I'm pro both.

At the end of the day, if England were successful and we won things it would generate interest in the sport, more people would jump on the bandwagon (I'd hope) and that momentum could benefit the whole game, which, in turn, could benefit teams like Castleford and make for a stronger and more competitive league(s).

Ultimately, if it was a choice between things, naturally it would be club purely because we are underdogs and we have very few, if any, chances to win anything in our current guise (by that I mean without new stadium spending full SC) etc.

Mayby this increase in sky payments could go to recompencing the clubs? But if a centralised contract keeps a top player in Rugby L. Then wouldn't the club he plays for benifit anyway??

Peacock making daft comments like what?

The GB thing is another fair point. Brand recognition takes time, although this will be the 4th season England have played. How long do we need to expect for the brand to wear in? 5 years? 10 years?...

I don't think adding more friendlies is what is needed though. England need competitions, not one-off games. Even a small series between England, Wales and France with a final could work. But there is little interest in friendlies (as has been seen at club level for years and years).

Not if the club hasn't got any. And who decides who is centrally contracted? Do they count on the cap? Are clubs allowed as many centrally contracted players as they like?

These are some of the questions that come to play with central contracts. I don't disagree, but there needs to be a bit more to it I think than just saying "these guys are paid for by the RFL". If say Wigan has 5 centrally contracted players, how does that work with the cap? And is it fair that they have essentially a bigger wage bill on their squad than the rest of the league?

Think this could be getting a bit side-tracked from my original point though.

But we're the third best test side in the world. You shouldn't have to be the best in order to draw a crowd. It's not like Aus and NZ are bringing in much bigger crowds at test level than us, is it? There's a lot more to it than the success of the international team IMO.

I also find your reason to pick Castleford over England (being the "underdogs"icon_wink.gif not very convincing, as surely that could apply to both? What have England/GB won in, say, my lifetime? (24 years).

Club first which is a shame because I used to love going to the tests at Wembley in the early 90's. For me I preferred GB and the thing that puts me off International rugby is players playing for more than one international team. For me this makes it a joke and until that stops I can't take the International game seriously.

Club first. Gross over simplificaton, but I think the two sports where it is the way around are RU and cricket - both 'Southern sports' in my view. In the North we have stronger sense of the civic, relative to the national, again IMO.

What would it take for me to change? The thing is, I don't want to. I don't want players on central contracts playing international tournaments, while a devalued club comp continues in the background.

Not that I don't want England to do well or can't see benefits if they did - but I wouldn't want to sacrifice any, or at least much, of what we have, even if I thought it'd see us compete much more closely with the Kangaroos or Kiwis.

Some of the reasons I've got so far:

They don't play enough games (lack of a regular schedule means people haven't got the chance to grow an allegiance to them).

Of the games they do play, only a few are meaningful (lack of importance in an event isn't attractive).

Of the games that are meaningful, nearly all are played in small towns and small venues (even the event games don't feel like an event).

And they don't win many of the important games anyway (lack of success, although this shouldn't be something we build a team on to be fair).

They don't have a regular schedule, and that schedule is announced very late on (people are unfamiliar with when they're playing, it shouldn't be hard work to find out).

They don't represent everyone (many fans in the lower leagues feel alienated by the RFL, and England represent the closed-shop elite of Super League and not the whole structure).

There are other games on at the same time (forcing fans/players to make a choice isn't going to go down to well).

X, Y & Z play for England, and they aren't liked (over-emphasis on club loyalties sees fans despise players on what is essentially their own team).

The current coach is crap (lack of belief that we can win and lack of belief that we're doing something about it, although this links into the fact that we don't play many games to be able to say he's not good enough).

We don't really know much about the opposition (not many people who watch rugby over here watch rugby from over there as well, so don't know much about them, and since there aren't that many internationals we don't get a chance to familiarise with them. On top of that, there isn't that much cross-over competitions at club level to help like in football for example, and I suppose union as well).

Any more?

I don't really agree with the first point, but everyone's entitled to their own opinion.

Why do you not want to change out of interest? Why does your club mean more to you than your country?

I'm not willing to give any of my money to SL clubs or the RFL unless it involves a Championship club , but you knew that anyway

I would, can't wait to have Sam Tomkins on MY side in an England shirt!

Until the RFL ( Rugby football league ) start to treat the RFL ( Rugbys Forgotten Leagues ) with a bit more respect , no