Whether or not it is a risk is immaterial. Everything is.

New Zealand have never hosted an entire RLWC...that was my original point. They played some games in 1968 (shared with Australia) and the final in the round robin 1988 series but they have never, since 1954, held the tournament. It will be 63 years by 2017 - and a New Zealand side have played in every RLWC.

That is patently unfair irrespective of any other factor.

Britain has had it solely. Australia has had it solely. France has had it solely.

New Zealand are RLWC holders.

Finances is a secondary consideration to fairness - that is what distinguishes us from your second (cough) favourite sport.

His name is used for the shield for the Test winner between you (GB) and the Kiwis already btw.

And as he preferred to use Baskerville (and had it legally changed to that), although the family name was Baskiville, most historians tend to go with the former to respect the personal choice.

I read about that although I never realised he legally changed his name.
A century ago it was common for people to adapt their names anyway, or it was in England. I'm sure 'Dally' Messenger is another

getting back on topic...

agreed that NZ should host a world cup...rather they host a 4nations solely first...to test the waters..afterall you can count the number of tests they've hosted over the last 10 years on 1 hand..(just about)

The game that never was. The (non) marketing of the All Golds game was embarrassing. My dad only knew about it when he turned the tv on and they were playing.

I knew about it for an eternity before.
It was just put across with about as much enthusiasm as a funeral and I knew no one was bothering (especially my mates i'd normally go the HJ with) so I didn't bother either