Wellsy4HullFC

Agreed. You only need to look at Wigan's demise in the mid-00s. Nearly relegated in 06. They got a new coach and signed one player (on the face of it). Seemed to make a huge difference! *I'll ignore the fact they also broke the salary cap...* And again, a few years later they changed owner, head coach and suddenly became the blue print! With the right people and investment, the change can be pretty quick. By the looks of it, we're willing to fork out some money (which we weren't sure about before) to get the right people. That's a relief at least because the feeling was we were skint and doing it all on the cheap. Turns out, we're just doing it really really really badly!

And you'd no doubt get another great coach that gets 150% out of 75% budget. The real person we should be after is the person who's finding the coaches...

Could this not just be the first round of negotiations? Offer 1 rejected...

The Robins?

Looks like they'll just have to be called North West RL and include Cumbria... (I'm being facetious obviously)

Catalans- B Saints- B Wigan- A Warrington- A Hull KR- C Huddersfield- C Salford- C Leeds- D Leigh- E Castleford- F Hull FC- F London- E

Like I say, for me it just doesn't feel like an England game if it's not the best available players. It never will be unless it's played Down Under. Can we compromise with an annual mid-season England international Down Under on the same weekend as Yorkshire v Lancashire, France v Wales and Ireland v Scotland? (Throw in England Knights v Jamaica for those not eligible for Yorks/Lancs).

Each to their own. I enjoyed the Roses series in the 00s, and the reason for a somewhat lower than normal quality would be more down to backing up after a SL game IMO.

One England team at close to reserve international standard playing a team that is below reserve international standard is a lower standard than 2 teams at close to reserve international standard, yes. The mistake you made was not remembering that France are lightyears away, even from our reserves. It's a poor matchup.

I would far rather England play in a competitive, meaningful match. If they can't do that, I don't want them to play as it cheapens the brand. That's my biggest issue. England in tinpot matches missing half of their available players in front of a crowd not befitting an international event serves no purpose for the players (of both teams), the sport or the fans. If this is all we can get mid-season, I'd rather we didn't use the England monicker and saved it for proper internationals at the end of the season. I want England to be a big deal and it's matches like this that make it less so. If we can't do it right, do something else. I'd rather an All Stars game than a match that damages the viewing of international rugby league.

There's never been "loads of marketing" for anything in rugby league except for finals and end of season internationals. It was marketed as County of Origin, but other than a name and a logo, what else did they do? Even with the England brand advantage, you can't get anyone to go to a mid-season drubbing with half the team playing at the other side of the world. It's very close to reserve international standard. The fact that you think there's not much of a difference between playing on a Wednesday night and playing on a Saturday evening is laughable by the way. You surely don't mean that.

There's no other way? You mean a Wednesday night in Bradford is better than a Saturday in Leigh or Warrington? There's loads of other ways that could have done it better, and I'm not sure where this "had far more marketing" line is coming from. What was this marketing that I missed?

England v France mid-season has never broken 9k, and that's with the luxury of being played on the weekend. Roses matches in the summer era broke that twice with midweek fixtures. It wouldn't be a proper England camp though. It would be missing many of the top players from NRL, played at the intensity of a game with lower SL opposition. If you're not going to have a proper camp, might as well give more English players a go with a higher intensity.

The bar is "better than what we currently have." I believe in many areas, it would be. An international has the bar of being an international-calibre event, of which none of the mid-season tests have been.

The vast majority of people I've spoken to would prefer it over a game v France or Exile. But admittedly, that's from a Yorkshire perspective.

It's been done 3 seasons in the full time summer era. Only one game was on a Friday/weekend. Rest midweek. And still had better crowds than England v France on a Saturday mid season.

If they can't do it in a credible way due to matters out of their control (releasing of NRL players, credible competition, etc), I don't think they should prioritise it at all. It's not a proper international, and those that perceive it as being one are more likely to be put off future internationals. Beyond our control due to the NRL. Only way it would work would be over there. You ain't getting them to send a team, their English-based NRL players won't come for a nothing fixture, there's no credible competition over here except France and they can't put out a decent side due to players being pulled. I think it would be supported better than a nothing fixture against France personally. Also, we need to stop being ashamed of our Northern roots. There's nothing wrong with specifically celebrating them at least once!

One harms the brand we're trying to develop for international fixtures. The other doesn't. That's why I'm more inclined to go for the Roses. The only credible England international fixture we could arrange would have to be Down Under due to the logistics of having credible opposition (not getting it over here mid-season). I reckon you could send a small group Down Under (we've got a lot of NRL talent now) and have enough hungry fringe players left here to have a Roses match trying to fight their way into selection for the end of the season if we needed to host something here every year.

"Badly" is subjective, and both the parameters used to measure what badly is are different for an international fixture and a non-international rep fixture. The international is done badly when compared to other international competition. The Roses fixture has no comparison here. It's its own entity. That's my point really. One is 'done badly' and harms the building of interest for the international brand rather than adds to it. The other is just 'done'.

I don't expect it to have more money for commitment. But at least it will achieve similar (if not more) than the current internationals we put on (i.e. a competitive match, and not an event that is an embarrassment to the idea of international sport).

When people can saying WotR "failed", what measure are we using here? Crowd-wise, it did ok with very little promotion. The result wasn't predictable. It gave lots of players a run-out in a rep environment. It produced some great merchandise (I'm literally sat with my Yorkshire shirt on from 2003). Currently, any mid-season international ends up either being predictable, doesn't bring in the best players available, or has such a poor turnout that it damages international RL's credibility. Either do it properly, or if you can't then do something else. We can't, so do something else until we can. (At least we're finally playing the mid-season game in France).

Confirmed by Rovers. I heard on Humberside they're digging Tom Davies next year, so this makes sense now.

By identifying all of those roles, you've pretty much done the job of the Director of Rugby.

Despite having many rugby league friends, I often find football is the more prevalent topic of conversation. It's the most watched in pubs when I play darts around the city in the Thursday (even European games). It's unprecedentedly more popular amongst young people from when I was teaching. There's just no question. City get a higher combined attendance currently. Even if many are from out of town, think how many Leeds fans, Man City fans, Man Utd fans, Liverpool fans, Arsenal fans, Chelsea fans, etc. there are. Football is just so much more inclusive due to how easy it is to play, how accessible it is follow, watch and play. You can't get away from it. It'll always be more widely followed here.

No Saudi oil money for us. The dream was funny whilst it lasted