I can't wait until England play Wales or Ireland in a mid season international and suddenly an extra 30,000 fans turn up to the next round of SL fixtures off the back of England's 50 point win in front of 8,000 fans.

1. England arent playing Wales or Ireland. 2. More than 8k will watch, and more than 20k watched last time we played Ireland 3. We didnt, and wouldnt win by 50points. 4. Nobody has suggest an extra 30k would turn up the next week.

Other than those irrelevancies and your lack of coherence and cogency its a good argument. Well done.

Its almost as if you don't realise it's just a like for like retort to your previous post which had me down for several things you exaggerated.

You said [iSL really can't afford to take its best players out[/i, they will do so.
You said that NRL would release players to play mid-season, They will do so.
You said people wouldnt want to watch, sponsor or broadcast England v 2nd tier nation, they will do so.

You can watch and wallow in your wrongness. The rest of us will get to enjoy quality international RL.

Did I say SL would collapse by May? No so just like I said you exaggerated a point, I did likewise in reply. Did I say NO ONE would turn up? No I said crowds wouldn't be big, etc.

You said [iSL really can't afford to take its best players out[/i. What [iSL really can't afford to happen[/i is happening.

One would assume the effects of something[i you really can't afford to happen[/i, happening, would be pretty dire would they not?

So you've just taken a point and exaggerated it to the worst case scenario.

Saying SL can't afford to lose it best players for periods of time >>>>>>> it collapsing by May after one international......is not a natural jump.

You have argued that mid-season internationals cant get crowds, it has been proven to you that they can.
You have argued that internationals against tier 2 nations cannot get good attendances, it has been proven to you they can.
You have argued that the NRL won't release players for mid-season internationals, it has been proven to you they will, and do.
You have argued that SL [ireally can't afford to take its best players out[/i, it has been shown to you that it can, and will.

Your complaint here that i took your exaggeration at face value, is not a strong one.

You've proven nothing despite constantly thinking you have.



Really so if England play a home international mid season you think we'll see James Graham, Burgess brothers, Josh Hodgson fly over? I seriously doubt it.



It will? Really must've missed the news that we've arranged several mid season internationals.

Do you need the figures again? Its ok, they are easy to find.
Attendances against tier 2 nations:
V Scotland 21k.
V France 15k
V Samoa 48k
V france 22k
V Fiji 25k
V Ireland 24k

Mid season attendances.
2001 32k
1992 40k, 31k, 32k, 73k,

And so on and so forth. I can't be bothered listing any more for you.


You can doubt all you want, im sure we will (barring injury) see those players play mid-season this year.

We will see SL's best players play a mid-season international this year. It wouldnt surprise me that you have missed it.

Smokey tournaments aside where are these "recent" fixtures that prove your point?
Also wrt NRL releasing their players how many England players were released for games v France or the Exiles experiment?.

A mid season international, as in one. The argument is about having several England games.

A half assed one off v france, nor the exiles debacle are examples of what i am talking about.

As for the release of players, this is exactly the problem central contracts would solve at SL level, allowing us secure the release of more players for lesser nations.

It doesnt solve the issue of NRL releases (it was never meant to) but we can, and are doing other things to get around that, building a world wide rep-window or series of rep windows is not only possible but happening. Without making too much of a change, there are 4 obvious windows around the Anzac test and SoO already there.

So what won't happen in one game, that would prove disastrous in 3, or 4?

You can only develop international teams where the game is played to a certain concentration. RL is only played in any numbers in Australia, New Zealand, UK, France and SSI - even RU and Cricket have double that in terms of countries that participate in reasonable numbers.

If England RU only played Australia and NZ every year the international game and got beat or played Japan every year and won by a huge margin the international would stagnate. England playing France/Wales in the middle of the season is a waste of time. Playing a one off game mid season against a southern hemisphere side is impractical - no other sport does that.

If we could compete with the clubs in the NRL than a 8 team WCC would be a unique spectacle - we have seen 40k attendances for these games in the past. The key is to strengthen the club game both financially and playing standards wise and then you have a product to sell.

Spot on and in France you only have Catalans and Toulouse in the top leagues and no Scottish or Irish presence and limited Welsh. You can't just expect to grow the game and the international sides in those countries with little to no major club presence.

Put it this way if the positions were switched with England and Ireland/Scotland and we had no real club presence in England, no Leeds, no Wigan, no Hull, do you honestly think you could attract AND keep those fans just off several international games a year, especially when you could take a heavy beating in some of them and not have the week to week interest at club level to keep them attracted to the sport.

A unique spectacle for sure though I don't think there's been a 40k attendance as yet. To be honest, I doubt whether any English club that's already appeared in one will approach that figure in the foreseeable. A grand final-winning Hull team might but only as a one-off.

How many attended the Leeds v Canterbury 37k?

If the English side had a genuine chance of beating the NRL side I see the potential for a good sized crowd certainly sufficient to fill the JJB or Huddersfield's ground which is all we really manage for internationals.

I don't see the future of RL growth in repeatedly playing Australia and NZ - we see in SL familiarity doesn't engage crowds proactively.

The quality of the product(super league)at present and I would argue recent seasons has done nothing to increase the fan base or attract new fans in any great number.before we talk about expanding international crowds and central contracts this lack of quality has to be addressed first surely?

Completely agree Chestnut.
What i would suggest re-international fixtures is a return to GB for tours say every 3/4 yrs.
Id also have a tournament shadowing the 4nations so each fixture has a double header i.e Eng v Oz preceded by Fiji v NZ Maori etc to also include England Knights Oz A & NZ Maori teams.

England play Italy every year in RU, they have played 22 times, lost 22 times, scoring 275pts and conceding 882pts.

Many sports play mid-season internationals, The autumn internationals where Southern Hemisphere RU nations play northern hemisphere RU ones is are played in the northern hemisphere season, Lions tours, all mid season.

In fact we will play a southern hemisphere side this year mid-season.

Outside the top three nations, we can easily see Tonga, Samoa, Fiji, France, PNG, and as we saw last year, Scotland put out competitive sides. There are literally 10 cricketing nations, 1 of them is an absolute basket case about to lose its full member status, another is one of the poorest nations on earth who have won a grand total of 8 tests out of 98, another of their full member nations isnt even a real country and another is a war-zone that can't host home games.

as for an expanded WCC, it isnt an either or situation.

International RL is a better standard than SL. It is the only chance people get to see the best players in the world. It is the best quaity, the most easily accessible, the widest net for new and casual fans.

England don't only play Italy RU every year it is one game that is part of a competition involving 4 other countries - that isn't the same as hammering France/Wales every year as the only international mid season is it?

Lions tours are not mid season for the UK side neither are the autumn internationals for the southern hemisphere sides. You never see mid season internationals involving northern and southern hemisphere teams when both sides are participating in their domestic competition - again something you very well know.

We may be playing a mid season game in Australia - let's hope it goes better than the last time we tried this!!

It simply isn't practical - there is a reason why the soccer world cup group series is sectioned off as it is - also why fixtures are cancelled in the PL when you get an international week of games.

Scotland put out a side of English and NRL players - that is hardly an international side.

But nobody is suggesting that a single one-off friendly is the aim for us either. The argument is that we should have central contracts so we can play 3,4,5 games.

Super Rugby starts in February and ends in August, Premiership RU starts in September and finishes in May. The seasons only overlap for about 10 weeks.

Sadly mid-season or post-season hasnt really made much of a difference

Fine, create a window if you want.

Why hold ourselves to a higher standard then everyone else?