Re: 6 Nations : Sun Apr 23, 2017 3:59 pm  

Dear Dave,
Part Two, l am nearly 70, so much too old to know everything, but l do know slack arsed journelism when l see it,
Just two more things Dave, Why do you think l am a moron?, and why do you feel the need to tell the whole world?.
Over to you Dave.

Re: 6 Nations : Sun Apr 23, 2017 5:11 pm  

cravenpark1 wrote:

I can see what you mean but we have got to try something when the union lot first tried it it must have taken a wile to get going so lets try something

When did the union lot set up a 6 Nations at the same time as a Lions Tour involving second string sides?

People wonder why international rugby league isn't growing? Look at the structure being put forward for the reasons why!

Re: 6 Nations : Mon Apr 24, 2017 10:29 am  

Wellsy13 wrote:

Couldn't think of a worse thing to bring back than what us effectively (for most teams involved) a second string 6N dressed up as a first team competition and regularly won (by a large margin) by a complete second team.

Awful awful idea. The home nations should not be playing at the same time as Great Britain unless it is clearly labelled a second team, in which case it would be a very low-key comp anyway.
England Knights shouldn't be playing first teams either. Damages that nation's credibility and that of international rugby league.

Where is anyone saying a second string competition? GB should play Australia, NZ, France. Playing in the six nations apart from the French & Italian players would be the criteria for selection to GB, only GB should tour down under. The whole idea though should be run as the union clubs are, in that they have to release players when asked & International duty takes precedence over super league. That is were the trouble starts getting todays fans to buy into, attend & pay decent ticket prices for International series.

Re: 6 Nations : Mon Apr 24, 2017 10:54 am  

Mr Hicks wrote:

Just a thought that if we did go back to GB we could start attracting top union players like the days of Davies, Devroux, Moriarty , Quinnell etc.
Would these guys have switched codes if there only option was a second string Welsh team to play for.
Every player wants to play on the biggest stages but until international rugby league gets recognised on the world sports circuit it will fail to attract new faces to the sport.
Also with reference to another thread on here regards the next international been streamed on the Internet with a cost of £3.50. Yes the die hards will pay for it but I can't see one neutral seeing the game.
If our leaders were in charge of plc company's they would have been sacked years ago because all they are is plodders and not even very good plodders at that.

The players that you mention all came to RL for the money, not to play International RL
The cash offered by RL, at the time, was significantly more than they could make in Union. Plus, the challenge of "proving" themselves in the other code.

Totally agree with your comments on the streaming of the game though.
IF we want to get our sport in front of the masses, it has to be on "free" TV.

Even SL, which may get a few hundred thousand viewers on Sky, is dwarfed by audiences on the BBC (when games are shown).

Re: 6 Nations : Mon Apr 24, 2017 9:18 pm  

Beverley red wrote:

Where is anyone saying a second string competition?

Did you not read the original post?

GB should play Australia, NZ, France. Playing in the six nations apart from the French & Italian players would be the criteria for selection to GB, only GB should tour down under. The whole idea though should be run as the union clubs are, in that they have to release players when asked & International duty takes precedence over super league.

That would be great, but not practical.

You forget that in order to fill 6 international teams, you need at least 108 players. Unlike union, Europe only has one professional league to choose players from. They have three. Clubs are not going to release 8-10 players each to fill these teams. You'd need free weekends, and there just isn't enough of them currently.

Until we build our player pool and the number of professional clubs we have, it will not be possible to have a big international scene.

Re: 6 Nations : Tue Apr 25, 2017 9:47 am  

Wellsy13 wrote:

Did you not read the original post?


That would be great, but not practical.

You forget that in order to fill 6 international teams, you need at least 108 players. Unlike union, Europe only has one professional league to choose players from. They have three. Clubs are not going to release 8-10 players each to fill these teams. You'd need free weekends, and there just isn't enough of them currently.

Until we build our player pool and the number of professional clubs we have, it will not be possible to have a big international scene.

TRUE lets make super league Bigger lets have if possible 16 teams like OZ and still have R and P 1 up 1 down

Re: 6 Nations : Tue Apr 25, 2017 11:04 am  

Wellsy13 wrote:

Did you not read the original post?


