Big Picture

I think you mean no other sport there, not "no other major sport". This small time BS we're seeing now proves that RL is not a major sport in the UK, it can barely even be called a minor sport there. And realistically there's nothing the NRL is capable of doing to change that.

I can guarantee you they haven't, otherwise they'd never bother with any current clubs for the simple reason that they're all much too small and because they're in the wrong sort of places to grow they'll always be much tOo small.

No, I wouldn't. As @gingerjonpoints out above the game needs new fans and they need to outnumber the current fans, because as Sky stated at time of previous contract negotiations the game's TV audience is stagnant. And there's no evidence that the clubs listed in the outline given by Martyn Sadler above can possibly achieve that.

I thought of that option, and the men's tournament could conceivably tap into the big Caribbean diaspora in Toronto for Jamaica's matches. How well that work in autumn as opposed to July when the Caribana festival is on every year is something I don't know though. Chances are that the women will be having to pay their own ways for their tournament.

Where would it be viable though? France? England? French matches in France and the rest in England? Not an easy question to answer is it?

October 2007 for me, I had to look it up.

Just whom do you think would ever be fooled by such a rebranding anyway?

They were wrong to complain though. It was a World Cup with prices which weren't even as high as Premier League prices.

And as you and I both know but apparently @Dave Tdoesn't, the team's 40 metre zone extends 40 metres out from their goal line, not 35, 36 or some other number. Therefore the only way to handle shorter than normal fields like the one in Las Vegas which is consistent with the rules of the game is the way the NRL has done, by treating the field as if it was a full 100 metres long and adjusting all of the lines, the distance for the defensive line, etc. accordingly. The RFL is the odd one out among RL governing bodies here, and their approach has clearly been rejected by the Aussies and rightly so.

They aren't 40-20s the other way either because then the "40s" aren't 40 metres out from the near goal line, they're some other variable number. The way they NRL is doing things they're treated as if they were 40 metres out from it. No it doesn't change any rules, it simply makes things uniform as opposed to the half-assed English way of doing things.

That "perfectly functional solution" for short fields is amateurish ###### though, it prevents RL fields from having one standard, consistent, uniform look like the fields, courts and rinks of major and minor sports alike all do. This is the one and only place the NRL has ever had to deal with a shorter field, and they took the more professional approach of keeping the same standard, consistent, uniform look their fields always have. Yes the lines have a function, and looking professional as opposed to looking half-assed is part of that function.

Of course no one calls it “tenth of the pitch line”, when the field of play is the correct length there's no need. Everyone understands that 10 metres is 1/10th of 100 metres.

1/10th of the distance from the near goal line to the opposite goal line, just like in every other RL match played on a properly marked field of play.

Probably because of RL's low stature in the UK and its' cap-in-hand attitude of just making do with whatever it can get/afford. Even in stadiums which have the space for a full size field of play they often just don't bother as you can see here:

It's the field markings themselves, it's the professionalism and consistency (or in England, the lack thereof) they show the public which is important.