RugbyLeagueGeek

IMO, as @Barley Mow points out, the issue is that only England has a full-time pro league. France has a couple of full-time teams (if you include Toulouse) and then a semi-pro comp underpinning them, so a much smaller player pool to pick from, and the other NH nations have no full-time teams providing players for them. This isn't going to change any time soon. The only option to try and create some sort of meaningful NH competition is therefore to rely on heritage players currently plying their trade in the only full-time competition. This means the likes of Scotland, Ireland, Wales, and possibly Jamaica are the only teams that could realistically draw on any full-time players to 'compete' with France and England (I use the term 'compete' loosely). Many posters have previously turned their collective noses up at this idea before, but without full-time teams supplying players, it's heritage players or nowt. After all, Tonga and Samoa are completely reliant on heritage players. If we're going to go down the heritage players route, then IMO the RFL need to support all home nations equally in their respective international programmes (it is part of their mission statement to develop the sport in these nations after all). This would mean paying the players the same, providing similar standards of training facilities, hotels, coaching teams etc. Otherwise, if England are continually being supported to a greater extent, and also have all the prime playing opportunities, then heritage players will always be looking to jump ship to England if the experience and rewards are greater. In terms of helping France to become more competitive, ringfencing Catalans and Toulouse in SL would be the obvious start point, and I like the suggested salary cap exemptions to help encourage teams to sign more French players. My personal view was that there should be an annual European Championship (leagues of 4, with P&R between different tiers), including a full England side (including the Knights instantly devalues it - as will inevitably be seen by what will be zero media profile for this Autumn's comp). And we just have to stick with it for a bit. If England thrash everyone every year, then so be it. I also used to think that the prospect of putting themselves in the shop window for a GB&I Lions series could help encourage players to put themselves up for selection for the other home nations, but I fear that ship has sailed as Australia don't look very interested in playing us at all anymore. I also agree with posters who have said that games such as England v France shouldn't be played in the heartlands, where there is already loads of top level RL for punters to watch. I know several people who aren't RL fans who went to watch England thrash Samoa or Greece in last year's WC, or beat Scotland in the 4 Nations, and they all thoroughly enjoyed the experience, despite watching very one-sided games. This is the new audience we need to be attracting with our international game. Only in RL do we - Gerald Ratner style - slag off our game and tell people it's rubbish. We need to be happy putting on events where newbies can be impressed by the brilliant skill and athleticism of our players, and enjoy watching their national team being successful. England Women have just spent their 6 Nations thrashing everybody, but nobody is slagging off that competition and calling it a waste of time. We have to change our mindset over this.

This is why I believe having the NRL run the international game would be a bad idea for the northern hemisphere. IMO the NRL would run the international game in the best interests of the NRL. The game in Aus is already massive, and many seem to view the international game as an unwanted distraction. I think it's unlikely that the NRL would act in the best interests of the game in England, France etc, where we need the international game to help grow the sport.

By that logic, does that mean you don't fully understand the points that people have been making about P&R via the new grading system, because you are too emotionally invested in your team?

Looking good. I thought it was a shame they had to knock down the old west stand in the 1980s as it looked fantastic. I love those stadiums that have combinations of new and old grandstands. Always thought North Sydney Oval looked a fantastic ground with those old stands that were moved from the SCG.

In this context, does CBA stand for can't be arsed?

No need for the cheap dig. If you don't like people saying your idea isn't very good, then maybe don't post it on an internet discussion forum.

I don't have any issue with disagreement. But I don't really see the relevance of that TE Lawrence quote in relation to this thread. Just because some of us have disagreed with your opinion about the suitability of that photo for selling RL, as you put it, doesn't mean that we're flat cap luddites who don't want to develop the game. It's just that we didn't think your idea was very good.

Have you read it? It's a very good book, albeit of its time.

Now a video may be different, because that can tell a story that a still image can't do. There isn't any symbolism in that still photo on its own - try and separate the photo from the context. On its own, the photo would be a poor image for promoting rugby league. If you wanted to make a video story based around the photo's context to promote rugby league, then there will likely be more effective imagery that could be used to get the message across. FYI if you haven't seen them, try the When Push Comes to Shove books for some brilliant (albeit now very dated) rugby league imagery and stories.

I'm not sure comparing rugby league with a supermarket is like for like. I get what you're saying, but you know the context of the photo. Given the lack of any noticeable rugby league imagery on it, I fail to see how that photo could be used effectively by rugby league to sell itself to a new audience.

Are we talking about the same photo? This one? What a bizarre thing to post. Revenge?? The fact that came in to your head says far more about you than it does about me. Only to people who are already rugby league fans. You can't even see the posts properly. There's no action on the pitch. The uninitiated wouldn't even know it was rugby, let alone rugby league. Without knowing the context, it's just a photo of a kid looking at a football stadium.

The photo of the kid watching the game? Sorry, but without knowing the context behind it, the photo says zero about RL. You can't even see that it's a rugby pitch that he's looking at.

IMG will be looking in to the A-ness of each club

Wasn't this one of the problems for Skolars when they turned pro initially? I seem to remember them having a lot of foreign players who would've been good enough to play but weren't allowed to for visa reasons.

I agree - the key thing is that it need somebody with some imagination to make it work. Too many UK clubs seem to think that a name change is the silver bullet, when in reality it's all the other branding stuff that goes with it. I remember loads of people on this forum saying what a great name Aberavon Fighting Irish was, when in reality it was just nicked from a college in America. The game over here has always had loads of great nicknames which good creative marketing/branding people could easily make work. If 'Gallant Youths' was an American college football team, loads of people would be saying how original a name it is, but over here it got jettisoned in favour of 'Bulldogs'. Now I'm not saying that changing the name hasn't worked for Batley, but I bet somebody creative and imaginative could have made 'Gallant Youths' work too. Skolars is absolutely fine, and - to my knowledge - unique. A talented creative person could easily make that work.