gingerjon

These are are the 'At A Glance' highlights from the IRL 2023 Annual Report, the most recent one available. How many are genuine even 18 months on? International Rugby League has agreed an International Calendar to 2030. The return of the Ashes, with England Men and Women to tour Australia in 2025. Kangaroo and Kiwi tours to resume. International tours for other nations are back on the agenda. Dedicated Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere Tri-Nations and Four Nations tournaments. Greater emphasis on Regional Championships and World Cup qualifying process, including a new World Series to help nations develop. Men’s and Women’s games to grow under new International Calendar. Change to World Cups cycle, with the next World Cup for Men’s, Women’s and Wheelchair teams to be staged in 2026.

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2025/mar/22/black-british-culture-bradford-we-were-there-lanre-bakare-book

Every aspect of this has alerted the experts on Facebook. Comments everywhere are a bin fire. https://metro.co.uk/2025/03/22/hastings-half-marathon-cancelled-threat-life-chemicals-discovered-22773254/

Like a lot of things, it's annoying because a few years ago it looked like we'd more or less got there for Europe but then it all just sort of stopped. It's a positive to see a structure but it would be even better to, as you say, have two windows and, an actual framework for next year and the year after. This is a good, though, for all the extra debating.

I can't think of any other sport that has heritage and diaspora teams routinely playing games outside the countries they represent as part of their main international programme. We do agree about the usefulness of the IRL - and, broadly, that it's nobody's fault but Wales (as an example) that they don't play more games at a higher level.

Exactly. This tournament is what should be happening. We keep getting variations on it but it really does need to be longer term.

Most understand that two diaspora teams playing in Sydney is not an international. Unfortunately, Wales, in particular have played so little senior internationals that they leave the door open for those fake teams with only half hearted attempts at real development.

Wales, in particular, barely play outside of World Cups and qualifiers.

The real problem appears to be Claire Connor and she's the one doing the review and making the decisions.

You can go off people.

"We lose money, oust our independent regulators, fail to even run our marquee events like the World Club Challenge or Kangaroo tests and change what we want every few months ... now, why can't the game as a whole get sponsors?" The fact that the people involved can't see their role in changing that is why IMG were brought in, why IMG will fail, and why whatever this is will improve nothing.

True but there is a lot they cannot do without FA/other agreement, and, whilst reluctant, they do share funds. There is a view the clubs have total control. They simply do not.

The FA have a veto over significant chunks of the EPL. Plus the EPL has a governance structure distinct from the clubs.

Was really pleased to see those announced. Shame it couldn't be home and away but so much better than the 'nothing' that was there before.

Martyn, Similar is not the same as identical. The incidents are similar. Yours, Jon

It's a qualification tournament for emerging nations. "Viable" is not why you do it.

Like a lot of organisations that are selling the family silver, hiring staff on below market wages and making 'efficiency' savings, it has become very inefficient, remarkably bad at doing a lot of the things it needs to, and quite weak. That's not going to be fixed by finding more efficiencies or paying out more to the clubs if it takes away from the centre.

I think it demonstrates a deliberate bad faith argument used to downplay and muddy the issue so as to push forward an obvious political point of view. But, as you say, everything is open to interpretation.

Thing is, though. The owners of the clubs can’t be sacked and yet, fairly obviously, they are the consistent in each of these repeated failures.

So the same as the other ones and the one they will vote for in two years.

You did a quick Google but it’s quite revealing just how wrong you are.

That’s fair.

You need to look at the minimum standards. That’s where this is all covered. And it’s also why I have absolutely no faith in this review.

We agree. It should be covered in minimum standards and the grading should sit on top of that. Unfortunately, beginning with the chap who has just come in to lead a review, the minimum standards have been repeatedly diluted and enforcement of them dropped.

The game doesn't belong to whoever owns the top 6 or 7 clubs in Super League. And, in order to ensure we have a game in the future, it's important we take things away from their understandable short term myopia.