it should be:-

SL: 1 League Leaders Shield (hubcap) winners
2 Challenge Cup Winners
3 Grand Final Winners

NRL: 1 Grand Final Winners
2 Minor Premiers
3 Either (Grand Final Runners up) OR (Minor Premier Runners up)

The 6 teams should then be drawn from a hat and placed in 2 groups or 3. each team plays the other 2 teams in their group ONCE. The top of each group progress to the final.

Could play the 4 group games over 1 week and the final the week later.

It also sounds like we won't be having a GB Tour next year either, not sure whether that's down to the union or not, though? Player welfare is obviously important but there will never be any meaningful expansion of the game if this insular attitude continues. In 2012, after the Aussies decided they weren't going to participate in any internationals, England got a god awful European tournament that was a complete waste of time, which was reflected in the poor attendances. Fans want to see the best players in the world competing against each other, there are limited ways this can happen with only 3 competitive international teams. Club internationals are the next best thing IMO, too many people think we need to follow the RU formula where the internationals lead the way, our strength as a sport is the 2 premier club competitions, and we need to find a way to exploit this for the benefit of the sport as whole.

Plenty of SL fans watch the NRL regularly, and I think their would be a lot of interest in an expanded WCC over here. If the mooted GB Tour has fallen through then I would look at bringing in an expanded tournament at the end of next season instead. Put it this way, would fans have more interest in going to watch a tournament featuring, for example, Wigan/Leeds/Saints/Warrington and Sydney/Manly/Souths/Melbourne or England, France and Wales?

Only having 2 premier competitions in the world is a weakness not a strength, and the only way we can change this is by taking a long term view and promoting Test football.
State of Origin rules already handicap Tests by forcing players to plump for Australia eligibility and denying particularly Pacific Nations from picking from the largest pool.
For most mature nations war has been replaced by sport - international sport - and we are way down the list in most if not all central funding tables because of our lack of international matches and profile.
If we want pro leagues across Europe, the USA, and the Pacific nations we need to let them play meaningful internationals EVERY YEAR - let's start with a Nines or a series of Nines; stick with it; and build.
We have the greatest game - lets have a pathway so the greatest athletes can play it.

The developing nations need more internationals, I agree. But the development of even one more competitive, elite nation is years, possibly decades away, let alone enough to provide an international stage that we can base the sport around. What I'm suggesting is while that is the case, we can use our top clubs rather than countries to showcase the sport to a worldwide audience. Look at the NFL, as an example, as a sport American Football doesn't have any meaningful international competitions, yet the clubs are some of the biggest worldwide sporting brands and on-the-road games have attracted full houses at Wembley. Why can't we use that as a model to grow RL?

It doesn't hurt the AFL or CFL either.
However, unlike the USA or Australia, everything that doesn't happen in or around London has no chance of a national profile. The AFL thrives in part because Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth have very little competition from the NRL.
The AFL would love some international presence of some meaning, but it hasn't happened thus far. The fact is Australia's media isn't centred on one city. As a media centre, Melbourne is just as important as Sydney and this as been the case for well over a century.

he means no matter what leeds are going to be in it.