GB Lions was always about proper tours and Ashes series. They are no longer possible because the domestic game is reduced to being a performing butt-plug for Sky Sports desperately weak summer schedules during the soccer off-season in June and July.

I'd rather GB not be brought back at all if it is to be reduced to an afterthought entrant in some afterthought, end-of-season bollox played in places like East Hull, Workington and Coventry.

No the England RL brand is growing (sell out crowd at huddersfield) it makes no sense to change it.

Gee whiz, 24,000. I mean it's not like the NRL get more than that on a weekly basis.

And despite all the misty eyed nostalgia by some, Great Britain matches were getting the same sort of crowds in their final several years, because reality is it's the same bleeding lineup for both Eng & GB.

Maybe if we went with Eng/Wal/Sco/Ire instead a few decades earlier we'd be seeing those latter three be much more than what they are currently and we could have a larger, better international calendar instead of just playing the same two teams on repeat and expecting the game to grow.

Yeah that was the case. GB was a great brand though and needs to be brought back in some form.It and could be used in the way the Union British Lions format is on a four year rota where we tour Australia for 3 tests as GB then NZ four years later. Its obviously never going to be a full on tour again but a couple of warm up games followed by the tests should work fine. Rest of the time we stick with the separate nations of England/Ire/Wal/Sco

It should be England for World Cups and Four Nations and there should be a Great Britain test series every two years in between those tournaments.

I thought it was something to do with, they changed to England to get funding from Sport England, but then that stopped anyway?

Or get rid of the WCC and have a GB three test match series alternating between Auz and NZ at the start of the season.

My first ever Rugby League game was at Ewood Park, GB V NZ.

I remember my Mother saying to my Father 'why the hell are you going to watch that'. He said when else am I ever going to see my country play in our football stadium.

16.6k people turned up to watch.

Watching Andy Farrell play, when I had no idea who he, or anyone was, was brilliant. People around me adored the guy.

It was excellent, that was 14 years ago.

It seems that many on here have forgotten that towards the end of Great Britain era, many, many fans were questioning why the team was called Great Britain as the only non "English" player was Brian Carney and it appeared ridiculous to put the GB tag to that team.
Also some of the nostalgia is being viewed through rose tinted glasses.
The Great Britain international fixtures were watched by similar numbers (and in some cases much smaller numbers) to the current England games and so we are left trying to work out what the benefit would be to promote the GB "brand".
The main loss from the good old days, is the lack of proper tours of Australia and New Zealand and of course the games when those sides toured over here.

Whilst ever the Summer Era exists, these tours are just not going to happen,

Clubs in both hemispheres would not want to lose their best players for large parts of the regular season.
Therefore we will be left with token fixtures between a team labelled as GB, which is merely the England team in a different shirt and quite frankly, I'm not sure what the benefit in this would be.

The bigger issue with International RL is the lack of quality international opposition, a situation which isn't going to change any time soon.

Finally, the tours of England by Aus and NZ were superb but, with the money involved in the game nowadays at club level, particularly in Aus, there just isnt room in the calendar to stage full blown tours, no matter how much the older generation pine for them.

We don't have to have full blown tours. A three test series against either NZ or Australia incorporating a couple of test matches as warm up against PNG and a pacific Island team or something along those lines.

That goes back to the fact that the GB team would be England in a different jersey.

Are we looking to bring back GB to satisfy some nostalgic need or, would it actually add value/interest to the sport, either from the fans or the media.

This one again?

If you have England, you also have Wales, Scotland and Ireland.

If you have GB, you have exactly the same as England (because it's the same bloody players) but you don't have Wales, Scotland and Ireland at test level.

What is the bloody point? The crowds weren't exactly bigger (England have had bigger crowds over the last 10 years than GB have had). So what exactly is the point? Basically because some people don't like the shirt design we have now.

I'm sorry, but I don't think there's enough reason to drop 3 international sides in our already limited international competitions just to appease those who long for a nostalgia trip and nothing more.

Couldn't agree more. England already don't play enough games, to play the games we do play under two different names from one year to the next makes no sense.

Whether it's England or GB, what isn't in doubt is that international RL is on it's backside.

