Methven Hornet

I read somewhere that top clubs, from this season, receive close to £100 million by competing in the English Premier League. Celtic, more than capable of being the second best supported club in the English competition were they to be admitted, received about £2.5 million for being in (and winning) the SPL. If they fail to overcome last night's 2-0 defeat then they stand to lose £20 million by missing out on the Champions League group stages. Even without European football they would benefit massively in financial terms by being part of the English Premier League, and I'm sure Celtic would be confident of qualifying even against the usual English qualifiers. There are reasons, however, why the English football authorities would be crazy to admit either of the Old Firm.

Narrowly, away from home and against a team 14th in the FIFA rankings (I'm sure England were higher than that, they must have slipped recently). My point is that if they play like that more often they'll have a lot more success against most European teams than in recent years.

Where on earth has that come from?

Shush, you! (And I'm a damn sight more Scottish than most of our RLWC team will be.) I'm quite happy with dual nationality, but not when it comes to the beautiful game (and rugby union).

That isn't a bad idea - I feel that every year would be too much but stretching it out could work. I don't know how the game was received in England, but here in Scotland there was a lot of enthusiasm; and pleasant surprise at how Scotland coped! Everyone was up for it but there was a nagging fear that England could run away with it. Of course, for Scottish supporters the trip to Wembley to play England is akin to a footballing pilgrimage. One member of the Tartan Army, contributing to a radio discussion programme, suggested holding it in London every year as an International Charity Shield (in addition to the club one). The only problem I can see with reinstating the championship, and one reason why it was scrapped in the first place, is that the home nations will get practice at playing teams that play the 'British' style of football. Not necessarily good preparation for dealing with those nations who successfully play a more patient style.

Did notice that. Hopefully they can make Windsor a fortress once more!

It was enjoyable (apart from the obvious ) - now for the eternal problem of getting Scotland to show that much commitment and belief in a world cup or Euro qualification match, in some remote eastern European country, on a wet Wednesday in February!

I've been away for a while, and may have missed some new developments, but surely under the 3x8 system the point won't be carried over to the middle league - ie, the one that will decide promotion and relegation. How can they be, the 4 clubs coming from the bottom 12 are going to have a lot more points than the 4 coming from the top 12. The only way it can work is to start from zero points for the middle 8.

Super Saints progress in Europe.

Yet football, in England anyway, didn't have p&r throughout the game for most of its history.

And any GB (and Ireland) side to be made up of players from the four 'home' nation squads. So, if an Irish, Scottish or Welsh player is better than the English equivalent then they get in the side? Even if their accent, birthplace and residence are, er, somewhat Australian?

WCs? **** behind the stand! And the old Athletic Grounds could have done with a few cinders in the mud-filled car parks on the approach to the ground.

I think I like this proposal slightly better than the other one that was discussed on here (was it based upon a Luke Dorn article?) where Super League would close down for the 3 consecutive weekends of a revised SoO. Your suggestion gives a slightly longer window in which the players can become acclimatised and recover from the day-long journey; important if they are going to play up to three tough, evenly-matched test matches. The couple of matches played without the clubs' international stars could be a problem, but if, as you say, they could be presented slightly differently. Could these fixtures be two of the 'extra' ones if we are to move to a simple 12 club Super League structure (but keep 27 regular season games)? It could complicate matters if we move to the 2x12 - 3x8 structure. To differentiate these games, not disadvantage the teams supplying the most internationals too much, and give a little extra interest, could there be a stipulation that each side has to include a certain number of under 20s/under 21s? Test which club has the best development system? As for the internationals themselves, I think it has to be England rather than GB as this gives the other nations - Ireland, Scotland, Wales - a run out and would, hopefully, allow them to include their 'heritage' players. This opportunity could help sort out the wheat from the chaff in terms of these heritage players, and find out who wants to genuinely pledge themselves to their chosen nation's cause, eg if a player is not willing to travel from down under to play for one of the European nations in mid-season then they can forget it when world cup comes around.

The Policy Review Q&A page on the RFL website has the following What will happen to Championship One? The Policy Review is recommending that a two-up, two-down system be adopted in Championship One, with the champions automatically promoted and a second promotion spot going to a play-off winners. This competition would feature a league campaign of between 12 and 22 games and could have a regional dimension, should the clubs involved demand it. It talks of a regional dimension rather than regional divisions.

Or after the first stage of the season in the case of 3x8? In which case you won't get the benefit until the next season, which won't help when facing the SL clubs in the middle eight. I'm not sure this is being thought through.

Well, that's a point. We're potentially taking money from the elite competition to subsidise second tier clubs in their attempt to become (unsustainable) full-time clubs. Wouldn't that money be better being diverted towards keeping at least some of the development officers?

There are a lot more than 36,000 watching the game these days.

I think they're different aspects of the same tradition. The periodic realisation that we are not like other sports in that we're largely restricted to a few (very few) northern towns and a limited demographic; radical attempts to try and rectify the situation, usually ad-hoc, badly planned and underfunded; panic when things don't go to plan; the retreat back to what we had (the state of which was the reason to change in the first place).

We haven't had a system of franchising in British/European rugby league. Who knows, we might have fared better if we'd introduced such a system.

There have been times in the past where the game has tried to expand its horizons but has lost nerve when things got challenging. Scrambling to get back to the comfort zone when faced with the difficulties of making rugby league a mainstream sport is traditional.

Politicians, especially government ministers, do want to be associated with sporting success, as we saw with the Olympics last year and, recently, with the tennis. That is just part of the game they are in, and they would certainly suffer criticism if they stayed away from major events. Sports with any kind of intelligent leadership court those politicians as the relationship can be mutually beneficial. Again, just a recognition of how the world works. Rugby league, despite its traditional associations with the northern English working class, is not some social, political or moral crusade where we only deal with people we find acceptable and on our terms. The RL authorities must work with the overall good of the game in mind in every thing they do. If that means working with, and enlisting the support of, people like David Cameron, Tony Blair, et al, the so be it.

Wallie? As in Wallie Lewis Is Coming? That takes me back a bit!!! Good argument, all the same.

To sell out a sporting event in Rochdale will certainly be historic. I'm struggling to think when it was last done.

The foreword doesn't attract me, I'm afraid.

The twelve clubs to compete in the inaugural Scottish Lowland League in 2013/14 were announced today. The twelve, all from the East of Scotland and South of Scotland leagues, are:- Spartans FC, Threave Rovers FC, Preston Athletic FC, Gretna (2008) FC, Whitehill Welfare FC, Dalbeattie Star FC, East Kilbride FC, Selkirk FC, Gala Fairydean Rovers FC, Edinburgh City FC, University of Stirling FC, Vale of Leithen FC. Four more places will be available for season 2014/15, when the champions will play off against the winners of the Highland League. The winners of that earn the right to take on the bottom club of the Scottish Professional Football League. http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=1961&newsCategoryID=3&newsID=12052