Ah so there is the answer....we don't bother with internationals because it disrupts your precious super league

As you say theres no point to internationals,I wonder if the scottish ru as now scrapped tours after getting thumped by the all blacks recently??

As long AS YOU LOT CAN WATCH EDDIE AND STEVO on a friday night everything is great?

How does club matches against austrailians raise our international profile,please explain

You all bang on about how there should be no promotion and relegation fine lets have that,lets dump every team except wigan leeds saints and warrington who play each other 4 times and the rest of the comp is made up of matches with the aussies thus leaving space for internationals to be played and the sky money split between these 4 teams as the rest have no chance have they???

Seems the ideal solution,you get your wcc and I get international...perfect

Answer the question then! Who would we play!? Someone else hit the nail on the head about your comparisons with international Union, that works because of strong domestic leagues, not in spite of them. We don't have a proper northern hemisphere rivalry and there isn't anyone near a high enough standard to provide one. Therefore we have to continue with one off mid season international games with the proper series coming at the end of the season against southern hemisphere opposition.

Funny how things can be so different down under. In Australia they have super rugby, tri nations, british sides touring, australia touring the UK and Rugby Union cant make ground on Rugby League or AFL which do not have the same international events.

Lets actually play 5 nations, England Ireland, Scotland, Wales and France.

So what if England win the first few, foook players like Brough, Henderson back to Scotland, Bridge and Harrison in the Ireland team, Carvell back to Wales. Really make it easy for players to stick to their country of origin and then play the Oz and Kiwi's under the GB tag. Then we have 4 teams to pick players from, getting game time and improving the game. Currently players are going to continually pick England because we're really the only ones guaranteed to play the big boys in either 4 nations or Tri nation series.

Give all the players like Bridge, Harrison, Carvell, Mickey Mac, Henderson, Brough the opportunity under the banner of GB and playing for the lesser teams would be no problem.

We all know the first few years England will walk away with it but give it time and the others will eventually step up and the real talent isn't always guaranteed to play for England.

This would be great but I dont think its feasible. The main problem being how commercially attractive would a 5 nations be. Would TV broadcaster be interested and more important would fans be interested in actually attending?

Where would these games be played? Could you take such games to Ireland or scotland?

Nail on the head there.

It's super league, sky and summer rugby which has screwed internationals good and proper.

You'll never convince the devotees of super league though.

No it hasnt. Is summer rugby the reason Austalia decided they didnt want no part of a 4 nations tournament this year? Is it summer rugby which has seen Australia consider no longer playing the traditional anzac test v the Kiwi's?

Is summer rugby the reason England turned down a tour to NZ this year?

International rugby league will only work when all nations are on the same page and all adhere to an agreed calender.

added to that we could have 6 teams and add the Exiles/invitational players.

Games to be spread over the season 5 games, players told if they don't play the international then no GB selection at the end of the season.
Taking 2 team out the league gives the room to fit the games in.

If needs be play the internationals in this country until the respective countries show interest in playing/paying for them.

Welsh games in Wrexham no problem, France and England again no worries, Scotland can play in Cumbria, Carlise's ground say and The Irish can play in London seeing as there's loads of them here.

Not true, at least not in the UK. The Five Nations and Autumn Internationals have always been massive - far bigger than the RU domestic leagues, which were only formed in 1987 and only really began to grow in popularity in 1996 with professionalism, and then took a massive boost with the publicity of the 2003 World Cup win.

Huge numbers of people support the RU internationals without following a club, and that's always been the way. Domestic RU attendances were awful until the money went open and, together with the growth of the 5/6 Nations and ITV's excellent and hugely glammed-up coverage of the World Cups, they got all the publicity and boosts they needed. Their attendances now are strong, but that's only on the back on massive international coverage and, in 2003 and several 5/6 Nations years, success.

