Dave T

You are overthinking what people are saying. I am saying that here we are with 9 months to go and none of these things have appeared - this absolutely is about execution. Had they announced a new GB sponsor of Standard Life, and a record BBC deal to cover it, a 10 game schedule, a new coaching team etc. then I'd be perfectly cool with it. We haven't announced ANYTHING, so let's just forget these additional things involved with trying to bring something back to life for a bit of nostalgia and get back to basics and let England play some games this year!

I really like Australia, have visited a few times and have family there. But we shouldn't play down that the UK is a beautiful part of the world to live in.

On your first paragraph, you are having your own argument, as I didn't say that it would be a disaster for GB. And I disagree on the 2nd point. The RFLs team is England RL. If you are going to change that, it has to be for some benefit. Are the sponsors queuing up? Broadcasters? Players? Opponents? Etc. If they are great, but I'm surprised it has taken so long to announce if so. If they are not, then we crack on with our team, which is England.

Would agree with the other posters here, seems the natural route to take if we get more strong teams and/or expand geographically. This is what the Union Pro14 did in 2018.

Personally I don't think the age thing is a major issue, we are currently running round with a less talented 34 year old stand off, so this will be an improvement! It is pretty common for players to be playing up to mid-30's now, and as a stand off vision and experience (and kicking) can be as crucial as that yard of pace you may have lost. The clear risk is through injury as he gets older, but I think if he was going to be 34 when he came over that would be a bigger issue. What I wouldn't give to be 30 again!!!

Maybe, but when somebody publicly questions the competence of somebody else, it isn't that much of a stretch to expect some negativity back. If Gareth Hock criticised Zak Hardaker for his conduct, I would expect Hock to get some flak!

I don't disagree and addressed this in my previous reply to Damien, but (there will always be a but ) Lenegan has been the public face of SLE's battle with the RFL. He isn't stupid, he could easily have avoided getting into that discussion had he wanted to. And I agree that this kind of stuff is more headline grabbing, but there was nothing new, I don't expect to see 10 other similar articles from the owners we haven't heard from on this point. If Lenegan is happy still being seen as the point of confrontation between SLE and RFL that is his call, but he knows what he is doing.

Yes, I acknowledged that in my other post. Are you suggesting that this is the only place that this has been mentioned outside of the forum? Because this has been the biggest RL story for the last week or so, and Catalans have done a great job of getting this public.

It is a negative article - a club owner attacking the RFL - for the discussion to be negative is hardly a stretch.

This is my point. There is nothing good coming from that point being plastered everywhere (accepting Damien's point that IL will only have so much control over that). With two weeks to go, I want to hear about the positive changes for SL this year, I want to hear about Barcelona, what other bold plans do Wigan have to grow this year?

I get that, but so does Ian Lenegan, surely he has been in this game more than long enough to understand this.

I do wish though that the SL bosses would spend their time focusing on their positives - the second half of that article, discussing Barcelona was more the stuff I want to hear about in the lead up to SL launch. I want to hear about how we are confident we will get 40-50k and smash the SL regular game crowd record. SLE and its clubs would do well to focus on positives, rather than make headlines about the RFL and another club.

Good work from him and the RFL, following on from the RL press' survey which led on the whole drugs problem in the sport and the rfl not being fit to run it.

The point here is we are in a certain position, we are not starting from scratch. The RFL are sending a team to the Southern Hemisphere to play some RL Test matches this Oct/Nov. That is a great thing, we should be doing it regularly, in whatever form. My view on GB is that if there were genuine incremental benefits from going as GB, great - more sponsorship, more TV interest, more spectator interest etc. But none of these things are likely to be true, so if this is no better than going as England RL, then surely the RFL's team is England RL and we crack on with that. Another key benefit of going as England is that England RL are playing games, at the moment we have none scheduled. If we play four tests down there (and hopefully a mid-season test and maybe one in France on the way, then we are starting to play more and more tests. All good stuff. Onto whatever this tour should look like, I'm not sure why you have such a bee in your bonnet about the tour only being four games long. That is still a tour, even if you claim it isn't. It may not be perfect, but again, we are where we are after lengthy discussions and negotiations. Another similar sport has tours of maybe three and four games no problem. The only real lengthy tours are the British Lions ones, which we have clearly failed to deliver. There is then the commercial side, delivering a four nations is clearly beyond the limitations of the people delivering this. The number of games on this tour has dwindled already, so I find it unlikely that they will stage 7 games instead of the 4 that the RFL will organise. We have seen over the years that we get very little commercial value for these tournaments staged down there, either broadcasting or sponsorship, we have never had a title sponsor down there, apart from when the RFL had Gillette on board one year. The fans have shown that they will attend quality games that are compelling, they aren't too concerned whether it is a tournament - see the Kiwis World Cup crowds - the Kiwis knockout game versus Fiji attracted a lower crowd than the Kangaroos vs Tonga in Hamilton, which was a standalone Test. I don't disagree that the preference would be either an extended tour, or a series (ideally an 8 team comp that we were 'promised'), but again, we are where we are following negotiations and with 9 months to go. There is no reason why removing the distractions (GB, trying to create a tournament) at this stage, getting some venues and dates confirmed and focusing the next 9 months on selling high quality Test matches couldn't be a success. Hopefully the reports of four tests is wrong, but even if England went down there to play PNG in Port Moresby (15k sellout), Tonga in Hamilton (25-30k sellout), Samoa in Auckland (15k) and the Kiwis in front of 15-20k, then that could be a very enjoyable tour, would look just fine, and wouldn't be any kind of disaster that you suggest it would.

Obviously I don't know Browns value, but I'd be surprised if he was much less than 150 grand on the cap. Probably more. Halves are in demand.

Gareth Widdopp trending 20th in United Kingdom on Twitter.

There are a few things that get overlooked here. To fund a signing like this, even if it was done through investors, it probably only costs around £200k extra per year on top of usual spend. For a sporting club rich owner this is pittance butbthis rules prevented it previously. In certain years we have spent more than that on transfer fees. It is not unusual for the top clubs to return a profit that could cover this. Particularly if it increases ticket sales up front. The investments here are pretty modest.

Aye it's always everyone else mok. Maybe you should look at your posts, to which I replied. You questioned the cap, I clarified and you changed your point. It is there in black and white. I expect Widdopp will replace Brown with similar cap value, but a higher real value. Nowt to do with the cap, but will undoubtedly increase the wage bill.

I'm not sure you are being pragmatic about where we are. England have no games this year. If they suddenly announce they will be going playing PNG, NZ, Samoa and Tonga at the end of the year that wouldn't harm the England brand for a second.

So not a cap issue then? I thought you were wondering how we would manage the cap.

I'm not sure of your point. All he will cost on the cap will be 150k.

Aye that's the risk with signings like this. But, that's life.

He will cost £150k on the cap. The cap isn't an issue at all.

Those are very selective numbers. Highlight the pathetic crowds in that 4n too. The recent series was pathetically staged, hence the low crowds.

None of this is good. We are in damage limitation. Staging this as a GB tour now would be an embarrassment. England doing this would be less so, and would actually be a positive, particularly if England could play France on the way. The 4N should only ever have been replaced for an 8 team comp. It is an almighty balls up.