Australia would struggle to sell a 3-Test series against England/GB down under. How can you flog a series against a team who hasn't recorded a win against you in over a decade? The last time we did tour for real was in 1992.

GB did play a 3-Test series against NZ in 1996 under the Super League umbrella but haven't returned since to play a series, nor have they ventured anywhere near PNG or Fiji. Last time was the 1992 tour.

There have been lots of afterthought end-of-season 3 and 4 nations series mostly played in the UK to fill the coffers of the RFL for which they ought to be eternally grateful to the Aussies and Kiwis.

As for the home nations idea of building up Wales, Scotland, Ireland? Hardly anyone is interested. Those who qualify for Wales, Scotland and Ireland will always choose England because they want to face top tier international opposition as opposed to pub teams, so let's not pretend the home nations idea is going anywhere. May as well scrap Wales, Scotland and Ireland as they are no longer fit for the purpose.

The GB brand was far more effective in providing players with international opportunities to represent both GB and a home nation. Switching to the England brand has effectively reduced the scope of international RL and reduced its appeal accordingly.

Media interest in international RL also died when the game could no longer fulfil international schedules during a season as opposed to scheduling end-of-season afterthoughts often organised way too late to make any of the New Year sporting calendars. Other sports manage this but RL cannot.

State of Origin and Magic Weekends by plenty!

2004 UK
2005 UK
2006 Down Under
2009 UK/France
2010 Down Under
2011 UK
2014 Down Under
2016 UK

So when you say "mostly", you mean other than the first one, we've alternated every year?

William makes a fair point. Where is the home nations thing going? is it ever going to grow? i don't think so. Can't barely get one decent player among the three countries and interest in the game is practically zero and that's being kind!

Go back to GB imo. It is France that has the serious potential to grow , the home nations is just a pipe dream. use them for WC's and that is it.

How the hell does having one team instead of four provide more international opportunity?

How many GB players are getting the opportunity to play Australia and New Zealand this year?


That's not really the fault of England or GB brand though, so it's not relevant at all.

France does have serious potential to grow. Taking out 3 of their local opposition wouldn't help them though, would it? They get big crowds against Wales, Ireland and Scotland. They're a similar level on the field.

I just don't understand the rationale behind "just get rid of them because they're not working this second."

No point unless we pick Aussie/Kiwi players who qualify via Welsh, Irish, Scottish ancestors for GB i.e. Tyson Frizell or Pat Richards in his prime.

It's never worked though.Perhaps when we got the Union converts in the 80s/90s Wales could just about compete but those days have gone. It has no foundations to work. I'm in my thirties and should i be lucky enough to reach an old age I highly doubt these sides will ever be much more competetive than they are right now still using players that can't get games for the big three nations. It's sad, because i would love it to work along the lines of RU, but unfortunately it will never happen.

Number of Tests GB/England have played against Australia during the SL era = 27 (28 after next week)
Number played in England = 20 (21 after next week)
Number played in Australia = 7

Number of Tests GB/England have played against New Zealand during the SL era = 33
Number played in England = 23
Number played in New Zealand = 8
Number played in Australia = 2

TOTAL = 60
Played in England = 43
Played in Australia = 9
Played in New Zealand = 8

As you were.

Oh here we go again the "remain" attitude, you don't agree with me so I'll sneeringly dismiss you as a Luddite (in this case)



Of course you shouldn't live in the past that's just foolish. However to dismis the past and thus not learn from it is positively idiotic, but that's what arrogance does to people.

For anyone interested, the results of those internationals during the SL-era above are as follows...

[uGB/England V Australia[/u
In England - 3 wins, 17 defeats
In Australia - 1 win, 6 defeats
--------------------------------------
TOTAL - 4 wins, 23 defeats
--------------------------------------

[uGB/England V New Zealand[/u
In England - 13 wins, 2 draws, 8 defeats
In New Zealand - 0 wins, 8 defeats
In Australia - 0 wins, 2 defeats
-------------------------------------------------
TOTAL - 13 wins, 2 draws, 18 defeats
-------------------------------------------------

And if it had been GB instead of England, All of those results would be the same so, what is your solution ?