you've contradicted yourself so many times in that post its funny......


you go on about "yet another meaningless team"...........GB is meaning less cos 17 englishmen does'nt represent the GREAT BRITISH ISLES!!

you say celts are proud and would jump at the chance to play for their nation.....and with GB around they might get the chance once every 4 years to play the big boys....WITH A CELTIC TIGERS TEAM THE PROUD CELTS WILL BE REPRESENTING THEIR CELTIC ROOTS EVERY YEAR AGAINST THE BIG BOYS!!! your telling me they would'nt jump at that??

you say that all the development in wales is'nt a result of GB disbanding..........OH IT IS SUNSHINE..everything from youth development,spreading the game in schools and getting together with SPORTwales to build the performance is a direct result of having the spotlight turned off GB and onto the "home nations"........thats exactly why you won't hear from the welsh..or scots..or the irish about bring back GB..COS YOU ARE RIGHT..THEY DON'T WANT A TEAM (GB) SMASHING RIGHT OVER THE TOP OF THEM AND STEALING THAT SPOTLIGHT AGAIN!!!

the only people that want GB back is flat capped one eyed englishmen who think wearing a red & blue chevron will magically make 17 englishmen better....IT WON'T!!

The first thing I thought on hearing this was the Pacific Island (All Stars) that periodically crops up in NRL discussions. Not really sure what I think, but I do believe if players have the chance to get paid in higher class internationals they will generally review their opinion of their nation to make sure they can play. If a Celtic team could fare slightly better against England, NZ etc, maybe they would get more game time. But my initial reaction like most is that it seems pretty stupid, but I'd rather consider it first because there could be some merits.

Just as a question, how do national teams work in RL? I have no idea, it seems most sports allow the sub-nations in the UK compete seperately, how is this viewed as different from say USA/German or Australian (or any other federation you fancy) states competing? I suppose the Cook Islands comes under this discussion too with its ties to New Zealand.

On the other hand, what is the view on multiple sovereign nations competing as one team? After all, that is what GB+I Lions would be in the modern day (and will have been for so, so long now). What would be the difference between this and, say, a Pacific Islands team? I mean they are both made up, or tied together culturally or whatever BS justifies this stuff at the moment (would a Melanesia RL and Polynesia RL be more 'correct' like the Lions?). Obviously golf has a 'made up' Europe team playing against a country, RU has their own 'made up' Lions, and football is a giant messup between FIFA and Olympics, cricket has made up teams (West Indies?) too... well you get the picture.

I know that the rules are basically "whatever we feel like atm" but is there any precedent for this sort of thing?

ETA: Let alone even starting on Ireland...

Over 100 years of history, dozens of great moments, epic Ashes series, etc, etc - meaningless. I think we can probably start to gently ignore most of your opinions at this point.

Great Britain hasn't often been represented by 17 Englishmen - simply because players could still play for their home or ancestral nation and also for GB. I get the feeling this point isn't sinking home with you.


Utter rubbish. "Here, you can play for England in front of 20-40,000 against the Aussies and Kiwis almost every year, or for the brand new 'Celtic Tigers' in front of 2-3,000 against France, Fiji and the Lebanon in some manufactured competition".

No, they wouldn't jump at that. It would still be a half-baked, idiotic creation, and still weak on the international stage, with zero chance of competing with Aus, NZ or even England.


Stop shouting.

Yes, I agree development has moved on. The RFL started investing in Development Officers in the community (not just in Wales, all over the UK). Crusaders made great inroads initially. South Wales are doing their bit. The profile of RL in Wales is slowly growing.

I'm not sure why you think GB would (ahem) "smash right over the top of them" though - GB is just a team that gets together for tours every couple of years, but also offers something for all Home Nations players to aspire to. You're being a bit of a drama queen.


Or perhaps those who love the wonderful heritage of Great Britain Rugby League and remember the heady days of the Ashes series, and what they represent. You can choose to ignore that if you like, more fool you.

I know you think you've come up with some inspired idea, and no offence, but it's bllocks, it really is.

A GB Lions tour every 4yrs and Aussie/NZ full tours here as well and we play them as GB

How are the Celtic Tigers anymore of an artificial team than Great Britain & Ireland Lions?

