[urlhttps://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-league/50446763[/url
I met a handful of Travelling British RL fans in Auckland and Hamilton over the last few weeks and they had embraced the "return", but the stark reality is that the other "lions" drew 20,000 fans here in 2017, whilst if I am generous, maybe 400 made the trip for the GBRL Lions.

I can only imagine the financial losses taken (Guess is a minimum £1,000,000 loss at the triple header alone) and how that money would have been better spent on development rather than trying to re-grasp the past

in 2006 i watched GB v NZ in wellington in the tri nations series, can tell you now there was less than a thousand GB fans then! i bet most union fans earn more than us northern league fans so can afford to travel all over and max out numerous credit cards!

Have a gander at the costs associated with going to South Africa in 2021 for say 4 weeks.

It's not about "earnings' with a lot of the union fans, but more about saving for a decade or more. I met 3 couples on their honeymoon's in Australia in 2013...and the fact that you know where and when they'll be playing because it's a 12 year cycle helps!

£10,000 is my estimate for SA21.......AND THAT'S PER HEAD

wage income is a major factor....where else will you get the money to save! cant find which country is hosting 2029 btw!

more importantly....the British Lions union team can draw on fans from all 4 nations.....GB RL wont!

Hmm....2017 NZ, 2021 SA, 2025 AU, 2029 NZ......it's a 4 year cycle. If you think they'll stop touring then you're insane....IT'S A CASH COW and they will milk it for all it's worth

what makes you think i thought they would!? i googled the 2029 union world cup and nothing came up on host nation...didnt mention anything about not touring

Union world cup?
If you googled Union world cup 2029 I'd expect no results...

2019, 2023, 2027, 2031.......lions tour is 2029.


Argentina, Australia and Russia have expressed an interest in hosting 2027. It's a fair bet it wont be a European side that hosts it, as France are getting the 2023 one. 2031 bidding isn't even being considered as yet, but Ireland will be in the mix again I would think.

It’s the not money , it’s the product & the occasion.

I was on the last GB tour of Australia 1992 when around 10,000 British supporters piled into Lang Park , Brisbane for the deciding test match.
I was also in Sydney in 2014 when Wigan took around 2,500 fans over for the World Club Challenge

The real problem here is that GB as a side really don't exist - it's an "English" side with a couple of "token" players thrown in.
IF playing for GB is supposed to be the pinnacle (which it isn't) then is must the side needs to have a reasonable mix of players from each of the 4 nations and sadly, this just cant happen.
Unless we are going to either, plunder Welsh and Scottish RU and convert some players to compete for a GB spot, the whole concept has zero credibility.
While I agree with the op thet ,RL must have a program of International fixtures stretching as far into the future as is reasonable, GB has to be mothballed.

With all efforts now focusing on expanding the game into N.America

, any thoughts of domestic RL spreading around the home nations will move further down the agenda and whilst sides will be cobbled together to make the numbers up for the next RL world cup, the game just isn't big enough to have enough top quality sides.

Yes, the southern hemisphere sided can put together competitive sides through "heritage" rules and there will be some top quality games to see - Tonga being a classic example but, over here, we have a diminishing England side, a poor French side and then "fabricated" sides from Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Again, put together by maximising heritage rules.

I'd prefer to do away with the four separate nations, and just have GB. That means if any player (Regan Grace being the most obvious current example) does develop into potential international standard then they know who they can represent. The Ireland, Scotland and Wales RL teams don't represent those countries in any way. Their players are heritage players, and what few fans they have are generally heritage fans with northern English accents too. If anyone from those countries happen to come across them on TV (or social media) then they aren't going to hear that and relate to that team as their own.

Those teams might make up the numbers at the World Cup, but a smaller number of more competitive countries wouldn't do the tournament any harm. It's not as if Ireland, Scotland or Wales are going to win it. Just end the confusion by sticking with GB and using the rest as development teams playing games against each other (and maybe England Knights and France) only.

Limit them to three heritage players each as I would say that's a happy medium. A team full of development players getting walloped by England Knights wouldn't do them much good, so a couple of Super League players with a Scottish grandparent there to help them out could be beneficial. An entire team of heritage players doesn't develop anyone though.

Although your sentiments are correct, if we do away with the "other" home nations sides, you just about kill any prospect of a RL world cup.
I get what you say about having fewer "proper" sides but, you cant claim to have a "world" cup if there are only half a dozen sides competing and we still come back to the GB side basically being England, under a different name.
I get what you are saying about players like Regan Grace but, would his inclusion (or others of his ilk) really inspire the fans to turn up and watch ? - I dont think so

We should keep England and the home nations for the World Cup, 4 Nations and a European Five Nations but use GB and Ireland Lions for tours.
The argument that Ireland, Scotland and Wales don’t produce the players is circular. They never will have the numbers if eligible players have to opt to play for England for top international experience. But providing an incentive in the form of the Lions gives heritage and home grown players the chance to play for their home nation and still represent GB&I.

We should keep England and the home nations for the World Cup, 4 Nations and a European Five Nations but use GB and Ireland Lions for tours.
The argument that Ireland, Scotland and Wales don’t produce the players is circular. They never will have the numbers if eligible players have to opt to play for England for top international experience. But providing an incentive in the form of the Lions gives heritage and home grown players the chance to play for their home nation and still represent GB&I.

Does Aussie Rules worry about a World Cup? Does Gaelic football? Of course not. If they had one then Australia and Ireland respectively would win them at a canter demolishing a few countries with heritage players who had Australian or Irish accents. Those are the kind of sports rugby league is on a level with. Not rugby union, not cricket and certainly not football. I'm deliberately leaving the big American sports out of it because there is huge money in those sports, but they obviously don't have World Cups either.

