Spot on and in France you only have Catalans and Toulouse in the top leagues and no Scottish or Irish presence and limited Welsh. You can't just expect to grow the game and the international sides in those countries with little to no major club presence.

Put it this way if the positions were switched with England and Ireland/Scotland and we had no real club presence in England, no Leeds, no Wigan, no Hull, do you honestly think you could attract AND keep those fans just off several international games a year, especially when you could take a heavy beating in some of them and not have the week to week interest at club level to keep them attracted to the sport.

A unique spectacle for sure though I don't think there's been a 40k attendance as yet. To be honest, I doubt whether any English club that's already appeared in one will approach that figure in the foreseeable. A grand final-winning Hull team might but only as a one-off.

How many attended the Leeds v Canterbury 37k?

If the English side had a genuine chance of beating the NRL side I see the potential for a good sized crowd certainly sufficient to fill the JJB or Huddersfield's ground which is all we really manage for internationals.

I don't see the future of RL growth in repeatedly playing Australia and NZ - we see in SL familiarity doesn't engage crowds proactively.

The quality of the product(super league)at present and I would argue recent seasons has done nothing to increase the fan base or attract new fans in any great number.before we talk about expanding international crowds and central contracts this lack of quality has to be addressed first surely?

Completely agree Chestnut.
What i would suggest re-international fixtures is a return to GB for tours say every 3/4 yrs.
Id also have a tournament shadowing the 4nations so each fixture has a double header i.e Eng v Oz preceded by Fiji v NZ Maori etc to also include England Knights Oz A & NZ Maori teams.

England play Italy every year in RU, they have played 22 times, lost 22 times, scoring 275pts and conceding 882pts.

Many sports play mid-season internationals, The autumn internationals where Southern Hemisphere RU nations play northern hemisphere RU ones is are played in the northern hemisphere season, Lions tours, all mid season.

In fact we will play a southern hemisphere side this year mid-season.

Outside the top three nations, we can easily see Tonga, Samoa, Fiji, France, PNG, and as we saw last year, Scotland put out competitive sides. There are literally 10 cricketing nations, 1 of them is an absolute basket case about to lose its full member status, another is one of the poorest nations on earth who have won a grand total of 8 tests out of 98, another of their full member nations isnt even a real country and another is a war-zone that can't host home games.

as for an expanded WCC, it isnt an either or situation.

International RL is a better standard than SL. It is the only chance people get to see the best players in the world. It is the best quaity, the most easily accessible, the widest net for new and casual fans.

England don't only play Italy RU every year it is one game that is part of a competition involving 4 other countries - that isn't the same as hammering France/Wales every year as the only international mid season is it?

Lions tours are not mid season for the UK side neither are the autumn internationals for the southern hemisphere sides. You never see mid season internationals involving northern and southern hemisphere teams when both sides are participating in their domestic competition - again something you very well know.

We may be playing a mid season game in Australia - let's hope it goes better than the last time we tried this!!

It simply isn't practical - there is a reason why the soccer world cup group series is sectioned off as it is - also why fixtures are cancelled in the PL when you get an international week of games.

Scotland put out a side of English and NRL players - that is hardly an international side.

But nobody is suggesting that a single one-off friendly is the aim for us either. The argument is that we should have central contracts so we can play 3,4,5 games.

Super Rugby starts in February and ends in August, Premiership RU starts in September and finishes in May. The seasons only overlap for about 10 weeks.

Sadly mid-season or post-season hasnt really made much of a difference

Fine, create a window if you want.

Why hold ourselves to a higher standard then everyone else?

Samoa, Fiji, PNG, France, NZ, Wales, Scotland, Tonga,
maybe
US, Italy, Cooks Islands, Ireland,

I'd try and sort out eligibility first. Persuade Australia and new that in the interests of the international game that they don't pick islanders, and in turn improve those sides. not sure how we could get stronger northern hemisphere teams without clubs from those countries playing at a higher level

Agree with this in general.

But I'd say I think the way (or at least part of it) to achieve this is by having more internationals on a set calendar. So then, say, PNG or Fiji would have more chance of keeping "their" players if they knew they were going to get so many games a year, every year, including against top teams, to build around.

As for NH teams, again I agree on the clubs which is why I'd focus every ounce of effort and every penny on France and Wales. They have clubs, maybe not at the level we'd like but it puts them a step ahead of the other nations. Again, having a set international calendar guaranteeing say 5 or 6 internationals a year I think is vital. But there's also plenty more work can be done to setup/strengthen the infrastructure for these national teams too. At the moment the infrastructure for internationals is very weak.