Australia and NZ have been happy to go to the UK precisely because its the only place you can regularly make money from internationals. They've hardly 'bailed out' England. Internationals in England have a track record of making money since the World Cup debacle - Aus/NZ won't need any financial guarantees to visit for the Tri Nations. In contrast NZ asking England to tour is largely 'on spec' - pay all your costs and hope that there may be some money made from the visit that you get.

If anyone has devalued internationals its Australia with their insistence on the primacy of Origin (with its nonsensical and ridiculously flexible eligibility 'rules' - the only really rigid criteria being eligibility to play for Australia) and other things like insistence on Australian NRL refs in as many games as possible.

[url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/2427790/RFL-look-ahead-after-clearing-2m-debt.htmlThe RFL's near £2 million debt accumulated as a result of the disastrous 2000 World Cup was wiped out due to subsequent Aus and NZ tours to the UK[/url. The Aussies toured in 2001, 2003, 2004 and 2005... the Kiwis toured in 2002, 2004, 2005. Not only did those tours bail out the RFL, they laid down the foundations for future profitability.


It's rather difficult to market England tours down under due to the uncompetitive nature of the results and performances of our lads there during the SL-era. Still, you can always blame some thing or someone else for our unwillingness to undergo an international tour this year if that makes you feel more comfortable. Just file it in the "too hard basket" instead just like the RFL do on a regular basis.


Therefore the RFL's response is to devalue internationals even further with their Exiles concept and laughingly call it an international event. That way they can guarantee yet another home series. They may even subsequently select a few Exiles for England in the process using the very same flexible eligibility rules! Thanks for pointing all that out BTW rather than leaving it up to me to do so in the interests of a balanced debate




Which goes hand in hand with England's insistence on SL refs in as many games as possible, yes? But don't let your agenda get in the way of facts whatever you do.

Well its never stopped you before Keith.

FAIL.

But I'll still add you to my lengthy list of obsessive admirers along with the sundry incarnations of Loiner James.

Course, since 2008 there have been four major international competitions in rugby league.

Two of those have taken place in the northern hemisphere, two have taken place in the southern hemisphere.

Not exactly indicative of an unwillingness on the RFL's part to take international games overseas.

See - I can take a short period of time and make it suit a particular point too.

I can't find a link but I recall the IRLB or whatever it's called sharing the concerns Re: the financial situation of the RFL and international RL in general after the 2000 World Cup. There was definitely a commitment on the part of the ARL members to undergo several tours to the UK in order to help out.

What cannot be disputed is that several tours took place between 2001 and 2005 which were exclusively played in the UK to the benefit of the RFL and those tours financially bailed them out. Our contribution to playing international RL overseas was a one-off test match in Sydney in 2002. That's one appearance in 6 years!

I personally think it's a shame the RFL aren't prepared to send the national side out to tour NZ (the last tour there was in 1996 FFS) and a test against Fiji or PNG at the end of this season without the financial guarantees of making a short-term profit out of it. And then they had the audacity to blame Australia for the lack of an international program in the UK in 2012. Sometimes you have to take an initial loss on the chin for the greater and long-term good of the international game. Or perhaps it's far better to waste money on a failing SL franchise system instead?

How committed in the long term are the RFL/ARL/NZRL to the Tri/Four Nations concept?

Assuming a World Cup every four/five years and at least one tournament per hemisphere between World Cups, how much scope does that leave for flying half way around the world in order to play just three or four games - given that the traditional "tour" has died a death?

That remains to be seen. A 4N tournament is planned for 2013 and 2014 but neither have been officially rubber-stamped yet.


Was there no scope for a tour in 2012 then? And what's the number of games got to do with it? The RFL wanted a meaningful international series this year in preparation for the World Cup but clearly they only want it on their terms... to be played in the UK.

It's been that long between drinks that it's 20 years since we last beat the Kiwis in NZ! Nine former Leeds players played in that test match. No prizes for naming all nine.