The first thing I thought on hearing this was the Pacific Island (All Stars) that periodically crops up in NRL discussions. Not really sure what I think, but I do believe if players have the chance to get paid in higher class internationals they will generally review their opinion of their nation to make sure they can play. If a Celtic team could fare slightly better against England, NZ etc, maybe they would get more game time. But my initial reaction like most is that it seems pretty stupid, but I'd rather consider it first because there could be some merits.

Just as a question, how do national teams work in RL? I have no idea, it seems most sports allow the sub-nations in the UK compete seperately, how is this viewed as different from say USA/German or Australian (or any other federation you fancy) states competing? I suppose the Cook Islands comes under this discussion too with its ties to New Zealand.

On the other hand, what is the view on multiple sovereign nations competing as one team? After all, that is what GB+I Lions would be in the modern day (and will have been for so, so long now). What would be the difference between this and, say, a Pacific Islands team? I mean they are both made up, or tied together culturally or whatever BS justifies this stuff at the moment (would a Melanesia RL and Polynesia RL be more 'correct' like the Lions?). Obviously golf has a 'made up' Europe team playing against a country, RU has their own 'made up' Lions, and football is a giant messup between FIFA and Olympics, cricket has made up teams (West Indies?) too... well you get the picture.

I know that the rules are basically "whatever we feel like atm" but is there any precedent for this sort of thing?

ETA: Let alone even starting on Ireland...

Over 100 years of history, dozens of great moments, epic Ashes series, etc, etc - meaningless. I think we can probably start to gently ignore most of your opinions at this point.

Great Britain hasn't often been represented by 17 Englishmen - simply because players could still play for their home or ancestral nation and also for GB. I get the feeling this point isn't sinking home with you.


Utter rubbish. "Here, you can play for England in front of 20-40,000 against the Aussies and Kiwis almost every year, or for the brand new 'Celtic Tigers' in front of 2-3,000 against France, Fiji and the Lebanon in some manufactured competition".

No, they wouldn't jump at that. It would still be a half-baked, idiotic creation, and still weak on the international stage, with zero chance of competing with Aus, NZ or even England.


Stop shouting.

Yes, I agree development has moved on. The RFL started investing in Development Officers in the community (not just in Wales, all over the UK). Crusaders made great inroads initially. South Wales are doing their bit. The profile of RL in Wales is slowly growing.

I'm not sure why you think GB would (ahem) "smash right over the top of them" though - GB is just a team that gets together for tours every couple of years, but also offers something for all Home Nations players to aspire to. You're being a bit of a drama queen.


Or perhaps those who love the wonderful heritage of Great Britain Rugby League and remember the heady days of the Ashes series, and what they represent. You can choose to ignore that if you like, more fool you.

I know you think you've come up with some inspired idea, and no offence, but it's bllocks, it really is.

A GB Lions tour every 4yrs and Aussie/NZ full tours here as well and we play them as GB

How are the Celtic Tigers anymore of an artificial team than Great Britain & Ireland Lions?

Would anyone actually watch a 'Celtic Tigers' team? I wouldn't, and I doubt anyone from Ireland, Scotland or Wales would to be honest.

Again, how is it anymore artificial than a side that represents five separate nations (one sovereign nation, 4 constituent nations)? Or two sovereign nations (UK and Rep of Ireland) if you don't wanna go the constituent route?

GB & Ireland, or the British Isles, is not a country.


We can all have our opinions on this I guess as there's no way to prove it.

However, since we're all wagering, I'd bet a pint that changing from GB to England has made little significant difference to how much they get. However, I bet it's made a significant difference to Wales, Ireland and Scotland RL development.


Are you arguing that there'd have been a different result had the team worn a different shirt?!


I don't understand how the people with Celtic roots will snap up the chance to play for them, yet they now have more opportunity to and aren't? Wales, Scotland and Ireland would affectively be demoted to reserve sides under GB. The only time they wouldn't be would be the World Cup, and do you really think the majority of players who didn't have Celtic roots wouldn't still opt to play for the much stronger England side?