Not actually a bad shout all that

Super League, Sky and summer rugby is the reason why we no longer have 'proper' international tours - and by proper international tours (perhaps you are too young to remember?) that involves a tour lasting almost a couple of months and at least a dozen games against club/regional sides as well as test matches. Oh, and there's nothing traditional about an Anzac Test (who cares?) which was the brainchild of the Australian Super League competition in 1997.


The RFL turned it down because they selfishly prefer the opportunity to cash in on a test series at home. They chose the 'spit the dummy' option instead.


International RL will only work if we switch back to a winter sport so that proper international tours may be undertaken at the most beneficial time in the calendar (mid-season in Australia or mid-season in the UK) - and NOT as an end of Super League or NRL season afterthought.

International RL is effectively non existant, and it will remain so for a very long time, exile matches, ' origin ' matches, it wont change

I've said for a long time the loss of GB is a huge mistake - even take into account the 'Sport England' funding issue.

England will always be the strongest home nation, by some distance. That means England will be in the Four Nations every time and compete at a higher standard against the big guns. That also means players who could commit to Wales, Scotland or Ireland will opt for England whenever possible, thus weakening their home nation.

With GB still in the frame and perhaps competing as home nations at the World Cup and in a home nations comp, you allow players to commit to lesser nations, yet still get a shout of the big stage with GB. And with England still competing you still get a shout at Sport England funding.

GB for me was the pinnacle of British RL. England just seems like a poor man's alternative.

Year 1 - Home nations
Year 2 - GB tour to NZ (NZ to tour UK in next cycle). European Cup
Year 3 - Home nations
Year 4 - Ashes series (alternate venues). European Cup
Year 5 - World Cup.

The World Cup is held every four years...

Is it?

1992
1995
2000
2008
2013

None of those are 4 years apart.

It's a suggestion of how I would work a GB tour into the schedule.

Eg-bleedin-xactly.

What we need to STOP doing is trying to create fantasy competitions and teams like home nations, and have the confidence to focus on, and build on, the stuff that fans clearly want to watch. People vote with their feet - if they like something, give them more of it, stop trying to spoon feed them contrived 'internationals'. I wish the NRL *did* care about expansion, because they might see poor old GB as an expansion territory, but you can't argue with the success they've had by just focusing on themselves.

Two smaller divisions, P&R (3 up/down), expanded WCC for top 4, group games spread through season (like Champions league) to keep the media interest sustained (rather than two weeks a year). Team GB. Simples.

No it isn't! What the hell are you talking about?

Good points there, I don't think spreading a WCC throughout the season would work mind. We need to look towards successful sports that don't have a big international scene (NFL, AFL, MLB, NHL etc) for inspiration rather than fabricate an international scene that doesn't exist.

The fact is atm there is only really an interest in international RL when the 3 competitive teams are playing each other. The other European teams and Pacific island teams aren't of a high enough standard to justify trying to base our game around internationals. We are a long way off that, I think the best chance we have got is if RL develops in the USA and Cananda, but that is years away, if it ever happens.

Yes it Is, post the 2008 WC, The RLIF announced the world cup would be held every four years from 2013, where is was delayed a year to avoid clashing with the Olympic/European Championship cycle. We have a world cup with a 4 year cycle.

Surely you did some basic research before you randomly decided the WC wasn’t held on a four year cycle?

I think you are getting confused between ' is ' and ' will be '

Has the WC ever been held 4 years apart ?

Why would it matter if the World Cup was previously held every four years? According to the nonsense argument you have just put forward that would be you confusing ‘is’ and ‘was’.

We have a situation where the world cup will be held every four year, bar this cycle which was deliberately delayed by a year with the express aim of a 4 year cycle. But you want to argue we cant say the RL world cup ‘is’ held every for years on the basis it ‘wasn’t previously’ held every for years, it’s truly moronic.

By WCC I meant World club challenge, not international games.

It hasn't been, they are claiming it will be, but that's not the same as "The world club *is* held every four years.