That would be great, but not practical.

You forget that in order to fill 6 international teams, you need at least 108 players. Unlike union, Europe only has one professional league to choose players from. They have three. Clubs are not going to release 8-10 players each to fill these teams. You'd need free weekends, and there just isn't enough of them currently.

Until we build our player pool and the number of professional clubs we have, it will not be possible to have a big international scene.

Yes I did read the original post, He & everyone else is assuming that it would be England knights, I brought up reverting to GB which would stop that. The rest of your points are valid but unless there is a rapid growth in the international game our great sport will remain a Northern curiosity & probably die off in the UK. I am not saying its easy but we have to try & save our great game & get more players at all levels in as many countries as possible.

Re: 6 Nations : Tue Apr 25, 2017 11:57 am  

wrencat1873 wrote:

Totally agree with your comments on the streaming of the game though.
IF we want to get our sport in front of the masses, it has to be on "free" TV.

Even SL, which may get a few hundred thousand viewers on Sky, is dwarfed by audiences on the BBC (when games are shown).

Last week Wigan U19s versus Leeds U19s was streamed live on social media and was seen/ accessed by about 40 000 people (According to the media). That is better than Sky and BT got/get for some RU matches. " If you build it they will come."

Re: 6 Nations : Tue Apr 25, 2017 12:42 pm  

Wellsy13 wrote:

Did you not read the original post?


That would be great, but not practical.

You forget that in order to fill 6 international teams, you need at least 108 players. Unlike union, Europe only has one professional league to choose players from. They have three. Clubs are not going to release 8-10 players each to fill these teams. You'd need free weekends, and there just isn't enough of them currently.

Until we build our player pool and the number of professional clubs we have, it will not be possible to have a big international scene.

I think you've made a very good point here with the lack of space in the calendar. Any potential tournament will probably have to see either a mid season club break brought in, or some rejigging with the fixtures/league structure.

Also, if they half booty it, they'll kill the competition before it starts. You have to put a full strength England side in otherwise the tournament will be treated with contempt by others (TV, media, fans), thus making sure it doesn't grow. The problem you then have is that a full strength England side should beat most of the others convincingly. Although with a tournament like this you need to look at it in the long term and not worry about some of the results in the short. I think France took a hiding initially in the 6 nations, as well as Italy before improving a little. France obvs improved a lot.

It would be nice to see the tournament go ahead, I'd personally like to see the game expand internationally, and think this could play a key role. I think they also have to maybe look at the 6 Nations and see where it goes wrong, one thing being that it's a closed shop. A full England side is a must as they bring the media attention to the competition and give it some profile (to a degree). Thinking further, if we're genuinely serious about expansion within Canada and the USA, then the competition needs to go there too making it a northern hemisphere tournament.

If we could muster 3/4 free weeks in the calendar then for me, the best way would be to put the teams in smaller pools of as close a quality as possible, and as the crowds are unlikely to be large, play them as a magic weekend style event over those 3 weeks. So for example (based on current rankings):
Pool A
England
Scotland
France
Ireland

Pool B
Wales
USA
Serbia
Canada

Pool C
Italy
Jamaica
Russia
Spain/Holland/Belgium - wherever there is a possible expansion opportunity.

So over the weekend you'd get 6 games over 2 days at a decent stadium - you could play safe and have this at a Newcastle/Coventry/Old Trafford and use the money to put into expanding the game in other areas, or you could mix it and take it to Florida/Toronto/South of France etc to hopefully gain traction and a foothold.

Anyway, the feasibility is probably sketchy at best. Although if we were to bring this in and include possible promotion/relegation from Pools, you could maybe see a few of those countries locked out of the 6 Nations suddenly starting to think about RFL.

Re: 6 Nations : Tue Apr 25, 2017 1:25 pm  

cravenpark1 wrote:

TRUE lets make super league Bigger lets have if possible 16 teams like OZ and still have R and P 1 up 1 down

The standard would be absolutely dreadful. Imagine the current player pool but spread across more teams. Horrendous.