And if it was actually true, then wanting a GB side would affectively harm England's chances of winning the World Cup as genuine English players would be opting to represent the nations of their ancestry instead of their country of birth that developed them.


I disagree with them being mainly Welsh. But I do agree they wouldn't be much more competitive than their individual nations. But in time...?


Translation: 3 of the 4 separate NGBs are against the idea of going back because they feel it would damage development in their nation.

Surely this is the biggest argument AGAINST going back that you accept yet still dismiss?


I thought he just did?

The rise of Crusaders and now South Wales probably have more to do with the growth of the game, plus the RFL introducing development officers and generally pulling their fingers out as far as development is concerned - and not just in Wales.

And please explain why the existence of a GB should adversely affect the development of the sport in Wales? It gives Welsh players something to aspire to, it gives players with Welsh roots more incentive to opt for Wales, it brings Welsh support to the GB banner.'"

It's not, but it's 'traditional' and idiots on this forum can't get past that. You wonder how the sport has been so progressive over the years when its fans seem so resistant to any sort of positive change.

Great Britain is not returning. Bringing it back would serve no purpose at all. It would be a team of 17 Englishmen, just as it was in the past, just as the England team is now. The only thing it would achieve would be burying Wales, Scotland and Ireland by relegating them to 'B' status. People in those nations do not care about 'Great Britain' and almost certainly would not watch such a team, just as they didn't do so before. They also would probably be less inclined to watch their national teams because, although probably stronger due to being full of English ringers, they would be relegated to 'B' status and their matches would be meaningless. It makes absolutely no difference to England or English fans so I'm not sure why some feel so passionately about the subject. You can pretend that England are actually GB under a different name if it makes you happy. But bringing them back would be stupid, pointless and counter-productive.

As for 'Celtic Tigers', that is just stupid as hell and not even worth debating.

Another argument I don't get is people saying these Celtic sides would be stronger because they'd have more plastic Celts playing for them instead of them playing for England.

These same people also argue that Rangi Chase, Chris Heighington, et al shouldn't play for England because they're not English.

Have these people ever considered that this is how the Welsh, Scottish and Irish feel about English ringers in their sides?

I don’t know about you, but my passport doesn’t mention England on the front. It says that it is a passport if The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It also says that I am a British citizen on the inside. England and Scotland haven’t been sovereign nations since 1707, Wales since 1284 and Northern Ireland (in varying forms, and without getting too deep in to the issues surrounding that) since 1801.

Now considering that like RU, RL treats the island of Ireland as one entity and avoids the geopolitical question over Eire/NI/Britain, Then if we had a side, which was a national side, then it would be a GB and Ireland side.

Saying that, I appreciate that the home nations need national representation, and I appreciate that switching back to GB&I would be very damaging to the home nations, I still struggle to see why we cant have both. That we play as home nations sometimes, and as a united GB other times.

The issue isn’t ‘ringers’ it is that similar to SoO in Aus, the current international set up actively incentivises players to choose England over Wales, Scotland, Ireland. Personally I don’t care what country a person chooses to represent, that is a personal decision.

They aren't sovereign.

I find myself in agreement with you once again.

Last time I checked, Great Britain & Ireland Lions comprised of two sovereign nations.

One is the UK. The other is the Republic of Ireland.

Therefore, his statement of multiple sovereign nations is correct.

I never said England or Scotland were sovereign nations. Read again.
Your passport doesn't say "Great Britain and Ireland". The Republic of Ireland has nothing to do with the UK. GB&I Lions are two sovereign nations combined into one.


Just because RU does it doesn't mean we should.
It's up to the Irish how they decide to run their national team. It shouldn't be up to the English, or the UK (unless we had a UK team and took away Northern Ireland.
Anyway that anyone tries to word it, GB&I is not a national team. It involves multiple nations.


I don't have much issue with that ONCE a Lions side actually features some players that don't qualify for England. Otherwise it's just pointless.

