I thought we could get NRL players to play internationals easy just by asking???

You cannot have an international game with only 3/4 competitive teams that is not an international proposition - the sport needs to focus on the soccer model whereby the club game is the focus and what differentiates the sport. The sport needs to find ways of maximising income at the elite club level in order to invest in better youth development and facilities.

Most soccer fans are far more interested in their club than they are in England/Scotland etc and I don't see the domestic game struggling because of lack of success at international level

I assume that's because you are a moron.

firstly, the Euros and World Cup are far and away the biggest competitions in football, Soccer in no way prioritises the club game. It is in every way secondary. Ask Joel Matip.
secondly Most soccer fans arent the one that advertisers and sponsors are trying to reach. As RL finds out time and time again, there is limited money in the Wheeltappers and Shunters social club outings.
thirdly, football in scotland is on its .

Which is why at some point you have to actually put time effort and money into developing more internationals teams. Rugby Union is a good example of this.

RL is never going to be like football. No other sport is. It's appeal is so widespread, RL will never match that at domestic level. It's only way of increasing profile is with England playing internationals. All the Wigan v St Helens grand finals in the world aren't going to get people in other area of the country watching the sport. England will.

Problem is that it will take way too much time. Time that the club game can't afford. It can't afford right now to have its best players taken out of it for periods of time whilst the VERY VERY LONG time it'd take to bring other international teams up to a suitable standard to provide a truely attractive international calendar.

Really? The game can't afford to have its best players play 25 SL games out of 30?

Not that long ago they were only playing 27 and not much further back they were only playing 23.

I'd say the club game can't afford NOT to make it's best players available for internationals.

No SL really can't afford to take its best players out for a number of games at this point. May well have played 23/27 games previously but players weren't being taken out of the competition.

Why can't the club game not afford to make its players available for internationals?

Well, Im sure ThePrinter will be proved right come May when Super League collapses after England take the field against a team no-one plays for, in a game no-one watches, nobody sponsors and nobody broadcasts.

I can't wait until England play Wales or Ireland in a mid season international and suddenly an extra 30,000 fans turn up to the next round of SL fixtures off the back of England's 50 point win in front of 8,000 fans.

1. England arent playing Wales or Ireland. 2. More than 8k will watch, and more than 20k watched last time we played Ireland 3. We didnt, and wouldnt win by 50points. 4. Nobody has suggest an extra 30k would turn up the next week.

Other than those irrelevancies and your lack of coherence and cogency its a good argument. Well done.

Its almost as if you don't realise it's just a like for like retort to your previous post which had me down for several things you exaggerated.