There's a bidding war on at the moment to see who hosts these tests.....tallaght have just raised the ante with an offer of €40 and a free tour I the Guinness plant at st James gate!

Fax if you have nothing good to say don't bother you twit

Hull want to play New Zealand in a tour match as a 150th anniversary event and Stephen Kearney seems keen on the idea too. If that happens I can't see Hull getting an England game aswell.

LSV, Doncaster, and Wrexham could be Nigel's preferred options.

Hey, I was up feeding the baby and to be fair was a tad grumpy. How does €50 sound?

You mean like the Halliwell Jones & Langtree Park?

At least one game has to be in London, either at Wembley or the Olympic Stadium. And at least one game has to be in Manchester in my opinion. Man City's ground is the obvious choice.
As mentioned, it's a shame Elland Road is so god awful to actually sit in because it can get a good crowd.
I know it's dependent on whether these stadiums are available, it's just my wish list. I understand why we went with the 20/25k stadiums in the past but I think we can, and need to, aim higher. Obviously we aren't going to get England football or Union crowds but I think we could get around 45/50k in Wembley/Olympic, 40k at Man City and 30k at Elland Road.

Why did you miss off the ( BUT MUCH BIGGER ) BIT? , as in 30,000 capacity

Selective quoting is very tiresome

Hull, Huddersfield & Wigan or take a chance & have the 3rd test and hopefully the decider at the Etihad, if they'll have us

You didn't say "30,000" though, did you?

Both stadiums I mentioned are larger and better than LSV. LSV is an average stadium at best.

Compared to what?

Is the Halliwell Jones ' Much Bigger ' than the LSV?

As for average, well you are entitled to your opinion

Etihad, Wembley, Hull, Huddersfield ,Wigan, Elland Road and Headingley are the stadiums I would be requesting to tender to hold a game.

Ideally picking Wembley game 1, Another game 2, Etihad game 3

Oldham, Workington and Hemel, for all the interest the "media" will have on the games,

Exeter RU, Womens version of Mo & Ron Ball game get more coverage than RL in the media.

But the millions put into the game since 1996 has been wisely spent hasn't it. The game went for small and succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.

Wire and Saints new grounds seen as adequate for international matches and attendances.

This game really knows how to develop into the big stage.

it shows how badly the rfl have run the game for decades that no-one had the foresight to invest in an rfl owned stadium. Pathetic sums it up

Yes, because what we really need is a national RL stadium that can be used for three games a year.

Only an absolute moron or a troll would suggest that what the sport needs to do is spend millions on a stadium it doesn't need. You're not an absolute moron are you galliant?

yeah, because everyone who has a different opinion to you must be a moron or a troll

Id love to take a game to Wembley i just dont think you'd get the numbers needed to break even let alone make a healthy profit.

If superleagues magic weekend is a success with a good turn out from the locals, then i'd consider taking the first test to Newcastle instead of Hull

Dont be deliberately extreme.

You know perfectly well the RFL has sod all money to invest in such a large project and certainly hasn't had in the past. It's something I might be in favour of in the future (I'd be tempted to look at the possibility/viability of the RFL buying the AJ Bell stadium) but any person who thinks about it properly will realise that, even if the money was available, a large stadium (60k+) won't be viable as it would only be used a max of 6 times a year (Grand Final, Cup Final, Magic Weekend 3 Internationals). And that would be taking a huge risk in moving the already successful Grand Final and Cup Final, and other years would only be used 3 times a year. I'm struggling to think of any large stadium that is used so infrequently.

If you have it smaller (around 30-40k) then you can have things like cup semis etc but not the finals.

Which is why I'd be interested at looking at something like the RFL buying the Salford stadium, as its small enough at the moment that it can be used regularly and so make a profit but has potential to be expanded in the future.

But to pretend that the RFL shouldve built a large national stadium 10 years ago, and that its a continuing failure to not build one now, is just laughable.

I've said this a few times on here: the RFL should have approached Salford/Peel/Salford Council and proposed a joint venture.

A 40,000 RFL stadium, the home of Salford, England RL (and hopefully, GB) and the RFL. Ok, so it might not host many RL internationals but Salford would use it throughout the season, and you have a neutral CC semi venue, a venue for the Magic Weekend, lower division 'Magic' weekends, play-offs and finals, amateur finals days and options for tenants such as Sale Sharks. And then you can tender for gigs and other events. And all the profits go to RL.

As well as that, there's enough land for a complex similar - on a smaller scale - to the outstanding Manchester City Academy, which could be home to centres of excellence, youth development, RFL head offices, and centres of physio, conditioning, skills, coaching, education, etc, for RL as a whole. It's not just a case of a nice stadium, it's a case for a home of British RL and an improvement in facilities. Something like the much-vaunted Australian Institute for Sport, but for RL. Those facilities and experts can then also be hired out.

It may be too late, it may not. The AJ Bell is designed to be easy to expand. I see little difference between daring to think big and taking England vs NZ to Wembley (a fixture that hasn't attracted over 25,000 in the UK as a standalone fixture in living memory), and thinking big to relocate to Salford and giving the game a massive hub. That's if the RFL had the balls and energy to pull their fingers out.

Why would the RFL pump so much money into a 40,000 capacity stadium for Salford?

Sure, the other stuff you mentioned might get close to full capacity from time to time, but Salford would make the stadium - and by extension the whole sport - a joke.

Why would Salford make the stadium and the sport a joke?

Well...if Salford's the answer, I'd have to say it was a pretty stupid question in the first place.

Did you miss the words "joint venture"?

Fact is, the RFL don't have the cash to build an RL stadium on their own, nor would it be a good idea. So, a joint venture with those building the Salford stadium would have been a possibility. For me, it would have been an opportunity to build a true home of British RL, not just a stadium, but a hub for the game in the UK where the best people involved in the game - from RFL Head Office and administrators to conditioners to officials to youth programmes, etc - can be based or come for the best facilities. Not a stadium 'for Salford' - a stadium built in conjunction with Salford that they use for home games.

And so what if Salford wouldn't fill it? How many clubs fill their grounds every week? How many stadiums fill regularly at all?

Geographically it's well positioned for RL and in a great (and high profile) position just off the M60, although the current transport improvements are much needed. Football and RU seem to do ok having all home internationals at their home stadiums, I see no reason we couldn't do the same rather than flitting around trying out stadiums all over the place, often away from the fan base, which does nothing for the image of our sport but makes us appear groundless.

Look, it will never happen, I accept that, but a bit of big thinking could have delivered us something great for the entire game.

I'd have the first game of the series at Ashton Gate Stadium in Bristol. Might be too small for some people here but 21k should mean a sell out and it builds on the world cup match there (7k for USA vs Cook Islands) - Bristol is a fantastic place to visit too.