Going out on a limb: is this achievable for Rugby League?

[Misty Bee]

Is this a pipe dream, or is it within our grasp?

THE PROBLEM
To make Rugby League a truly global sport

THE ISSUES
League very strong on east coast of Australia, North Island of New Zealand, and the north of England

League sufferes for lack of international competition.

A huge gulf exists between the 3 strongest countries and the rest.

Only within the respective competitions are teams level. 1997 Super League WCC supports this view.

RLWC suffers for these inbalances. As a result, Australian attitudes are apathetic to international competition

Rugby Union is being seen increasingly as a better career path for players, due to combination of Super 12/Tri nations or Heineken Cup/6 Nations

The representative scene is the only area that Union outdoes League. However, this creates an aura that Union is far bigger than League.

Union has thrived under astute leadershipin the Southern hemisphere, and the Murdoch input.

Rugby Leauge is struggling top provide resources to foster competitions in NE USA, Russia, Europe and North Africa

The NRL is the biggest Rugby comp worldwide

State of Origin is the biggest provincial Rugby competition worldwide (in terms of TV audience and average crowds)

MY PROPOSED SOLUTION

For a while now I have believed that Rugby League internationally would best be served not by an international world cup,but an interprovincial one. To describe it in a nutshell, a competition made up of the Rugby LEague nations, as per aWorld Cup scenario, without Australia, New Zealand or GB, but instead with sides representing NSW, Queensland, Southern Australia, Australian Aboriginals, 2 New Zealand Sides, and 4 GB sides (Wales, Scotland, North England, London).

Such a world cup could be played annually,on a knock out basis, for instance, before the NRL and ESL seasons kicked off.

Despite the many benefits of such a plan, problems would inevitably arise from the rich clubs pressuring players to save them selvesfor the clubs services. This has marred international scheduling for years, and continues to do so. Even the massive cash cow and promotional bonanza that is State of Origin
yields often to this pressure.

Australia's expansion is hamstrung by the powerof the Sydney clubs that are grouped together,admittedly inthe codes stronghold, within a 50km radius. much of this is because of Poker Machine money feeding the big budgets of clubs that have acted as a magent for the best talent worldwide. Proposed increases in NSW Poker machine taxes may syphon much of this finance away from the code, meaning a greater reliance onwhat other sports rely, and thrive on: Match attendences, sponsorship, and TV rights.

Many people in Sydney lament the decline of the old Club competition, and teams such as Newtown and North Sydney are totally off the map, while Balmain, Wests and to a lesser extent St George have traded their long established identity forsurvival.

British fans lament the attitude of Australia,who areloath to accommodate them (or anyone, really). britain thrioves on international football, and any chance tocompete with other forces. A constant idealis tosee how their players, or clubs,go in competition with Australian counteparts. Sadly for them the opportunities are few and far between. A recent trend is for Australian players to sit out of Kangaroo tours so they can attend to minor injuries before the next domestic season.

THE PLAN.

Suppose we create a global competition, loosely based on teams representing each major spot on the League map. Basically, a provincial world cup, but where teams operate under a draft system and salary cap. Each province would be free to trade, as per club competitions. The benefit of this would be to even out the standard of players between the sides. Players would be drawn from the strongholds, and provided with a genuine carer path withing the code,asaplayer, and then possibly beyond. Espablishing a career path format would naturally attract other Athletes at the 15-18yo level, and provide a choice for players from other codes who may not necessarily gain employment in their preferred code. (The obvious inference here is Union, but I think just as much, if not more, opportunity lies within the US college system and American Football juniors)

CRITERIA
Basically, the ability to be competetive with largely your own resources. Some areas would need assistance for the first decade. The potential to develop a large following, and player resources, would be crucial.

A Crowd target of 20 000 average would have to be sought as well.

