Northern Eel

Yes, essentially, I think the rationale was that the Hull Leagues were too competitive (that's not the City of Hull's issue) for the likes of Immingham to be able to get a foothold with their relatively small and inexperienced playing numbers. Union is the prevailing code in the areas you have described, and most league clubs have some sort of link with union clubs. Sadly, this often means that the RL activity is a short add on to RU activity over 2 or 3 months, rather than over the course of a full season. It makes strategically planning for all clubs needs in the Midlands nigh on impossible.

Sad to see that Immingham Wasps have folded this week. Their junior setup was, in truth, struggling since Covid and never really recovered. It’s a hard gig in the Midlands junior setup currently,

There was (or at least there sounded to be, but I couldn’t see them) a wind band in one corner of the lower bowl that played pretty much all the way through, but even that felt more like a Sunday afternoon gig at the Todmorden Park Band Stand.

Here’s a tough one. Based on what you saw this weekend, how many will they put on England at Everton, do you reckon?

In the first 20, Australia looked fairly even with England. In fact, possibly uncharacteristically 2nd best. I don't think there will be another 20 minutes in the remaining series where that is also the case, which I think is the point you are possibly trying to make? The question is, was it England that made them get off to that start?

Go on. You will have to explain!

I've not seen those numbers of Australians in attendance in such number before; what was it that specifically attracted them, and the newbie fans we all saw and spoke to in abundance? (I don't know, as I didn't need to be marketed to attend). I usually take a good 80-100 folk to the games at Wembley. It was quite a difficult task to get folk who have been to previous Wembley games to commit. With that in mind, we only managed around 20 on a semi-organised rendez vous at the game. Absurd? Not sure.

I get your point. What concerns me is that, without the newbies, it would have been a much, much lower crowd. In the past, many more northerners would have been inclined to get down to Wembley. There was a discussion in the lead up to the game where the consensus seemed to be that the Everton game wasn't going to have an impact on the Wembley attendance. I am not so sure.

He has called out that odd bloke, Times journalist Jones, who spouts nonsense about rugby league, today. That's a good shout for me. Jones led with, 'Only 60,000 fans at Wembley'...

Our governance has disillusioned our core fans sufficiently enough to be now relying on newcomers to prop up crowds. I know plenty of folk who just couldn't be bothered going to wembley for one reason or another. Still, it really was a pleasant surprise to see this mix of fans. It had an effect on the atmosphere, but we needed the team to give us more to shout about too.

Absolutely. And what beyond that? Take some more brass off the lower clubs? There can't be much left. And we aren't benefiting from increased sponsorship or TV rights, so the downward spiral is somewhat depressing.

When you consider the number of passes from dummy half that were line balls at best, that one was like something from the NFL the week before. Saying that, in the Samoa v Tonga game this morning, Tonga had one pulled back for a forward pass that was nowhere near. So blummin' frustrating.

It is growing exponentially each year. Just look at the viewing figures. Clearly you can count one off revenue, but this competition will run more often than ashes series games, won't it? Will the other season's games involving England make money? If you are talking this year alone,then it is irrefutable where the lucrative nature of an ashes series is, but the fact is, over time, the Pacific Nations comp appears more lucrative in many ways if it continues in the same way. The Pacific Nations runs at a profit. This includes monies spent on the strategic development monies which come for the grant. Our strategy seems to be to spend residual money on funding a load of overseas journeymen to come and fill the spots of two additional super league clubs that we don't need, taking up the places of our own up and coming players and denying funding streams to those who don't sit (and govern) at the top table. Theirs is to develop participation in Pacific Nations, so that the long-term international calendar is affordable and competitive. I will leave it at that, before you tell me what else I was thinking. Peace and out.

That's disingenuous. And I didn't need you to tell me what the money was for, I already knew. My question was deliberately rhetorical. I understand that you took my post to mean solely financially, and of course, as a one-off (or at least, a very infrequent series) it has far greater commercial income, however, the fact that it is infrequent does not make it financially lucrative in the longer term.

A proportion of this 2 year funding (provided even though Australia aren't even competing in this year's) is set aside for development programmes in Pacific Nations. I can't wait to hear how the RFL will be spending the vast sums of cash gained from the Ashes. Lucrative, I guess, depends on whether you see generated wealth as a financial figure, or a legacy for future strategic development. Or, perhaps they will use it to cover losses in way-less lucrative tours involving other teams in future years, because unfortunately, the Aussies won't be coming back anytime soon?