big enough incentive to keep the talent and encourage fringe players to up their game?

Why not just increase the salary cap? Or say every club can have 1 or 2 players eligible for England who do not count on the cap. If the RFL have the funds to give out central contracts, they should increase the amount they give to clubs IMO.

They should not be giving out central contracts, to certain players at certain clubs. Who decides who to give the contracts to? Nigel Wood? Some clubs are going to benefit while others miss out. We already have a situation where a player who has never played for England is receiving payment directly from the RFL, why was he chosen ahead of others?

That final paragraph sums up my feelings perfectly.

we had this situation years ago, likes of Radlinski, cunningham, and a few others given RFl payments to stop them switching to Union, then Hull i think it was wanted funded to keep one of there players(maybe Gareth Raynor) and were told funds not available for him.

we don't want this again in our game, simply increase the cap full stop to at least 2.2 million and increase for homegrown club trained players up to maximum 2.6 million. it wonted stop them all going but it will help keep players in Uk and away from NRL. that in it self will increase standard of our league and national side.

There has to be no link between the central contracts and the playing contract. For example, Kallum Watkins would get £25-£50k per year for playing for England, he needs to be available for internationals and get togethers on X dates. If he is in the NRL he wont be available for those dates, if he plays RU he simply wouldnt be available, if he plays for Leeds he would, if he plays for Wakefield he would.

So to solve the issue of our best players leaving SL and making the competition weaker.....we put them on contracts that would see them withdrawn from SL duty from several games to play for England. Great.

I think you are doing that trick of yours of exaggerating outcomes to prove your point.

In reality, at most, England squad players may be unavailable for club duty on one or two games per year. Is that really a massive cost to pay for attempting to head off competition from RU & NRL, at the same time attempting to bolster the international game?

Even if it was 5 or 6 domestic games a year they'd miss, is that really a huge price to pay out of 30+ games?
Surely having those players for 25 games is better than none?

In the end the only way SL is going to increase its profile and the money in the game is through more internationals. The only way to fit more internationals in is to either reduce the amount of domestic games or take international players out of SL for some games. There is no alternative if you want more international games.

Plus, it'd give the understudies a go. No bad thing at all.

If it's 1 or 2 games then it's a pointless cost. RU & cricket don't give out contracts to get guys for 1 or 2 games. Might as well sell fire to the cash.

Problem is SL isn't at a position where it can afford to lose its best players for 5/6/7 weeks. Sponsors and TVs won't be offering the same if they know the best guys are being taking out of the competition for a period of time.

I thought we could get NRL players to play internationals easy just by asking???

You cannot have an international game with only 3/4 competitive teams that is not an international proposition - the sport needs to focus on the soccer model whereby the club game is the focus and what differentiates the sport. The sport needs to find ways of maximising income at the elite club level in order to invest in better youth development and facilities.

Most soccer fans are far more interested in their club than they are in England/Scotland etc and I don't see the domestic game struggling because of lack of success at international level

I assume that's because you are a moron.

firstly, the Euros and World Cup are far and away the biggest competitions in football, Soccer in no way prioritises the club game. It is in every way secondary. Ask Joel Matip.
secondly Most soccer fans arent the one that advertisers and sponsors are trying to reach. As RL finds out time and time again, there is limited money in the Wheeltappers and Shunters social club outings.
thirdly, football in scotland is on its .

Which is why at some point you have to actually put time effort and money into developing more internationals teams. Rugby Union is a good example of this.

RL is never going to be like football. No other sport is. It's appeal is so widespread, RL will never match that at domestic level. It's only way of increasing profile is with England playing internationals. All the Wigan v St Helens grand finals in the world aren't going to get people in other area of the country watching the sport. England will.

Problem is that it will take way too much time. Time that the club game can't afford. It can't afford right now to have its best players taken out of it for periods of time whilst the VERY VERY LONG time it'd take to bring other international teams up to a suitable standard to provide a truely attractive international calendar.

Really? The game can't afford to have its best players play 25 SL games out of 30?

Not that long ago they were only playing 27 and not much further back they were only playing 23.

I'd say the club game can't afford NOT to make it's best players available for internationals.

No SL really can't afford to take its best players out for a number of games at this point. May well have played 23/27 games previously but players weren't being taken out of the competition.

Why can't the club game not afford to make its players available for internationals?

Well, Im sure ThePrinter will be proved right come May when Super League collapses after England take the field against a team no-one plays for, in a game no-one watches, nobody sponsors and nobody broadcasts.