Such a competition, upon inception, could look like this:

NEW SOUTH WALES(Stadium Australia/Aussie Stadium)
QUEENSLAND (Suncorp/Dairy Farmers)
SOUTHERN AUSTRALIA (Colonial/Adelaide Oval/WACA)
NORTH ISLAND (Erricson/Eden Park)
SOUTH ISLAND (Lancaster Park)
PASIFICA(Suva/Mt Hagen/Apia/Honiara)
FRANCE (Stade De Paris)
LONDON (Wembly - or other suitable venue)
NORTH ENGLAND (Manchester/Bradford/Leeds)
WALES (Millennium)

Added at a later date,within say a 5 year period:

IRELAND (Dublin)
MOSCOW
ROSTOV-ON-DON
NEW YORK
PHILADELPHIA
SERBIA (Belgrade)

Other possible locations:
CHICAGO
MONTREAL
JOHANNESBURG
CAPETOWN
LYON
RIVIERA (Marseilles)
MIDDLE EAST (Beirut)


FINANCE

To be paid along the lines of US NFL.IE a salary cap based ona percentage of the comptitoin's revinue (say 60% of total revinue divided by number of teams. Example, if total revinue is $250 million, the salary capfor a 16 team comp would be $9.375million. For a squadof 25 players, that averages to $375 000. So, if Joey Johns is on $600 000 from the Knight's $3.25million cap, he would be able to earn about $1.7 million. I'm sure he would move to New York to earn that. I'm also sure a flood of players would comeover from French RU for that as well. That money would drag players from Union, NFL and other persuits, not to mention the off field staff (coaches, trainers, physios, doctors, marketers etc).

Sponsorship would be potentially huge.The would be no other comp in the world, not even UEFA, that would reach a bigger geographical area outside of a world cup.

The potential audience would be huge as well.

I'd like comments on this if you please.

 

[Jeffles]

Absolutely hate it.

It will only enforce the image of RL as a provincial sport.

This idea divides countries, the pinnacle of international competition. In some cases, it creates artificial entities (the Rest of Oz) from which any sense of tradition or tribalism could never be drawn.

Your plan has done little to expand RL. It merely takes the existing strongholds and chops them up to get numbers.

The formula of representing your country should always draw bigger numbers than only having provinces because the banner of "nation" encompasses more peple and passion than "province". State of Origin is an exception because of the TV event it has become.

 

[bender]

I would like to see a Provincial World Championship complement the world cup. Maybe call it something like the State of Origin Challenge. It would give sides from outside Australia access to the big dollars that the state of origin sides can pull and also extends the Origin competition. I would play it every 4 years in between world cups.

A provincial comp might look something like this:

Qld, NSW, NZ nth, NZ Sth, Pacific Islands, Great Britain, Europe(France, Italy, Serbia, Russia, Greece, World(Lebanon, South Africa, West Indies, USA, Australia non NSW & Qld). This would give 8 competive sides.

In Queensland, the origin side will always draw 40,000 people and get enormous media coverage. The interest in the origin in New Zealand would mean that the kiwis could get right into the tournament as well since they would love nothing better than to beat an origin side. I believe this would ensure the success of the series financially. With England also capable of getting reasonable interest in such a tournament.

With regards to the smaller nations, this gives some of their players the chance to play in a high quality pressure atmosphere which they would not otherwise get. State of origin has shown repeatedly how this can improve players and the smaller nations would get the benefit of this. They would also presumably reap a windfall from the tournament which would be beneficial to grass roots development.

 

[ibeme]

I don't mind the concept at all, but it shouldn't replace international football.

 

[Misty Bee]

I don't mind the concept at all, but it shouldn't replace international football.

Totally agree. Nor should it replace any other comps, eg NRL/ESL

Bender, I love your idea. The conglomerate teams for the Pacific, Europe and others is a great idea.

One question - what's wrong with holding the comp annually?

 

[Misty Bee]

Bender, I love your idea, but why couldn't it be played annually?

 

[ripper]

Sth Island is a no no...

I heard this idea on the Warriors board and it would suit perfectly in my opinion.

Have 1 NZ team as NZ players who play in the Warriors/Are Regular Internationals and the other as NZ players who play for other NRL teams, ESL e.c.t

 

[JVinAZ]

I too, have thought along these lines.

My vision is a single nation, or region, based 16 team tournament comprised of - QLD, NSW, Aussie Aboriginal, NZ, NZ Maori, South Pacific Islands, Yorkshire, Lancashire, Wales Scotland, Ireland, Lebanon, Russia, France, USA, South Africa, etc.

On the positive side, such a tournament would likely -
1. Be more competitive than the RLWC.
2. Include a greater percentage of the world's top players than the RLWC.
3. Attract a greater live an TV audience than the RLWC.
4. Include lesser and emerging RL nations in the "international" game in a situation that increases the possibility of success and lessening the possibility of embarassment.

