Dave T

They had one this year

All the evidence is that British clubs are perfectly comfortable with a midseason window.

You don't need to buy the idea. We played Samoa in 2017 in the suburbs of Sydney, and 2018 we played the Kiwis in Denver. We all know what happened after that.

It absolutely should be out of the question.

I knew you'd pop up on that point My point isn't about the concept of the Hundred, but the presentation of it, which won't be where the bulk of the costs are for that sport.

The problem is really that there is only so much a skint governing body can do really in terms of developing RL in other countries. And I don't believe the NRL should be held accountable for the sport in Tonga for example. The best model imo is supporting a strong international governing body, both financially and strategically. It shouldn't be down to individual organisations to drive control development of other nations (although they should absolutely support where possible). I don't believe it is in the RFL's remit to develop NH RL.

cool

Newcastle, Manchester City and Spurs would be a hell of an exciting set of venues and I'd certainly be planning for all 3.

I think this is the middle ground. If we look at the last Ashes series, we had retracted to 3 x 25k grounds, so we are ahead of that. If we use the 4N group games as a 3 test series, the most ambitious we had was probably London, Coventry and Wigan. The last Kiwi series had Hull, Liverpool, Leeds. Personally I'd just go with the 2020 plan, that's the biggest capacity we've had for a while and filling those grounds would deliver 120k or so and would be great progress.

I'll happily criticise the RFL and the UK game for their incompetence (and slightly sympathise that some of this is always linked to being skint) - but I will always defend them around their broad attitude to international RL. I have no doubts that the UK game would prioritise the international game more than anyone else in the sport. THat may not be saying much, but we have actively demonstrated a desire to push the international game forward.

What do you mean? Over the last 20 years or so the RFL have sent a team to Aus a couple of times, to France, to Denver, they've played Exile games etc. in mid-season. Let's be honest here, if there was the opportunity for genuine top class rep RL in mid season, the RFL are very likely to support it.

Headingly won't be used. It's too small for an Ashes game. I expect 'Leeds' has just been mentioned. DW, Elland Rd and Spurs is pretty much what was announced in 2020, to almost universal praise (Bolton instead of Wigan).

I think this is right. I'm not a particular fan of War of the Roses (please let's not use the horrible County of Origin), but if we are going to do it, using the names Lancs and Yorks but with real pushes on a nickname brand which allows people to find their team without it having to be Lancashire or Yorkshire. But I think we probably are talking about really minor, if we want different results to what we've seen before, we need to go big. As in Hundred-type promotion big. We need a great venue, a broadcast partner who'll give it prominence, sponsors who will push it, big names coaches, large promotional launch activities, and the event needs to look good, have entertainment, be polished and all that other good stuff. We have a choice here. We can either go down the tried and tested route and have a modest match each year with 7-12k in, or we can take a gamble, go big, invest money and aim for a series that can attract 20-30k per match. Maybe more long term. There is a choice here, but one costs a lot more, but the rewards are substantially more too.

yeah, I can get that, and as I say, I won't buy a shirt anyway, so I'm perfectly happy that they cater for those who will.

Well, actually - you're wrong. It was Abdo who brought history into this. But not a truthful history - one that he has just invented. And that's the point. It's very easy to celebrate this tournament and the sellout final without lying.

The biggest challenge for the international game is working with one international window. I know i may seem harsh on the Aussies around all this, but one window is the biggest blocker to international RL doing something really special. No credible international sport can work with one window. Having a Pacific Cup where one team dips in and out each year is weird, and we really do need two windows. It's why I get frustrated when they try and gaslight us - mid-year tests have delivered big crowds and viewers in the past, yet abandoned.

I disagree with this conclusion. It isn't the Pacific Championship that has helped the competitiveness of International RL - the PC has been created to benefit from the competitiveness that has been created in advance of it. All the hard work of the 4N, and the previous World Cups has brought these nations to the forefront of international RL, and the NRL has aggressively stepped in and pushed the IRL out of the way and set up their own thing to take advantage of this. I remember watching Tonga push NZ all the way at Wilderspool 30 years ago, we could see there was something special here that could be harvested if we were smart. Samoa played in front of a huge crowd that year against Wales, Fiji with 26k in at Central Park. That was the start. 2000 was a disaster, but the Pacific Nations were treated as credible teams in there - with some bright sparks, a large crowd in France and Fiji playing England in Leeds for example. In 2008 the Aussies created the super group concept and put the PN teams back in their box, before they were brought back out in 2013 and given prominence in that World Cup. The likes of Samoa, Tonga, Fiji were treated like kings and were stars of the show. They were clearly a growing force. Remember alongside this, the Tri Nations was expanded to bring in nations below the traditional big 3. Samoa played in front of 47k versus England in a double header in Brisbane. 2017 WC was the first time the Aussies ever treated the Pacific Nations as serious players in the World Cup. Samoa and particularly Tonga brought out those fans in New Zealand (remember the crowds in Oz were horrible) - Tonga and Fiji made the semi final, Fiji knocking out the Kiwis. So when we say that the PC has helped competitiveness, it isn't true - we were already competitive, because these nations had been brought into the RL international scene (often despite the Aussies). Just like the crowds had been turning up for years before this tournament, the Pacific teams had been competitive for years before this too. If they weren't the Aussies wouldn't be bothering with any of this.

With respect John, people are allowed to dislike something, and people are even allowed to repeat themselves, which is lucky for all of us here. I find this publications approach a bit weird (a new article saying very little titled " xxxxx criticises IMG" - this week's version is Newcatle), but Martyn's view is his own and there to be challenged.

There are podcasts and stuff in Aus because there is demand, because they have large audiences. In the UK we have all these thngs for bigger sports. It isn't that the UK needs to catch up with Australia on things, far from it - it's that we are comparing two massively different sized sports in their market. Usual caveat, that this view doesn't absolve the RFL of any incompetence.

He's just being a bit of a tool at the moment. Some tickets are paper, some plastic, some print at home, some digital.

Same here. I raised it on another thread this week.

The lifetime value piece is absolutely critical. When we look at marketing cost we cant just look at that as selling a ticket for £25. It's attracting a customer. A premium customer, or whatever we want to call them could be worth hundreds or thousands of pounds, depending on what term you measure it over. In our bank we sometimes measure customer value over 10 years for example.

Non-attending fans aren't the problem.

I think you can reverse that and ask why those Scotland RU fans don't go to watch Edinburgh or Glasgow if they are RUgby Union fans? It's clear that international crowds aren't just built of club fans toddling along to support the national team. It's probably the biggest failing in our sport that people don't get that. Whereas SRU have built up a fan bases for their national team, we just haven't. And that ain't on people, it's on the RFL and England RL as a brand. Just expecting the 50k or so regular RL fans in the area to turn up for England games has probably been the strategy, and it's one that doesn't work. To add a bit more to it, I'm a man in my 40's with a fair amount of disposable income, who has supported RL and international RL for almost 40 years. England games are just not attractive enough for me to prioritise above other things that take my time and money. I watched the first test on the BBC and I haven't watched the 2nd test as I was at the theatre. The last WC actively damaged my loyalty to international RL as I was bored to tears, and had dragged loads of new fans along, spent a fortune and a considerable amount of time attending.

Oh. It's just that you said "But in terms of number of test teams who are competitive, the Aussies are right"