Hmm, I don't agree on sending the Challenge Cup winners into the competition at all. If this had been the case many moons ago Sheffield Eagles would have been in the competition and at the time they were doing poorly in the league.

I would suggest the two grand finalists to enter and then the best two placing clubs that were not in the GF. So in that case the World Club Challenge contest this year would consist of the following teams:

Super League:
GF Winner: Leeds Rhinos (5th)
GF Loser: St Helens (3rd)
1st Best Placed League Finish: Warrington Wolves (1st)
2nd Best Placed League Finish: Wigan Warriors (2nd)

NRL:
GF Winner: Manly Sea Eagles (2nd)
GF Loser: New Zealand Warriors (6th)
1st Best Placed League Finish: Melbourne Storm (1st)
2nd Best Placed League Finish: Brisbane Broncos (3rd)

Also not sure how I'd go about the matches. Should they be two legged affairs home and away?

That's saying something and that isn't a great deal

Our cup competition doesn't have a tv broadcaster at the moment (or if we do, where have we been told?). Our top flight league is still giving free advertising to a past sponsor (and its new one has promised to advertise our game on its trucks and how many have you seen?!). It let a club operate under farcical conditions and pull of the league.

No, the RFL is doing a grand job

Co-ordinate the two comps to finish the same weekend and have whatever games are to be played as a prelude to that season's International tournament in whichever hemisphere is applicable.

From SL's point of view the England team is pretty much drawn from the top three or four teams anyway and such games against their NRL counterparts would arguably present a better individual stepping stone to the Internationals than playing a cobbled together rep side in a warm-up - although as the collective element would be lost a warm-up may still be advantageous to England after the WCC.

I don't really see it happening - logistics, costs, sponsor interest would all have to be in place - but that doesn't mean I wouldn't like to, at least as a one-off to see if we can muster a challenge before it's inevitable binned.

now it is in manchester bin the magic weekend but then we could do this
instead of a SOO they could be called the champion of champions

challenge cup winners v grandfinal runners up
challenge cup runners up ( or league leaders) v grand final winners

as a purely rerepresntative the non participating sides could do a Best of the rest v the Superleague select13 or fans pick13 and have 3 weeks of this type of representative rugby

the winners play each other the losers play each other as a roundrobin and a mini league

This idea is Trademarked so if it is a goer i want my percentage cut

I am in favour of a something like the 3 top clubs from SL & NRL playing an annual competiition after the GFs on the lines that GH proposed on Boots 'n All yesterday.

Serious consideration should be given to reducing the SL to 10 or 12 with promotion and relegation playoffs. I would ditch the 4 nations and return to alternative year tours with GB /Kangaroos /NZ & Islands. These tours could be 3 international Test Matches + 3/4 matches against club sides and I would continue the Exiles experiement. This plus an expanded WCC competition would get more games of high intensity and should improve our International chances.

Highlights from Boots 'n All were GH's sly dig at Wigan fans ("Manly had the same preparation as St George had last year..." guffaw), and Phil Clarkes impersonation of a 1920's public schoolboy (has his neck swollen or has his collar shrunk? Looks like he's stolen Mark Ronson's luggage). Stevo, to quote Stevo, has "completely lost the plot" - "you can't beat the Australians for 40 years then suddenly decide to change the competition". Mike, 40 years mate, 40 years is not "suddenly".

GH handled himslelf extrememly well - Eddie: "can, in about 10 seconds, you give us your thoughts on Jamie Peacock's MBE?", cue 10 seconds of silence while Gary waited to start giving his thoughts.

Just watched the 'Boots and All' .....GH is serious about this it appears and I hope he is instrumental in getting something off the ground. However I do think the concept of 3rd v 3rd; 2nd v 2nd and 1st v 1st is a bit hopeless. Apart from the 1st v 1st the remaining matches wil be devoid of any meaning at all. Better to put all six clubs in the mix with the two respective GF winners (played same weekend) seeded in some way to miss out on the first round.

We can certainly dispense with the useless exiles (not Nantwich).

You think it promotes our game well and gets it out there?


really?

Yes.

Next.

oh dear

You're the one suggesting it doesn't Loz, and using two examples that fall clearly within the jurisdiction of SLE rather than the RFL to "prove" your point.

If you can back up your assertion that the RFL is failing, despite it being more financially robust than at any time in recent history, continuing to expand the open age, junior and women's games into new areas. a 27% increase in participation across players, officials, coaches and volunteers and running the largest knockout tournament in the world in the Champion Schools competition, go ahead.