On the the negative side, such a tournament would:
1. Possibly over shadow real international RL in general and the the RLWC in particular.
2. Further re-enforce the idea that RL is not really an international game.
3. In spite of the likely greater attention in RL core locations, attract lesser attention and sponsorship money from the world as a whole, given that this is not a "real" world championship.

I like this type of tournament, and hope that it could alternate with the the RLWC as a showcase competion every 2 years. HOWEVER, as long as the RLWC remains an on-again, off-again proposition, the RLWC must remain as the top priority as the top priority for the development of the sport. Also I don't see the RLIF and i's members being able to afford, or attract enough sponsorship, to hold a major event every 2 years anywhere in the near future.

 

[Alan Shore]

Good thinking, but IMO a RLWC is still better and more beneficial. We can easily advertise as being the 'real' Rugby World Cup because the RFL own the trademark and we can boast that the scorelines will be alot closer (142-0 is easy to for us to better)

Even in RLWC2000, the biggest blowout was 110-4 in Australia v Russia. Russia wasn't even fully setup back then, but the Bears said it was an awesome experience to lay the Roos. RLWC 2008/9 is the answer! I still think 2009 is better than 2008.

 

[griff]

Good thinking, but IMO a RLWC is still better and more beneficial. We can easily advertise as being the 'real' Rugby World Cup because the RFL own the trademark and we can boast that the scorelines will be alot closer (142-0 is easy to for us to better)

Even in RLWC2000, the biggest blowout was 110-4 in Australia v Russia. Russia wasn't even fully setup back then, but the Bears said it was an awesome experience to lay the Roos. RLWC 2008/9 is the answer! I still think 2009 is better than 2008.

We had a discussion about the Rugby World Cup trademark before Christmas, and the RFL doesn't own it.

You can do a search on http://www.patent.gov.uk/tm/dbase/index.htm and "rugby world cup" was registered in 1987 by Rugby World Cup Ltd, a subsidiary of the IRB. If in 1987 they had challenged the registration during the time allowed, I think the RFL would have probably won - but 16 years later you can't jump up and down about something which you have been letting them get away with all this time.

On the main topic about this artificial provincial comp - I could go through point by point, but it's never going to happen, would not be economically viable, and would serve no real purpose.

Existing competitions, with realistically achievable incremental changes are the best way to move Rugby League forward internationally.

There is this tendency to have these ridiculous grand plans for international Rugby League to get back to where it should be. But really all it will take is to get back to regular international competition, with a World Cup, Kangaroo Tour, Lions Tour and Kiwi Tour every 4 years.

I agree with you that 2009 is a much better year for a World Cup. Not only will it not be in the shadow of the Olympics and thus have more Govt funding and sponsorship available, it will free up 2008 for the once in a lifetime opportunity for a Centenary Kangaroo Tour - with the opening test at the New Wembley. Ahh but of course this all makes much too much sense for international RL to take it up.

 

[Misty Bee]

The problem with the kangaroo/Lions tour and RLWC ideais that Austtrali aflogs everyone,and crowds donot grow. .Apart from Origin,when was the last time 40 000 watched a rep game in Australia?

 

[JK]

When was the last time they were promoted and given every chance to succeed?

 

[bender]

We had a discussion about the Rugby World Cup trademark before Christmas, and the RFL doesn't own it.

You can do a search on http://www.patent.gov.uk/tm/dbase/index.htm and "rugby world cup" was registered in 1987 by Rugby World Cup Ltd, a subsidiary of the IRB. If in 1987 they had challenged the registration during the time allowed, I think the RFL would have probably won - but 16 years later you can't jump up and down about something which you have been letting them get away with all this time.

without commenting either way on this topic, registration of a patent does not equate to ownership of the patent.

On the main topic about this artificial provincial comp - I could go through point by point, but it's never going to happen, would not be economically viable, and would serve no real purpose.

This is possibly the most ridiculous notion ever. If the comp allowed for one Qld vs NSW clash in the group stage - it would make enough money to make the tournament self funding and profitable. Throw in the NZ teams, and the likelihood that Qld and NSW sides would draw good crowds no matter who they played (particularly in Townsville or Newcastle) and the tournament is a guaranteed financial success. Whether it is desirable in terms of what it does for the game, increased games for top players etc is the only real question to be discussed.

