True in terms of number of teams, and spectators / income, but its absolute gash, and for anyone to think that its vastly better than an RL comp is deluded.

In RU, there are 4 maybe 5 teams that can win it. In RL there are 3.

In both competitions there are massive washout games, although in the RL World cup they tried to reduce it by a tiering system.

With both competitions it only really gets interesting at the semis.

The problem with the RL internationals is that there is no structure to them, or very little structure to them.

With RU internationals you know you get Autumn internationals against southern hemisphere teams, 6 nations in the new year, and tours to southern hemisphere teams in the summer.

With RL, we get a poorly thought out mid season game, and some international matches whose format seems to be decided by the flip of a coin 18months in advance.

If I were in charge I would have autumn internationals alternating between southern and northern hemisphere teams each autumn, with the world cup instead every 4 years.

As well as a lower tier international competitions in autumn for the likes of the home nations and france (depending on who is in the 4 nations), and similar for the pacific islands.

I think the other major issue is with the profile of internationals. The main difference in mindset / viewing of the two games is that in RL clubs come first, and in RU its internationals.

the RFL need to work on making the international game more appealing to spectators, and the supporters need to get as excited at seeing GB beat the Kiwis & Aussies, as going to the Cup final or grand final.

Use a bit of nouse, let kids in free with an adult etc, but get people into the games and fill the stadiums.

Does not really matter, because either way the RU world cup is not in the top ten of either!

Maybe not on your radar it isn't, but that doesn't mean millions of other people around the world in numerous countries aren't interested in it.

Yes, but I am talking about the global audience. It is not my top-ten it is THE top ten.

Do you think the RU World Cup attracts a bigger world wide TV audience than the-

Tour-de-France
Cycling World Cup
World Track Cycling Championships
F1
Moto GP
World and FIFA area Championships
All of the four Tennis Grand Slams (individually as well, not combined)
The Superbowl
The World Series Finals
Altheltics World Championships
NHL Play-offs

That is eleven so far (even counting the tennis as one)... shall I go on?

If you like, but you'll excuse me if I don't believe that the Cycling World Cup, World Track Cycling Championships and TDF are such elite events in terms of audience. If they were, they would be covered in more detail on British TV, rather than buried on the BBC red button and ITV4 for starters.

Apparently the one with Colin Firth cost about £6m. But:
Between 10 and 11 million people watched it
8 foreign countries bought the rights to the series
200,000 videos were sold in the first year
20,000 copies of a "making of" book sold

So it more than likely made a profit or at least came close to for the BBC.

The same isnt true of the vast majority of sporting events.

Andy, bless you! The TDF IS the world's biggest annual sporting event in terms of TV audience. Sorry, but it is true... it as some like to say on this website A FACT. I would also think that both the Cycling World Champs Mens road race and time-trial and the Track Championships do have a bigger global TV audience as well than the RU World Cup but could be wrong. However, the Tennis, F1 etc, you must know they are bigger as well?

I am disappointed you would use a phrase like "sport" to describe rugby union frankly.

PS I dug myself out pretty well back there didn't I?

...and where resales obviously rake in a massive amount of income for the BBC, in fact if the licence fee were ever to be scrapped I'd take a guess at them being able to still fund a going concern on the strength of their drama and natural history production resales.

You only have to look at BBC2, BBC3 and BBC4 and then compare to ITV's equivalent to see how shallow the commercial channels production efforts are and what the word "quality" means in a TV sense.

Good effort. although I fear you may have already lost the jury by that point.

Reputation dear chap, reputation.

But compare that to the quality of drama that comes out of the US commercial channels, The Wire, Sopranos, Lost, 24 etc - in the right hands and with suitable competition commercial TV can produce superb TV

I would have thought for somebody who relies on clients going down they are pretty important to you

...and now compare what has happened to ITV's drama producing capacity in the last twelve months.

The American HBO network has established a model very similar to the BBC in producing expensive well directed dramas almost purely for resale to networks all over the world, its very much a case of being first on the block and doing what you do well, getting your brand name to be seen as the quality option so that its sells before its even made.

Commercial TV is prone to the vaguaries of investors and commercial decisions, can you remember the last time an ITV production crew made anything like "Life", I can't, not unless we go a long way back to the days of Anglia TV - and then they went and made fekkin Sale of the Century.