Would anyone actually watch a 'Celtic Tigers' team? I wouldn't, and I doubt anyone from Ireland, Scotland or Wales would to be honest.

Again, how is it anymore artificial than a side that represents five separate nations (one sovereign nation, 4 constituent nations)? Or two sovereign nations (UK and Rep of Ireland) if you don't wanna go the constituent route?

GB & Ireland, or the British Isles, is not a country.


We can all have our opinions on this I guess as there's no way to prove it.

However, since we're all wagering, I'd bet a pint that changing from GB to England has made little significant difference to how much they get. However, I bet it's made a significant difference to Wales, Ireland and Scotland RL development.


Are you arguing that there'd have been a different result had the team worn a different shirt?!


I don't understand how the people with Celtic roots will snap up the chance to play for them, yet they now have more opportunity to and aren't? Wales, Scotland and Ireland would affectively be demoted to reserve sides under GB. The only time they wouldn't be would be the World Cup, and do you really think the majority of players who didn't have Celtic roots wouldn't still opt to play for the much stronger England side?

And if it was actually true, then wanting a GB side would affectively harm England's chances of winning the World Cup as genuine English players would be opting to represent the nations of their ancestry instead of their country of birth that developed them.


I disagree with them being mainly Welsh. But I do agree they wouldn't be much more competitive than their individual nations. But in time...?


Translation: 3 of the 4 separate NGBs are against the idea of going back because they feel it would damage development in their nation.

Surely this is the biggest argument AGAINST going back that you accept yet still dismiss?


I thought he just did?

The rise of Crusaders and now South Wales probably have more to do with the growth of the game, plus the RFL introducing development officers and generally pulling their fingers out as far as development is concerned - and not just in Wales.

And please explain why the existence of a GB should adversely affect the development of the sport in Wales? It gives Welsh players something to aspire to, it gives players with Welsh roots more incentive to opt for Wales, it brings Welsh support to the GB banner.'"

It's not, but it's 'traditional' and idiots on this forum can't get past that. You wonder how the sport has been so progressive over the years when its fans seem so resistant to any sort of positive change.

Great Britain is not returning. Bringing it back would serve no purpose at all. It would be a team of 17 Englishmen, just as it was in the past, just as the England team is now. The only thing it would achieve would be burying Wales, Scotland and Ireland by relegating them to 'B' status. People in those nations do not care about 'Great Britain' and almost certainly would not watch such a team, just as they didn't do so before. They also would probably be less inclined to watch their national teams because, although probably stronger due to being full of English ringers, they would be relegated to 'B' status and their matches would be meaningless. It makes absolutely no difference to England or English fans so I'm not sure why some feel so passionately about the subject. You can pretend that England are actually GB under a different name if it makes you happy. But bringing them back would be stupid, pointless and counter-productive.

As for 'Celtic Tigers', that is just stupid as hell and not even worth debating.

Another argument I don't get is people saying these Celtic sides would be stronger because they'd have more plastic Celts playing for them instead of them playing for England.

These same people also argue that Rangi Chase, Chris Heighington, et al shouldn't play for England because they're not English.

Have these people ever considered that this is how the Welsh, Scottish and Irish feel about English ringers in their sides?

I don’t know about you, but my passport doesn’t mention England on the front. It says that it is a passport if The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It also says that I am a British citizen on the inside. England and Scotland haven’t been sovereign nations since 1707, Wales since 1284 and Northern Ireland (in varying forms, and without getting too deep in to the issues surrounding that) since 1801.

Now considering that like RU, RL treats the island of Ireland as one entity and avoids the geopolitical question over Eire/NI/Britain, Then if we had a side, which was a national side, then it would be a GB and Ireland side.

Saying that, I appreciate that the home nations need national representation, and I appreciate that switching back to GB&I would be very damaging to the home nations, I still struggle to see why we cant have both. That we play as home nations sometimes, and as a united GB other times.

The issue isn’t ‘ringers’ it is that similar to SoO in Aus, the current international set up actively incentivises players to choose England over Wales, Scotland, Ireland. Personally I don’t care what country a person chooses to represent, that is a personal decision.

They aren't sovereign.