Existing competitions, with realistically achievable incremental changes are the best way to move Rugby League forward internationally.

There is this tendency to have these ridiculous grand plans for international Rugby League to get back to where it should be. But really all it will take is to get back to regular international competition, with a World Cup, Kangaroo Tour, Lions Tour and Kiwi Tour every 4 years.

I dont disagree with this, although we also need to work on 5 nations, Victory Cup, Pacific Cup etc. Still, do not forget that Provincial games are a big part of history. NZ vs Qld or Eng v Qld games etc were always huge games and the game is poorer for getting rid of these types of games. A formal provincial world championship is not as big a departure from tradition as it seems.

I agree with you that 2009 is a much better year for a World Cup. Not only will it not be in the shadow of the Olympics and thus have more Govt funding and sponsorship available, it will free up 2008 for the once in a lifetime opportunity for a Centenary Kangaroo Tour - with the opening test at the New Wembley. Ahh but of course this all makes much too much sense for international RL to take it up.

I think the whole Olympics thing is overrated. They are a totally different sport and should have no effect on the RL world cup whatsoever, provided the dates dont physically clash. They certainly dont overshadow Soccer's European Cup do they? I am fairly certain that that is played in the Olympic year.

 

[Stevo_G]

u cant just have one northern team and a london team playin out of wembley

also qld nsw at a world cup would add no credibility but some good ideas

 

[bender]

u cant just have one northern team and a london team playin out of wembley

also qld nsw at a world cup would add no credibility but some good ideas

It isnt a World Cup, it is a totally separate competition which is run every 4th year to complement the World Cup.

 

[griff]

We had a discussion about the Rugby World Cup trademark before Christmas, and the RFL doesn't own it.

You can do a search on http://www.patent.gov.uk/tm/dbase/index.htm and "rugby world cup" was registered in 1987 by Rugby World Cup Ltd, a subsidiary of the IRB. If in 1987 they had challenged the registration during the time allowed, I think the RFL would have probably won - but 16 years later you can't jump up and down about something which you have been letting them get away with all this time.

without commenting either way on this topic, registration of a patent does not equate to ownership of the patent.

It's a trademark not a patent, but correct, you can own a trademark without it being registered, however registration of a trademark gives ownership of that mark. Without getting into an argument about trademark law, the RFL really don't have much of a case - they could have complained 16-17 years ago during the objection period to the registration of the trademark and have said nothing all this time.

On the main topic about this artificial provincial comp - I could go through point by point, but it's never going to happen, would not be economically viable, and would serve no real purpose.

This is possibly the most ridiculous notion ever. If the comp allowed for one Qld vs NSW clash in the group stage - it would make enough money to make the tournament self funding and profitable. Throw in the NZ teams, and the likelihood that Qld and NSW sides would draw good crowds no matter who they played (particularly in Townsville or Newcastle) and the tournament is a guaranteed financial success. Whether it is desirable in terms of what it does for the game, increased games for top players etc is the only real question to be discussed.

You are calling for a global provincial competition with artificial sides in addition to existing club and international competition, and you are claiming my post is the most ridiculous notion ever?

This comp is clearly never going to happen, so I assume you are talking about where I said it wouldn't be economically viable.

NSW v Qld would go OK, but they already play 3 times a year. If you want to replace that with a provincial comp where they only play once, you are missing out an a heap of revenue.

South Island, Rest of the World, London and Southern Australia would be lucky to get 10,000 to their matches. NSW and Queensland would be subsidising these teams being in the competition, when it would make much more sense for NSW and Queensland just to play each other as they currently do - more revenue, less costs.

It costs a hell of a lot of money to fly football teams around the world, put them up in hotels, hire out stadiums etc. Flying "Southern Australia" to Paris to play France for a match that would get maybe 4-5,000 people is just ridiculous.

In 1997, a star-studded Super League NSW played a full-strength NZ side in the Tri-Series, and got a crowd that was posted as 13,000, but would have been under 10,000. What would the crowd be if they were playing only a half-strength NZ side like North Island?

The reason that people wouldn't care about artificial tournaments like this is because there is no tradition and nothing meaningful to play for. Do I passionately want NSW to beat Qld? Certainly. Would I care if NSW beat South Island? Couldn't give a rats.

I don't see where the money is going to come from to make this viable. TV and sponsors aren't going to put up any money for a competition with no track record and questionable support.