Ah, I see, I thought the reference was to the home nations. Has the GB squad always comprised of the Republic of Ireland?

It does incentivise, but the fact that England have developed these (English born) players means that they have rightfully put themselves into this competitive position where they compete against the top teams.

Wales, Ireland and Scotland need to develop their own sides and the game itself in their own countries. I don't see why they should have this right to have incentives for players to pick them on heritage. And I don't actually see fans of these nations screaming for heritage players. England fans aren't exactly wanting heritage players. Quite the opposite.

I just don't see the need for incentives that people are claiming would benefit them whilst the same people are rejecting it for their own country.

I'm not sure. I know that they have for as long as I've watched RL. Brian Carbey certainly isn't British.

Its not because RU do, its because we do. RU just also do the same thing. If we can have a UK team which doesnt include Northern Ireland, why cant we have a UK team which also includes Eire. The I in GB& I isnt the ROI, it is the island of Ireland, they arent representing two sovereign nations, they are representing one sovereign nation and the island of ireland.
Why? a Lions side would consist of the best players.

Im not screaming for heritage players to play for the home nations, I dont care who represents who, it is up to them. I just dont see why we should disincentivise players from representing the home nations bar england.

I didn't say I did

It wasn't always GB & I, by the way, it's been the 'Northern Union XIII', 'Great Britain & Northern Ireland', 'Great Britain & Ireland' and just plain old 'Great Britain'.

GB & I or GB, frankly I'm not bothered.


I didn't say it was.


Possibly. As you say we can't prove or disprove it. I'm not really that fussed and it wasn't me brought up the matter of profit.


I simply made the point we haven't beaten Australia since the abolition of GB. Spud made the point we've managed to beat NZ, twice.


Sigh. The point is, as Smokey put it, the current international set up actively incentivises players to choose England over Wales, Scotland & Ireland. Yes, it weakens England a little but would you rather have a stronger Wales or a slightly weaker England (who have a far bigger pool of players)?


If they're not competitive, what's the point?


I have no evidence of that, I was responding to spud, though I can see why someone working for the WRL, SRL or RLI would be cagey about the return of GB. Certainly wouldn't say it's the 'biggest' argument though.


As a DIRECT result of the abolition of GB? No. He just cited some general developments.


Sigh again. The existence of GB allows higher level players to opt for Wales, while still getting a shot at GB and the big tours. That is an incentive to a) play for Wales in the first place, and b) fight for a GB spot.


Wales reserves? What are you on about? Was it Wales reserves who did so well at the 1995 World Cup, or scared the bejesus out of Australia at the 2000 World Cup? You know, when good players chose to play for Wales and could still play for GB. Oh, and let's now forget that following the abolition of GB, Wales failed to even qualify in 2008, after being spanked 50-26 by LEBANON!

Again, there is NO REASON why development in Wales can't carry on at the same pace, nor why it takes away interest in Wales, and I've no idea why people think it has to be one or the other. Wales compete as Wales in the World Cup and other competitions, and their players fight to play for GB in the tours. Simple.


Again, not sure what you're on about. Spud (strangely) claimed that Wales Under-18s wouldn't have beaten Scotland Under-18s 6 years ago. The results prove otherwise, Wales beat Scotland in 2004 and 2005, while GB was still around.

I think so. And yes, I was trying to point out that the Lions aren't a team representing a single sovereign nation, much like the West Indies and so on. Anyway this argument seems to have progressed again, as you were...

I still don't like the idea of a Celtic team, definitely not anything suggesting it should compete like a nation does in internationals...

However.

I do believe that if the problem is that potential Welsh/Scottish/NI/Irish players are opting instead to play for England because England have the bigger matches more frequently, how would a UK/British Isles team solve that? You say players could play for GB in the big matches say once every four years, then if they want to up that to every year they still opt for England. If you make it that the Home Nations only compete in the WC, that basically destroys the team brands in the meantime, and as we don't really have enough presence in these nations the potential Welsh etc players don't get the gametime they do under the current system.