I'm not saying RL shouldn't have a World Cup, but the "home nations" just pad it out and make up numbers. That would be fine if the players were from those countries, and the general public there were glued to their tellies hoping for an upset when they play, but that isn't the case. I'd prefer an eight, or even six, team World Cup if need be than an excessive number of pointless teams.

Keeping the home nations as developmental sides and GB+I as the Test side also removes the ridiculous option of a player playing for either Scotland, Wales or Ireland then going on to play for England once they're good enough to make the team, or vice versa once they drop out of England contention. You can naturally play for any of those sides and also play for GB+I at Test level. Obviously far fetched, but if an option ever came about to get RL into the Olympics (personally I would prefer this to a World Cup, but realise many would disagree) them it would have to be part of Team GB anyway. That would remove Ireland admittedly, but off the top of my head there's only Brian Carney who would have been affected in the 25 years I've been watching RL.

Was at all 3 games in that series with my standout match in Melbourne, being the first Ashes Test played in Victoria which attracted a crowd of over 30,000 and it appeared half supported GB. Noise was immense and GB scored a resounding win by 33-10 the highest score GB had made in Aus since the 50's.

Andy Platt won MOM but was ably assisted by Schofield at six. Daryl Powell was at centre and Phil Clarke at lock.

Thought we were on a roll to beat the Aussies at Lang Park and take the series but we couldn't manage it......again!

At last, someone speaking sense.

to go slightly off track, i was working at our satellite office at the time in horsham, and despite the distance from the heartlands we had the Lang Park game on the radio (was a morning kick off over here) and everyone was rooting for GB to win that last test. i was the only northerner.

how times change

Woods is spouting rubbish.
The results would have been the same regardless of the shirt.
What we are called is irrelevant. The blame should fall with the coach and the RFL in general.

Whilst I agree with much of your post in principle, I have to ask how competitive Tonga, Samoa or Fiji would be if the same rules were applied to them?
Tonga had 28 of their 29 2019 Squad born outside of Tonga. If you limited them to just 3 heritage players then Australia would put 50 on them in the 1st half, so the question is, do we want to be seen as relevant on the international stage at any cost, or do we accept that we are a minor sport and do the growth thing organically?

Hows this..... have a international league every 4 years.

GB
Australia
New Zealand
Samoa
Fiji
PNG
France
Tonga
2 smaller sides


1 league table.....play it over 2 seasons... everyone plays each other H and A... kind of treat it like a long champions league.... top 2 play off in a straight up final at the end.... have 2 years off and start it again.

Everyone gets lots of gametime at international level and we get rid of these silly teams.. The smaller nations can still play in the minor nations stuff and possibly qualify.

and i get loads of competitive international RL to go and watch.

Fair point, although I was referring specifically to the four home nations and the GB+I team, rather than the overall tier 1 and tier 2 levels of international RL. I wouldn't be putting Scotland in to be 50-0 down at half time against Australia because under my terms only GB+I from the British Isles would be playing against Australia. The Pacific Islanders are a different scenario.

But are they?
Ireland can claim to have maybe 3,000,000 passport holders in the UK at any time. Many more are entitled to claim said passport on the grandparent rule. My Son, a 5 yr old Kiwi can claim an Irish passport, not just because I hold one, but because his Grandfather was born in Ireland. He can also claim and English one, because his grandfather as born in Ireland when it was still part of the UK.
In 2011, 2,000,000 okers referred to themselves as having Irish heritage.
Between the UK and Australia, Ireland, if they were to go down the Jack Charlton route, could be as powerful as any of the Pacific Islands.

The question is, does having a team of heritage players = development of the game, or is it just drilling down into the development already done in NSW/Qland/Auckland and the M62?

GB as a brand was dead and should remain so. It was an ill though out tour that was never going to work and the fact that AU are touring next year to play England underlines this. As does the proposed AU v Toronto farce......if AU want to develop the game, then playing a bunch of mercenaries isn't the way....bringing a 2nd string side to Europe and playing Ireland, Wales, Scotland, England Knights and France midweek does!

If the RFL are serious about the branding of the game and national pride, why not invest a fraction of the money they lost from this tour in paying production costs for the games I suggested to be televised on a FTA chanel? Wednesday night, C5, 7pm KO. Wales v Australia development side......surely it wouldn't rate any worse than an episode of countdown!

Yes, because I was referring specifically to our own Test team, and how I personally believe they would be best represented. Essentially that I favour GB+I rather than England, and how I believe the four separate home nations should operate below Test level. I wasn't talking about the whole of international rugby league and eligibility rules!

The only other sport that feels the need to tour as GB is Union. They do so as an "extra" channel to their being. Are you saying that League should treat Scotland, Ireland, Wales and England as 4 feeder countries to 1 Test side, but Tonga, Samoa and Fiji should be allowed test status?
I have to say that's a very odd stance.
GB, NZ, Australia, PNG & France are the only nations that do not rely on heritage teams. We either accept this, or we embrace heritage teams and "pretend' to have an International Game. Which is it, because there is no middle ground!

The Pacific Islands aren't the same as the UK in terms of being four countries in one. In fact I'm not certain, but I don't think anywhere else in the world is like that!

As a country we're in quite a unique position. All Olympic sports compete under the "Team GB" banner, boxers, motorsport drivers, etc are all stated as "British", so it's not just rugby union that uses it. Even the Ryder Cup team was originally GB+I before becoming Europe I think. The cricket team is England and Wales. If RL was played professionally in all four home nations then it would be worth competing separately. It isn't though, so yes, I think each should operate separately as a development side with only one, GB+I, Test side.

Again, I'm only talking about the British Isles teams, not the whole of rugby league, so Tonga and the rest have nothing to do with this.