It does nothing for the game globally. On the contrary, it puts the game backwards. What happens when NSW thrash the 'Rest of the World'? What sort of message does this send?

You say that your version of the idea wouldn't replace the World Cup, but it would devalue the World Cup to such an extent as to make it pointless.

Existing competitions, with realistically achievable incremental changes are the best way to move Rugby League forward internationally.

There is this tendency to have these ridiculous grand plans for international Rugby League to get back to where it should be. But really all it will take is to get back to regular international competition, with a World Cup, Kangaroo Tour, Lions Tour and Kiwi Tour every 4 years.

I dont disagree with this, although we also need to work on 5 nations, Victory Cup, Pacific Cup etc. Still, do not forget that Provincial games are a big part of history. NZ vs Qld or Eng v Qld games etc were always huge games and the game is poorer for getting rid of these types of games. A formal provincial world championship is not as big a departure from tradition as it seems.

I agree the European Cup and other smaller comps are vital, but the big 3 tours and the World Cup would provide the framework for the international game in the medium term. Other tours and other comps would sort of slot in a more coherent way if there was more of a structure to the international game.

Provincial games are only really a part of history in terms of being warm up matches on tours, they were always a lead-up to the international game, not a replacement for it. The game is poorer for not having these games, but that is a symptom of not having proper tours. These are nation v province matches, not English province v Australian 'province'.

If there is a choice between a Kangaroo Tour or a global provincial tournament, I know the vast majority of RL fans would prefer a Kangaroo Tour.

I agree with you that 2009 is a much better year for a World Cup. Not only will it not be in the shadow of the Olympics and thus have more Govt funding and sponsorship available, it will free up 2008 for the once in a lifetime opportunity for a Centenary Kangaroo Tour - with the opening test at the New Wembley. Ahh but of course this all makes much too much sense for international RL to take it up.

I think the whole Olympics thing is overrated. They are a totally different sport and should have no effect on the RL world cup whatsoever, provided the dates dont physically clash. They certainly dont overshadow Soccer's European Cup do they? I am fairly certain that that is played in the Olympic year.

The Olympics (and the RUWC, Cricket WC, etc) have a big influence on that year for international RL comps. Potential advertisers and sponsors have a limited budget and will look at what they can spend their scarce resources on. If the Olympics are a month before the RLWC, it is likely that some or all of their funding will go to that. Also viewers, after watching wall to wall sport for 16 days, are not as likely to be as interested in another international sporting event like the RLWC.

Further, availability of Government funding is reduced. Small countries would spend a large amount of their sports budget on sending their team to the Olympics, and they are not going to have the money to spend just after it on getting a team ready for the RLWC.

As you quite correctly point out, the European Championships are another big event on in that year, but this just makes more reason not to try and have yet another event that same year.

The shadow the Olympics cast over the RLWC will not be as big in 2008 as in 2000, because they are not being held in an RL nation, but they will have an effect.

There is no compelling reason why the RLWC has to be in 2008, so even if the Olympics would only have a very small negative influence, it would be better to have it in 2009 where the only real competition is the World Athletics Championships. On the contrary, 2008 has a very good reason not to have a RLWC - it is a much better year to have a Kangaroo Tour to capitalise on the Centenary of the First Kangaroos.

 

[griff]

The problem with the kangaroo/Lions tour and RLWC ideais that Austtrali aflogs everyone,and crowds donot grow. .Apart from Origin,when was the last time 40 000 watched a rep game in Australia?

The last time 40,000 watched an international in Australia was during the last Lions Tour. There hasn't been an international to top this since - because instead of tours GB and NZ have only played one-off tests that are uncompetitive due to lack of lead-up matches and that no-one cares about due to lack of tradition.

Tours provide the closest, most compelling matches and Australia doesn't flog everyone at all.

The last Lions Tour was a close 2-1 win to Australia, with an aggregate series scoreline of 49-48 to GB. Thousands of Lions fans came out to follow the side around Australia. This tour also provided 3 of the highest rating programs in Sydney and Brisbane TV history.

The last Kangaroo Tour was 3 of the closest games in recent memory. GB could and probably should have won all 3 of them. Before that, the last three tours were all 2-1 victories with some very close games.

Tours have been proven to bring in better crowds and provide closer matches.