For me:

Yearly European Cup as a qualifier to 5/6N > Current Situation > Celtic Team > British Isles team

if you care about the HN teams.

That doesn't make sense.
Great Britain isn't a sovereign nation.
Ireland isn't a sovereign nation.

They're either representing no sovereign nations (two islands), or they're representing two (the two sovereign nations that make up the two islands).
You can't have it half way. It would be like me saying they're representing one sovereign nation (Rep of Ire) and the island of Great Britain.



Which for over 10 years has been basically England. I can only think of Brian Carney who wasn't England born (and Fa'asavalu, but that's another story!).


I don't think it's "we" that are. It's the lack of development in those individual countries that has led to their lack of incentive. That development need to start somewhere.

Agreed, we shouldn't ever be putting a system in place that is designed to actively encourage English players to commit to another nation. It's just totally backwards and counter-productive, and the people calling for this are probably the same ones who complain about non-English players in the England team and nation-swapping.

At the moment, England are on the same footing as Ireland, Scotland and Wales. I don't see therefore why it is a surprise that English players would want to play for England. Trying to make up some contrived system so that English players can turn out for other nations is just stupid and achieves nothing, all it does is sweep problems under the rug. Ireland and Scotland are weak because barely anyone in those nations plays RL. If they want to improve long-term then they need to develop the sport there, it's as simple as that. The point is that, under the current system, they are able to do so. The only thing holding them back is their lack of on-field development.

Then how can you argue AGAINST a Celtic side based on it being an artificial side, yet argue FOR a GB side, which you are apparently acknowledging are an artificial side? Can you not see the contradiction?


I know, I never said you brought it up. I just thought I'd throw my two pennies in on that one.


But I don't see how it's relevant to anything? It doesn't prove that Ebgland are weaker or GB are stronger so it's just a mute point.


I'd rather have an England that is English, a Wales that is Welsh, an Ireland that is Irish and a Scotlsnd that is Scottish. If they are cr*p, it means they can't paper over the cracks and HAVE to develop some players of their own rather than rely on ringers of heritage.

It has to start somewhere.

England fans weren't exactly chuffed about Chase and Heighington, yet there seems to be the same people wanting the Celtic sides filled with similar players. Did they stop to think maybe the Welsh/Irish/Scottish don't want to support plastic sides?


That's why I'm not currently in favour of it. In time they may be.


You wouldn't say it's the biggest argument that 3 out of 4 parties don't exactly want to see themselves merged/taken over? I'd say its pretty important!


Well we can't prove either way, but suffice to say developments are much stronger in Wales now. This may be due to the Crusaders, but you could argue that the RFL rushed them in to develop Wales on the international scene, and had GB still been active, wouldn't have seen as big a need.


Why is it an incentive to play for Wales? They can still play for England, who would still be a better side, and would be their only option for a shot at a decent run in a World Cup.
How many genuine Welshmen have made it into GB that weren't union converts?
All your advocating is strengthening Wales with heritage players, which would weaken England of genuine Englishmen, and thus weaken our chances of World Cup glory. What's the point? They are English born and English produced. Why shouldn't we give them incentives to play for England?


Other than World Cup years, will these players have a realistic chance to play for their elite squad? Will they be realistically good enough? And I'm not talking heritage players here. You've basically taken away top level rep footy from them for 3/4 years.

And the Wales team that got spanked in the qualifiers, that was in 2006-7. GB were still around. They still had English ringers (Harris and Briers). And they still lost.
Had any if their best players been good enough for GB, they'd have been even further disadvantaged as they wouldn't have been able to select them. Great system that.


Do the Welsh WANT to be part of GB? If they don't, then yes it would harm development.
It's like someone in France saying we should be playing as Europe. We'd be stronger then. Do we want that?


I'm not sure what he was trying to prove either.
My point was that none of these were genuine internationals as GB were playing at the same time. Yet there were no Welshmen or Scotsmen or Irishmen (other than Carney) in the GB squad, so they could have been, and there could have been more interest. It's helped France now that there are genuine tests.