Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


RugbyLeagueGeek last won the day on August 21 2021

RugbyLeagueGeek had the most liked content!

Recent Profile Visitors

5,170 profile views

RugbyLeagueGeek's Achievements



  1. It is a bog standard phrase, but it is also disparaging. If you didn't intend it to be so then maybe you need to look up what it means.
  2. If either of these things happen I will be surprised and delighted in equal measure, because all recent evidence unfortunately suggests neither will.
  3. Like I say, I'm just operating on a hunch, but having spoken to people who attended Eng v Greece at Sheffield and Eng v Scotland at Coventry, they didn't give a monkeys about the opposition. The Eng v Scot game was the curtain raiser to the 'big' game between Aus and NZ, but they had zero interest in that second game whatsoever. Rugby league fans outside the heartlands will know the difference between somebody like NZ and France, and that may or may not impact the numbers of those fans attending. But the wider public neither knows nor cares - they just want to see the national team in action. The profile of the competition may have an impact - i.e. a world cup is obviously higher profile than a friendly - but it is completely within the RFL's power to create a meaningful competition that games could be a part of. For example, WC qualifiers and a European Championships would be instantly more meaningful and easy for the wider public to understand than an isolated one-off friendly.
  4. Yeah I don't know why as a sport we expect our club game to buck the trend of every other sport in the UK bar football.
  5. But you're operating under the assumption that the opposition is the primary draw. My belief (borne out of purely anecdotal evidence - nothing scientific whatsoever) is that England are the primary draw outside of the heartlands. Don't underestimate how many people are more than happy to watch their national team thrashing somebody.
  6. I don't think you can ignore last year's series though. They had an opportunity to take a game to London, but instead chose to play 2 games within 20 miles of each other on consecutive weeks, and consequently were rewarded with a poor crowd at Huddersfield. Now if - and I appreciate where the RFL are concerned, this is a massive 'if' - they'd actually taken a risk and booked some sort of stadium in London (e.g. Brentford, Fulham, or possibly even bigger) and actually tried to market and publicise the event, would they seen a better result than they did at Huddersfield? The problem is that they don't have the confidence or money to even take what would be a relatively minor risk like this.
  7. Taking a game against France (or even Tonga or Samoa) to London really shouldn't be seen as some sort of massive risk. Unfortunately, the hole that the RFL have got themselves into would suggest that they really do not have a pot to piddle in, and seemingly they lack the confidence in their product (and/or their ability to sell it) to even try something relatively small like this. So they try and play it safe like they did last year with Tonga, and end up with crappy attendances anyway. It's like England cricket trying to bat out a draw only to get skittled out before tea. Result is we're now playing 2 games against Samoa this year instead of 3, and it could feasibly be 2027 before England plays any home internationals again.
  8. I didn't interpret it as a dig at Hull at all - more a case of Hull being quite a way from areas like Leeds or Manchester where there will be far more antipodean players living, and it ultimately it being harder to get players to come to Hull when there are a lot of clubs within a stone's throw of Leeds or Manchester.
  9. As opposed to walkovers that would be completely random games with zero context? In case you haven't noticed, England don't get to play many games. We've had to beg and plead for Samoa to come and play 2 games this Autumn. It's pathetic. Moreover, there's hardly any full internationals for any of the Euro nations this year. If games were organised under the banner of WC qualifiers or something like a Euro Championships, this would instantly have meaning to the wider public. I wouldn't expect for 1 second that these games would be attractive to the heartlands audience - as mentioned on this forum before, the opposition appears to be a big part of the draw for those fans, whereas in non-traditional areas it's England that is the primary draw. I know many friends, acquaintances and work colleagues who thoroughly enjoyed watching England v Scotland in the 4N at Coventry, and England v Greece in the WC at Sheffield, despite the fact that these were expected to be one-sided games that England would win comfortably. It's this wider audience that is being lost because the international scene is so poor, and the club comp just isn't going to engage them. However, I am under no illusions about the chances of something like this happening, because the RFL lacks the vision, money, resources, skills, leadership, confidence and will to try and make it happen.
  10. I'd limit it to hosts and holders, like with football. England would then have loads of meaningful games it could play between tournaments that would be a far, far easier sell to the wider public, who would understand the concept of world cup qualifiers.
  11. I think WC qualifiers would be an easier sell than this. That is a concept the wider public understands and has a meaning, as it is a stepping stone to a bigger thing. An isolated Tri-Nations featuring England and some weak nations would be harder for people to get their heads around and buy into IMO.
  12. A match that the governing body deemed acceptable to be played as a curtain raiser to a Championship club game, and that will be hidden away on its subscription streaming channel. Those are symptoms of the wider issues.
  13. I don't want to come across as a negative nelly, but it wouldn't make any difference. Firstly, the RFL needs to be making internationals must-see events so that fans have FOMO and are chomping at the bit to get their tickets. Unfortunately, all recent evidence of the RFL's ticketing strategy and event creation points to this not being the case. And in terms of sponsors taking interest, there needs to be a far more extensive, long term calendar of high profile events scheduled in order to increase the possibility of sponsors being interested. As it stands, we've only just had confirmation in June of something happening 4 months away. And after that? Nothing confirmed in the schedule at all. So any potential sponsors looking for a long-term partnership would have to look at other sports because RL just doesn't offer anything anywhere near substantial enough.
  14. That is horrendous/embarrassing/depressing in equal measure. The RFL should hang their heads in shame - utterly disgraceful. I wonder how far back in time you'd need to go for the last time the full international team were paid £250 a match?
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.