merge with union


LOL

I can understand the business case for this and if you were a dispassionate executive with no allegiances to either code and no insight into the history of the code war then it might look feasible.

A hybrid game that had fixtures such as Saracens v Rhinos, Wigan v Northampton, Sts v Bath, Leicester v Hull played in modern stadia and in front of crowds of 15,000 to 20,000 looks awesome on paper but IMO wouldn't work.

Ridiculously we would end up with three codes of rugby, League, Union & a hybrid of the two, there would be problems internationally with the NRL not gaining anything from the merger and probably opting to stand alone. There would be a number of traditional English League clubs rushing to fill the void left by the departure of Wigan, Bradford etc and before long we would see the birth of a new Wigan, Bradford and so on.

The cumulative effect would be a watering down of the hybrid game and it would eventually stall and fail, the question is what state would both League and Union be left in afterwards.

Yes this thread has been done before.

The reason for the idea in Australia was that RL crowds are down .. particularly in Sydney.

The problem you've got is that it would just end up being Rugby Union.

League is not big enough to have a say in what goes on, the union purists would object to the league influence, and the league lot would desert the new game because they find union slow and boring.

Within 10 years, we'd have THREE forms of rugby. Union, League and the hybrid.

I take the view that RL should now try to distance itself from RU. RU have cleverly engineered a monopoly on the use of the word Rugby. Well, if they want it, let them have it - we can call ourselves League, or even RFL. We already refer to the NFL, NBA, AFL etc, so why not RFL?

Then, and only then, will people 'get' that RL is a completely different sport to its union counterpart - too different to be merged into it, for sure - and only then will it be taken seriously as a sport in its own right, and not just a northern way of playing rugby.

Just take a look at the reaction when you mention the 'M' word in the same sentence as Wakey and Cas .
That should give you an idea of what reaction you will get . If teams are not prepared to merge with a neighbour that plays the same sport , then I very much doubt they would entertain the idea of a merge with another team AND a change of the sport that their team plays .

This BS has been suggested 1000s of times over the last 100 years. Havent you got anything better to talk about?

I agree with you regarding union taking over and we would end up with three codes of rugby,no thanks.

As for our game dropping the name rugby why should we.

As far as I am concerned rugby is RL,stuff union let them think they have claimed the name rugby,couldn't care less.

In fairness Union has been around longer than league

stop this hybrid talk please!

Rugby League fans dont want it.

No it has not. They were both the same game, started at Rugby school. It was the northern clubs that broke away (1895) & the clubs carried on with the same rules they just evolved. Union & League are nothing like they were at the time of the split but our history is shared before the split even if the Union try to deny it.

Phipps says that the reason that a unification game was tried in Australia is that RL crowds are down. In fact NRL crowds were the highest ever last year if you include both the regular season and the finals. See here.
[urlhttp://stats.rleague.com/rl/crowds/summary.html[/url
For RU neither super 15 nor club rugby publish regular attendance figures but the crowds in both competitions were certainly well down a year ago. Final figures are not yet available for either code for this year.