I agree with your second point, and Im 50 - 50 on your first point, but even if SoO is a better brand of Rugby, i would say that more people would be interested in an international fixture rather than a fixture between two states. I reckon over 95% of sports fans in this country wouldnt even know what SoO was, never mind want to go watch it.

people dont know about it.

thats where the marketing comes in.

and because its different to what soccer or union can offer the public, people might say, wow, ill give this a chance

the kind of people that normally dont give RL a lot of time.

when you want to introduce new people to RL, its the best way to do it.

ive seen it happen year after year basically since its started where you go wow, this stuff is amazing.

if people like what they see, they might get hooked on the RL bug.

You went last year Dally?

Funny about that, I went to the last game that was held in Melbourne and that would have been near on 3 years ago.

I've been out of the country for 16 months.

Secondly, I still manage to see 4-5 games of RL a week through a mixture of Setanta and the net.

I am also still able to read just as much as I did before I left, this internet thing is amazing.

its a silly argument to use. just argue it on its merits.

most aussies i know say nine is s**t vs fox. you said it wasnt.

you havent been in aus for a bit.

therefore its cause you are overseas?

see where the agrument gets you.

poor debating.

see what i mean about poor debating.

in the words of fatty vautin, youve got nuthin

hindy, you stick to reading about NRL games, ill stick to attending them live.

round 3, 6 games already.

I'd say getting your facts totallyt muddled up is pretty poor debating!

the frustrating thing about internet forums is when people get upset when you dont agree with them, and then they resort to petty name calling.

or when they say this just wont work because you have no understanding of our local sporting market.

big cop out to me.

Dally, Fredie...

I am a huge NSW fan, saw my first game in 87, have been to at least one game between the years of 94 - 07 in three states, I believe that it is the best brand of Rugby League that you will see. Now take YOUR blinkers off and look at this objectively. Stop using throw away examples that have no relevance to the products, markets and objectives of other similar ventures.

Why do you need an origin game to be played in England?

What do you guys beleive will be acheived by playing a game in England?

You gave the example of foreign football internationals being played in England, yet again showing how little you know about world sport and the reasons that these games are played here.

I am going to give you guys a very basic run down of why it is an insane idea to play a game of Origin in England (and more specifically London).

The ARL is the owner of the product SOO. This product essentially is the ARL's cash cow. Now why would the ARL want to devalue their premium product in order to promote Rugby League in London? At the same time why would they be so arrogant to think that they can promote RL in London better then London RL and the RFL.

What benefit would the ARL get out of playing a game in London?

As I said earlier, playing an 'exhibition' game of Origin goes against what makes the concept so unique. There would be with out a doubt many players that would be unavailable due to off-season surgery. All ready you are devaluing the origin and blues/maroons brands.

Onto the Revenue is derived from several (main) sources. Would a game in England have any benefit for the ARL in these main forms?

- TV
No extra benefit, poor viewing time for Australia.
- Tickets and Hospitality
Debateable. The amount of money spent on hosting the game in england, plus any marketing and media spend would negate any gate. Hospitality sales would be minor in a foreign market
- Sponsorship
No extra benefit, due to series and team major sponsors being mostly Australian based. No real exposure through TV and print media
- Licenced Merchandise
Unlikely to increase

You give the example of the Melbourne game. The ARL has locked in to taking games to Melbourne due to the Victorian governmets financial assistance. While I dont have the figures on hand (nor can I be bothered searching) the economic impact on the city of Melbourne was measured in the 10's of millions. The same could not be said for an Origin game in London, you are not going to get 15-20k Australians heading over to watch an exhibition match. While the ARL get a cash injection and assistance in the form of a new Stadium, no one is going to come on board to give money to the ARL to play a game over here.

OK now we've looked at (very simply) why it is not commercially viable for the ARL to take a game to England.

Now why dont you just think for a second that for a country that invented the game, has its own proffesional competition and clubs in the capital, hosts the Challenge Cup Final in the capital doesnt need SOO as its saviour in the South. The problem is a lot more deep rooted then that!

Round 4 just passed buddy. Another lie hey Dally?

I've seen more NRL live then you've had hot dinners pal. I'll be back again in the next year or two, I'm sure I can make up for it then.

For now my trips to the Stoop and planned visits this year to Knowsley Rd, Murrayfield, Perpignan and Headingly will do.

and ill repeat, im not saying the ARL should give up an actual game in the 3 game series.

im talking about an off season game so it wont mean we lost a single game.

why is it arrogant to think that playing the best RL on earth wont be attractive to london.

i mean it sure helped the melbourne storm get fans, so clearly theres a spin off.

and one way you could make sure the players take it seriously is to split any money raised from the game in a way where the winners got most of the money.

players love their coin

and ive shown many expamples of other sports or teams foreign to the local market being quite succesful.

if RU can do it, why cant RL?

why do well sell ourselves short?