This is how I see it being set out;

Pool A
Australia
England
Scotland
Fiji

Pool B
Wales
NZ
Ireland
Cook Islands

Pool C
France
Tonga
Qualifier (Southern Hemishpere)

Pool D
PNG
Samoa
Qualifier (Northern Hemishpere)

(P/O1) Winner Pool C vs Runner up Pool D, (P/O2) Winner Pool D vs Runner Pool C

(P/O3) Winner P/O1 vs Runner up Pool A, (P/O4) Winner P/O2 vs Runner up Pool B

Winner Pool A vs Winner P/O4, Winner Pool B vs Winner P/O3

Final

its not southern hemisphere & northern hemisphere as such

theres basically going to be a 'atlantic cup' with USA,Jamaica,south africa,hopefully canada,maybe japan with the winner becoming the 13th qualifier

and a euro cup with the likes of Lebanon,serbia,russia etc and the winner become the 14th qualifier..


basically it's set upto ensure the usa & lebanon qualify

i went to ten of the games in the 2008 world cup
a lot of the games were not sell outs and the seats in the expensive parts of the ground were available
the key is to go where the most fans are willing to go, established rugby league stadia!
look at the semi final involving australia vs the semi involving england, look at the samoa v tonga game

there are too many teams in the 2013 world cup, the qualification is based on who the rlif want to be there rather than the best teams

In much the same way the current European Cup is set up to get the French into the 2011 4 Nations then?

not really cos theres a chance that wales...or scotland and ireland could upset the french......none of the teams lebanon or USA have to face are gonna beat them

Granted it wasnt a full strength side and there is 3 years to go but Italy beat Lebannon t'other week along with Wales last week

Maybe, if there was a level playing field in terms of home advantage.

was'nt he average age of the welsh bench against italy 18 or 19?

And, that's including Alfie!

One thing I really hope they do properly next time is to have the qualification tournament on a level playing field, with the matches all played across two legs in each participating country

Last time the final qualifier has Lebanon and Samoa (I think it was Samoa) at Featherstone of all places. So it was watched by three men and a dog - and that was a match to determine a team that would be in the World Cup Finals!! That sort of thing holds us up to ridicule. Teams that can't stage a match in their own country shouldn't really be in the competition IMO

Yes, I very much agree. If the sport is to take off in these countries and if we're to get the best out of these teams they need the best competive international matches available to them played in their respective nations. But, I imagine its the cost implications that is the deciding factor. Its difficult to expect minnow nations to be able to afford the travel and accomodation costs, but I would say that the RLIF needs to foot the bills and play the matches in the right place.

I would imagine the Atlantic qualification will be played in Jacksonville, which is a bonus, and Jacksonville has proved that it can get the fans in. A certain star of Hollywood is also known to turn up there every now and then.

My suggestion for international development would be that we continue the 4N's in between the WC, but have that as the 'Cup' comp and have a 'Trophy' comp underneath, played at the same time. So, when it's held down under Oz, NZ, Eng and PNG play the 'Cup' while Ireland, Scots, France and, say, the Lebanon go as well to play Tonga, Samoa, Cook Islands etc in the 'Trophy'. Eng would play warm games against Tonga/Samoa, Oz/NZ/PNG play France/Scots etc. The next season the 'Cup' and 'Trophy' are played in Europe, best performing European team in 'Trophy' plays in 'Cup', PNG play in 'Trophy' and have to perform best to be in 'Cup' when it returns down under.

This way the home nation can play in their country (Tonga-Scots might not pull the crowds, but the shortfall can be offset by and attention can be drawn from Tonga-England), matches are kept realistic and competitive and it could see players sticking with certain national teams, rather than swapping, because it means competitive matches, the glamour and excitement of travel, and a chance to take on the big guns on an annual basis.

Another thing that could be done to add a little local ibnterest to the games would be to run a parrallel nines competitionn for Sl and Championship sides as curtain raisers tro all the games.

You could base it on the academy or under 20 teams so it would not affect the top players who would be in the internationals.

It could be arranged so that say Cas under 20s play Wakey under 20s in a game at cas new stadium wher you would have PNG vs Tonga.

HKR vs Hull Fc under 20s at the boulevard before samoa and england etc

That way you have a little local interest and competition and better value for money for the paying public.

Is it just me who thinks France should be playing in France? They would be more competitive, get bigger crowds than in the UK and takes less resources which can be pooled into promoting the other games.

If France were hosting the world cup, yes. Or even if France and England were jointly hosting the world cup, yes. But as neither is the case, no.

I know that, but wouldn't it have been easier is what i'm saying? At least then we could have 3 more games with a guaranteed crowd that we wouldn't have to think about promoting to get a decent attendance? Is it something to do with TV or is it an RFL decision to just have it in the U.K.?

The RFL put in a bid to host the world cup. Did the FFRXIII?

Seems you want an arguement rather than a conversatiopn like normal.

Alternatively, if I'm taking art in a discussion about the 2013 world cup, I don't see the point in talking about some fantasy world cup which isn't happening and never was going to.

It wasn't a compiment tb.

All i'm trying to say is it would have made sense for France to play their games in France.

I agree that the France games should be held in France. In the 2000 World Cup the french games were quite successful in terms of crowds and there is no reason why it shouldn't be the case next time.

The recent game in France against Ireland got 14k on! Imagine what they could do for a WC game.

Yes, it would make a lot more sense. All the French pool matches and a qualifying match could be played there. That way you'd have four or five matches with an average crowd of over 10k and we'd see a better standard from the French team.

It could well not happen, but the RFL have said that they are tendering the matches out, that's what this thread is about. If Perpignan, Toulouse or Avignon step forward with a solid business plan and demonstrate that hosting a pool and a qualifying match can add something to the tournament then why shouldn't they be allowed? In fact if they put together a strong plan the RFL would be mad to kick it back.

It's the same with Wrexham or Neath. We can all say that the most sensical venue to host the Welsh games is in Wales, but if the respective tendering team hasn't got a decent plan together they won't get it. All we know at this moment in time is that the WC will take place over here and that tendering process has begun, nothing more than that, which means we can all have fun speculating about where we'd like to see it played. Is that ok, tb?

I think if they bent a little bit and allowed France to play on home soil, we then have some guaranteed big crowds on our hands, something i'm sure the press and tabloids would be interested, sell out crowds. If Lebanon qualify, would it be an idea to play a game with a Lebanese population? I think Montpellier has a core of Lebanese.

Surely the 2 opening paragraphs of the OP's link mean France won't get a look in, unlike Wales and Scotland possibly

I think the point people are making is it would have made more sense if France were allowed to stage their own games at home.