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.

They arent claiming it will be, they are saying it is to be. For some reason you seem to think that the word IS pertains to the past instead of the present.

How often is the RL world cup held? as of 2008 it [iIS[/i held every four years with a one year delay in 2012 to avoid a clash with the olympic/european championship cycle.

You just didnt do your research and spouted off as usual.

I know you did, clubs aren't going to travel to the other side of the world throughout the season to play games.

I've done some research which shows that the RLIF couldn't schedule a -up in a brewery without changing their minds.

Hope you enjoyed the [url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_league/1880664.stm[u2005 World Cup[/u[/url.

The RLWC to be held every four years?

True, but you can spread the games without having to make a club travel more than once in the group stages. You only have 2 away games, so these happen in one trip (say 10 days). But the trips themselves are spread out. Just for example - I'm sure others could design it better, but hey - say in group A, you had:

Wigan
Warrington
Storm
Broncos

In March, Warrington play Wigan and Broncos play Storm

In April, Storm travel to the UK and play Wigan then Warrington.
In May, Wigan travel to Aus and Play Broncos then Storm.
In June, Broncos travel to the UK and play Warrington then Wigan.
In July, Warrington travel to Aus and Play Storm then Broncos.

In August, Wigan play Warrington and Storm play Broncos.

One trip each, not too bad, and for four months we've got some guaranteed 'international' ( albeit club ) fixtures. And that's just group A, there's another group in parallel. I don't know about you but *every* one of those games - dare I say it, even the Wire ones - I'd scramble to get a ticket (OK, I couldn't [iafford[/i the overseas ones, except maybe once every 4 years, but the point is, I'd really want to see those games, whereas TBH, I'm not that fussed about the exiles game. That's just me, maybe others don't see it that way, but if you're a Wigan or Wire fan for example, doesn't that set of fixtures make the mouth water? I'd personally go to any of the 8 UK-based games I possibly could, from both groups, not just the Wigan ones - and I'd definitely make sure I could watch the others on Sky (which is probably what matters for the men with $)

More media interest, and the added bonus of making a top four finish (or top three if GF winner last year came from outside top four) worth a lot more than a top 8 finish. The single-trip, two-game setup also makes it better for fans who fancy the trip and get to see two games.

You could I suppose make the CC winner a qualification spot (instead of 4th place, if CC winner was outside top 4) , to avoid any (more) damage to the value of the CC, and maybe make it more worth winning.

I haven't thought about the semi finals yet...

Between the first world cup in 1954, and the last in 2008, there have been 13 world cups. That is an average of one world cup ever 4.15 years.

Havent you been banned for making anti-semitic jokes about the holocaust again yet AP/keith?

What happens to the league games during those weeks though? I'd rather just see an 8 team comp at the end of the season. I think the schedule is too congested and the travelling is too much to do anything mid-season.

4 teams from each league qualify via the following routes:
1: Grand Final winners
2: Grand Final runners up
3. NRL - next highest placed in league table/SL - CC winner
4: Next highest placed in league table

Then split in to 2 groups:

GROUP A
NRL 1
SL2
NRL3
SL4

GROUP B
SL1
NRL2
SL3
NRL4

WEEKS 1-3
Each team within each group plays each other once

WEEK 4
Winner Group A v Runner Up Group B
Winner Group B v Runner Up Group A

WEEK 5
FINAL

I think the end of this season is a perfect opportunity to try this with no "proper" international series scheduled. The England team that plays in the European comp can be made up of players from the teams not involved in the club competiton.

Yeah, that works too and I wouldn't say no to it, though I'd still prefer it during the season, because I want to see the media profile bubbling along rather than just in a compact few-week period, after which the papers forget we exist again. Also, would the group stages be held in one country? ( that doesn't work for me).

In answer to your question, it adds 6 games during the regular season. If we can lose 4 domestic games somehow, bring SL teams into the CC one round later, shorten the GF schedule slightly, and add one extra week to the season I think it's manageable. The top sides might have to manage the odd 5-day turnaround here and there. Maybe this is a bit unfair, I don't know, but you could also make sure that the domestic fixtures in the weeks before the WCC fixtures were vs sides that finished low in the league season before.

Right revolution ideas time is it?

Ok

League down to 10 (With current deal's money so more is shared out to cover the lost revenue of less games.
Play-offs top 4 only
Promotion and relegation via a play-off match between SL bottom and NL1 winners.

We now have (potential) P&R, to keep the Starbugs of the world happy, not guaranteed but it's there in spirit as long as you win your play-off game
We have less games to give more dates to developing 'other ideas' be it internationals or extended WCC.

The NL1 has more teams than currently, so that the added fixtures generate more income to help them, going up from 10 teams to 14.

?

Works for me, and with a proper "Champions League" WCC as suggested for all clubs to aspire to, my interest in the game would be massively reinvigorated. I'm bored stiff by at least half the season right now. And no, a lower cap to 'equalize' competition wouldn't invigorate. What gets me excited is the thought of seeing the top clubs in SL rise (over years it has to be said) to be at least able to compete (over 6 games, not just a one-off game in Feb) with the NRL, not seeing everyone dragged down to Wakefield's level.

Ah, so it ' is to be ' , not ' is ' , so glad it will be

bit off topic, but how would a community shield type event pre season go down?
SL winners Vs CC winners with proceeds going toward grass roots rugby?

Not sure they were ever the best attended events were they?

Whats this NL1 you speak of?

I like it.

"NL1" as you call it has already been earmarked for 14 next year - with four clubs coming up from "NL2" - what do we then do with those clubs?.

Not a bad idea though - will make the "Stones Bitter Championship" more competitive too.