What I meant was that not everything is to be sold to you, the hard-core fan. That you wouldn't be interested doesn't tell us a lot.

Firstly I haven't suggested those are the only teams we could play. We don't play them this year. Secondly NZ v Scotland was a great game last year, England v Scotland was a decent game too.

Quite hypocritical of you to say it's convenient for me to say we'll do a bad job. Your whole argument is based on marketing and organising 'we'll just do it well' as if it's that simple. If RL in this country did marketing, organising and planning really well then the VT wouldn't be full of constant threads slagging them off for nearly everything they do with yourself being one of the chief culprits, note your criticism of the Johnny Vegas ad.....if only you were in the room to tell the marketers to "do it well".

The difference with your games from the 90's is that they're against Australia....never said we'd struggle to get good crowds for that but as I pointed out early in the thread you can't just play them over and over. You've cut and shut two different things together in a World Cup game vs Ireland and a mid season game vs Australia to try and construct some flimsy evidence that therefore Ireland mid season would do great numbers.

We haven't even gotten on to the very tricky subject of NRL teams releasing players not just for us but the ones who help make up the other home nations sides. I suppose in your world it'll just be as simple as saying "we'll make them".

if you think that is hypocrisy, I can only assume you don't know what the word means.

that you think because of previous struggles in those areas we shouldn't expect improvement seems, well, sad to me. It doesn't seem like the outlook of a happy, optimistic, successful person.

No. I haven't. I have disproved your argument that A) only games against Australia get decent numbers and B) that only post season games get good figures.

it's always fun to watch you talk yourself in a circle. You can almost pinpoint the exact moment when it dawns on you that even you don't really believe what you are saying. You then try and change the argument to an absurdly specific straw man. like here where an argument in favour of central contracts allowing the release of international players for international games gets reduced to needing a mid-season game against ireland with no wider context, needing to get as big a crowd as a world cup game for some reason.

['"

No it just means I'm realistic and don't have my head in the clouds like yourself.

Every sad sack cynic will tell you they are a realist

Yes I have. I have conclusively shown that non australia games can get good crowds and that mid season games can get good crowds. you even admitted so in your last post.

Seen as my argument was England playing northern hemisphere teams in mid season let's look at the most recent example, which Smokey is convientely not mentioning in favour of non comparable games....

2010 - England vs France
60-6
Att - 7,951

Wonder why he isn't using the most recent like for like comparison

Here you are again. Contorting to find and argument you can win rather than addressing the arguments that were made.

The argument was that central contracts would allow leverage for more internationals to be played. As you have dug and scrapped and twisted and turned, bent and stretched to find and point you think you can score on, you have now redefined the argument to your strawman of only England playing only northern hemisphere sides mid-season and the only comparable example is the poorly planned, poorly marketed friendly game against France in a northern backwater in 2010.

Of course England could only play northern hemisphere sides. Try could never play southern hemisphere sides, could only play in England, could never get the NRL to release players, and wouldn't bother with midseason games anyway. We definitely definitely won't see anything that breaks ThePrinter's obvious, well thought out and clearly true and correct rhetorical parameters. Nope, never. Not theses days. it's 2017 and not 1990

We have to enhance the international scene. It's a no-brainer. And while I think a great many of the reasons given as to why Smokey's proposed games wouldn't be well received are valid, I do think we have to make a start and we have to stick with it and make it work. Even if that takes 20 years. Internationals are probably the one thing which the national media is currently willing to make a bit of an effort where the game's concerned. We need to exploit that, and the sponsorship opportunities that will arise along the way.

I made the original argument that games vs the likes of France, Ireland, Wales played during the season wouldn't be well attended and I made way back on page 2 so I don't see how I've changed and twisted my point in any way. You just didn't like what I said and have been screeching ever since.

You can play SouthernHempishere sides but as your argument was for more and more international fixtures it's ridiculous to just repeatedly play the Aussies and Kiwis, you'll dilute the fixture in a similar way when we use to find ourselves facing Bradford 5 times a year.

You literally cannot stop yourself. So having redefined 'more internationals' to only friendlies, only against northern hemisphere sides, only midseason and up against club games. You're now trying to redefine the southern hemisphere to only Oz an NZ.

try, just once, to address the argument as it is. Central contracts would allow more leverage for more international games and this is good. That is the premise.

exactly. It's like people think The RFU built an 80k stadium and out popped a fully formed 6 nations.

Yep. We need to start doing now what we should have been doing 20/30 years ago.

back on the subject of central contracts
IMO the ethos behind it is to stop the talent drain from SL to NRL and RU
Wouldn't the simplest implementation to be to set a budget for the year and any England squad player to be given a percentage (1/25) of the budget
Would this encourage the best players to stay in SL? Is this a big enough incentive to keep the talent and encourage fringe players to up their game?

Why not just increase the salary cap? Or say every club can have 1 or 2 players eligible for England who do not count on the cap. If the RFL have the funds to give out central contracts, they should increase the amount they give to clubs IMO.

They should not be giving out central contracts, to certain players at certain clubs. Who decides who to give the contracts to? Nigel Wood? Some clubs are going to benefit while others miss out. We already have a situation where a player who has never played for England is receiving payment directly from the RFL, why was he chosen ahead of others?

That final paragraph sums up my feelings perfectly.