 

[Jeffles]

And the other thing about tours is that the nation is in the country for a while before the Tests. This puts them in the spotlight and gives promotion to the Tests.

Bring back tours.

I like the idea of reintroducing tour matches against States. Eg. NSW v GB at Newcastle

 

[bender]

It's a trademark not a patent, but correct, you can own a trademark without it being registered, however registration of a trademark gives ownership of that mark. Without getting into an argument about trademark law, the RFL really don't have much of a case - they could have complained 16-17 years ago during the objection period to the registration of the trademark and have said nothing all this time.

Agree about not getting into a trademark law debate. Just pointing out that if the matter did go to court, no-one could tell you won way or the other who would win and things are not as clear cut as you (or those against you) seem to think. I couldnt care less one way or the other.

You are calling for a global provincial competition with artificial sides in addition to existing club and international competition, and you are claiming my post is the most ridiculous notion ever?

Okay, Name the Artificial side.

Queensland? No
NSW? No
Great Britain? No
Pacific Islands? Arguably, but it works in the West Indies and they have played under the oceania banner before in the first World 7s.
Rest of The World? No - Have played rugby league for many years including games against Australia.
NZ North Island - No - Okay, the rivalry isnt what it used to be from what i have heard but with an NZ origin series played to coincide with ours, their teams would become huge.
NZ South - See above.
Europe - Okay, it is a little artificial.
NZ South Island

This comp is clearly never going to happen, so I assume you are talking about where I said it wouldn't be economically viable.

Agreed. Although, you should note that Artie beetson called for this competition when he was captain of Australia, back in the sixties. You should also note that it isnt that long ago that people said that the state of origin was artificial and would never last. They were wrong.

NSW v Qld would go OK, but they already play 3 times a year. If you want to replace that with a provincial comp where they only play once, you are missing out an a heap of revenue.

[\quote]

No, why would you touch state of origin? The provincial comp would be at the end of the season, after the origin. yes, it would be a 4th or even 5th (depending on the draw) meeting for the year, but as a Qlder, most of us would do anything to revenge a series loss, I would assume that NSW are the same. Qld v NSW would be huge.

South Island, Rest of the World, London and Southern Australia would be lucky to get 10,000 to their matches. NSW and Queensland would be subsidising these teams being in the competition, when it would make much more sense for NSW and Queensland just to play each other as they currently do - more revenue, less costs.

Yes, I agree that NSW vs Qld would largely subsidise this tournament, i was just pointing out that the money made from this game, would be enough to make the tournament economically viable (which is why your original post was so ridiculous) How proifitable it becomes is another story. 10,000 crowds are not exactly something to be ignored. That is roughly what most NRL teams average in a poor year. If you get that many to attend every game, the competition would be a resounding success. I dont think that many would watch Rest of World vs Europe. But they would watch most of the other games.

It costs a hell of a lot of money to fly football teams around the world, put them up in hotels, hire out stadiums etc. Flying "Southern Australia" to Paris to play France for a match that would get maybe 4-5,000 people is just ridiculous.

Well it isnt as expensive as you probably think, but i agree with you, you would need to choose venues carefully so that travel costs are minimised. And games are chosen at venues where it is most likely to draw a profit.

In 1997, a star-studded Super League NSW played a full-strength NZ side in the Tri-Series, and got a crowd that was posted as 13,000, but would have been under 10,000. What would the crowd be if they were playing only a half-strength NZ side like North Island?

Wasnt that a half strengh NSW side? At the height of the super league war when the game was torn in half. It is a bit of a long bow to use that as a comparison.

The reason that people wouldn't care about artificial tournaments like this is because there is no tradition and nothing meaningful to play for. Do I passionately want NSW to beat Qld? Certainly. Would I care if NSW beat South Island? Couldn't give a rats.

[\quote]

You can say you couldnt give a rats all you like, but see how much of a rats you give when the Qlders win and start rubbing it in. Or the Poms. Most of us have forgotten just how bad it is when they start winning. Actually, Kiwis are no better. I agree it will take time, but many of these teams are traditional and a rivalry and prestige can be built up quite quickly.

I don't see where the money is going to come from to make this viable. TV and sponsors aren't going to put up any money for a competition with no track record and questionable support. [\quote]

Actually, I think TV and sponsors would fall over themselves to associate themselves with NSW, Qld and Great Britain in such a tournament. I dont think it is unrealistic at all.

