See England take on the best at the 2017 Rugby League World Cup

Tre Cool

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

76 Excellent

About Tre Cool

  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Milton Keynes
  1. I could see the point if we still had a bunch of Welsh and Scottish ex union players playing top level RL but we don't so it would still just be the England team and I can't see that changing in the near future. I don't really like the England image, it always seems to be pandering to soccer and union's history/style more than RLs. If we could sort that out I'd be happy.
  2. Im not sure about that. A combined Aude side could and A|vignon has the stadium and support (judging by attendances they draw for internationals which are always exceptional). I'd be very reluctant to try it in a Lyon / Paris / Montpellier / Marseille though.
  3. I'd love a stadium noise only option. I always mute Phil Clarke, I can't stand the guy, talks complete and utter garbage. And Eddie goes on and on and on bout reffing decisions like a child. But I can't watch a game in silence, the crowd and referee noises are important.
  4. A 12 team elite league does seem laughably small for a comp encompassing 3 x large nations with something like 150 million inhabitants between them, but the playing base is still an issue in all 3 countries. UK and France are struggling to grow the pretty small to average sized amateur game and Canada at the moment are reliant on Canadian/American RU , Gridiron and a short season adult US semi pro RL comp for local players. None of which will ever bear much fruit in my opinion. If Canada can't tap into the Australian/NZ game more for their players then we'll have a problem taking any more Canadian clubs into the pro game as we can't spare any more UK pros to supply another full squad. IF France / UK and Canada can significantly improve the junior and amateur player supply of RL players then it'd be great to one day have a conference system with France/Southern UK, Northern England, North America with play offs and a final like North American major leagues have now. But that's a LONG way off at the moment.
  5. I'd go Castleford or Featherstone. Great tradition, own their own grounds, family atmosphere. Cas play great footy and have a really good squad....and they aren't Leeds. You'll get the noise and passion of a football game without the aggro. You'll have women, children, grandmas, granddads around you instead of just 20000 middle aged men. Personally id avoid Sheffield and Wakefield no offence to their beautiful fans. Unstable clubs at the moment. And Huddersfield could be a nice club but that huge all seater stadium would be a turn off for me when only 4-5k fans are dotted around it.
  6. He says they expect to have 7000 season tickets sold by the first game (which is incredible by any measure) My main concern is the standard of opposition, will the locals keep coming if they're winning every game by 50+ points?
  7. I think we do have the wrong people running our game for sure, but in general the sport's not in bad health relative to where it was 20 years ago. If you need cheering up have a read of the history of the UKs premier ice hockey competition. It must really be painful to be an ice hockey fan in this country.
  8. Isnt one of those a load of temporary stands and one had to move about 80 miles? Newcastle's out of town too? Not sure of your point here.
  9. Personally I think Hardaker should keep his mouth shut and concentrate on his rugby.
  10. I agree and I think Skolars might have a good year too and surprise a few people
  11. Workington has been host to Scotland games, I guess due to some moronic idea that it's nearer Scotland therefore Scottish fans can go. Which they don't as there aren't any.
  12. Every case is unique, and I'd only blame the RFL in the Bulls case if I knew the level they were involved in choosing the last 2 or 3 owners. If they chose them over others then they've got a lot to answer for! Otherwise the blame lays squarely with the club's owners who've failed to cut their cloth and have gone for broke on the back of making the top 4 or Super League. A responsible club (like Batley or Keighley or Featherstone) is cautious with their budget for the year and don't assume they'll finish high in the league and take it as a bonus if they do and then invest further from there. The Bulls owners seem to act like a full time club without the finances or the guaranteed income which is very dangerous when you underachieve as they keep doing. Just because they were for a brief period of their history very successful and well supported they aren't entitled to anything but the temptations there for owners due to the size of the city and stadium to take gambles on making it big again which is foolish.
  13. Personally I think they work better when there's some local or historical relevance to them. RL were guilty of just picking an alliterative name or copying a random American one for no real good reason which is pretty cringey to me. A lot of North American sports clubs haven't just stuck an animal on the end (although some have). Often there's a relevance to local history / industry / wildlife / culture. It was an opportunity to market clubs better had it been done well across the board, especially with the strong history in this country. We could all think of better names for our clubs I'm sure given some proper thought.