It does nothing for the game globally. On the contrary, it puts the game backwards. What happens when NSW thrash the 'Rest of the World'? What sort of message does this send? You say that your version of the idea wouldn't replace the World Cup, but it would devalue the World Cup to such an extent as to make it pointless.

It does two things. 1 it raises funds which can be used for grass roots global development. 2. It exposes players from some fringe places eg France to a higher level of competition which improves them as players as a result. This is the only way to improve. Look what a difference an origin appearance usually makes to a player. It also helps expose New Zealand and England to top level competition. And Lets face it, in reality, those three countries becoming competive rivals again are still the key to international rugby league. Why would NSW thrashing Rest of the world (Lebanon, West INdies, South Africa etc) devalue the world cup. Do you actually think anyone out there believes that South Africal or Lebanon have what it takes to beat the Aussies at the moment?

Existing competitions, with realistically achievable incremental changes are the best way to move Rugby League forward internationally.

There is this tendency to have these ridiculous grand plans for international Rugby League to get back to where it should be. But really all it will take is to get back to regular international competition, with a World Cup, Kangaroo Tour, Lions Tour and Kiwi Tour every 4 years.

As stated before, I don't disagree with tours at , but the problem with tours is that all of the profits are shared and used for and by the top 3 nations. It does not exactly help France, Lebanon etc. But yes they are important.

I agree the European Cup and other smaller comps are vital, but the big 3 tours and the World Cup would provide the framework for the international game in the medium term. Other tours and other comps would sort of slot in a more coherent way if there was more of a structure to the international game.

Provincial games are only really a part of history in terms of being warm up matches on tours, they were always a lead-up to the international game, not a replacement for it. The game is poorer for not having these games, but that is a symptom of not having proper tours. These are nation v province matches, not English province v Australian 'province'.

If there is a choice between a Kangaroo Tour or a global provincial tournament, I know the vast majority of RL fans would prefer a Kangaroo Tour.

If it was a choice, then yes i do agree. But it doesnt have to be either or.

I agree with you that 2009 is a much better year for a World Cup. Not only will it not be in the shadow of the Olympics and thus have more Govt funding and sponsorship available, it will free up 2008 for the once in a lifetime opportunity for a Centenary Kangaroo Tour - with the opening test at the New Wembley. Ahh but of course this all makes much too much sense for international RL to take it up.

The Olympics (and the RUWC, Cricket WC, etc) have a big influence on that year for international RL comps. Potential advertisers and sponsors have a limited budget and will look at what they can spend their scarce resources on. If the Olympics are a month before the RLWC, it is likely that some or all of their funding will go to that. Also viewers, after watching wall to wall sport for 16 days, are not as likely to be as interested in another international sporting event like the RLWC.

Further, availability of Government funding is reduced. Small countries would spend a large amount of their sports budget on sending their team to the Olympics, and they are not going to have the money to spend just after it on getting a team ready for the RLWC.

Sorry, but Lebanon, France, Italy, Greece, etc governments arent going to dish out money willy nilly to send a team to the rugby league world cup. I doubt theyd do it even to the union world cup (or soccer for that matter). If they do help, it would be very minor. Wales, England, Ireland, etc, as I understand may get some govt funding but it would be for domestic comps and the world cup year would not have any bearing on this, so long as there are international comps in place.

As you quite correctly point out, the European Championships are another big event on in that year, but this just makes more reason not to try and have yet another event that same year.

The shadow the Olympics cast over the RLWC will not be as big in 2008 as in 2000, because they are not being held in an RL nation, but they will have an effect.

There is no compelling reason why the RLWC has to be in 2008, so even if the Olympics would only have a very small negative influence, it would be better to have it in 2009 where the only real competition is the World Athletics Championships. On the contrary, 2008 has a very good reason not to have a RLWC - it is a much better year to have a Kangaroo Tour to capitalise on the Centenary of the First Kangaroos.

Actually, I would prefer 2007, 2009 seems like years away.

 

[Fampa]

I like it.

Though it's not something I would get behind every year. I think doing something like this every year would take away from the various internationals that national team would play in order to prepare for a world cup or other tourney,

From a QLD point of view I would pay to see my boys take on goat hearders from outer Mongolia. I don't know how parochial other provincial team supporters would be.