Why not in October, when those finalists still have roughly the same squads?

If you recall in about the third year of Super League we had a mid-season competition between all the Super League clubs and the Aussie Clubs.

Apart from the odd exception the Aussies won hands down but it was still good to watch.
The format wasn't quite right but instead of allowing it to evolve it to a regular feature it was scrapped after the first year.

If we'd persevered with it we may now have had a top class international comp.

So Catalan or New Zealand Warriors don't have to be good to play in it. Hardly a Champions League.

They are the best teams in NZ and France so it would make perfect sense.

And I've read your proposal. You call it a Champions League but then say it should be a closed shop, based upon attendances and squad depth. How is that a Champions League? So how do Wire beat Hull? Because they've had two good years? Hull have a bigger fanbase than both Wire and Saints. Go back five years and the Bulls would have been in there.

Also, who would benefit financially? The participating clubs? Why should they get richer on the back of a closed shop? Equally, why would they take part if the shares are spoiled, so they can put out burned out players.

Ill-thought out nonsense.

They are the only top flight clubs in those countries. On that basis, we should get a trophy, because we are the best side in Wakefield (although we would probably lose in the final).

I know most people in Wakefield no nothing of the world outside it, but its not a country.

I must admit, I enjoyed the daliance with ELS vs NRL, but it would just show us up. WOuld like to see it again though.

I think you'd accept that we are a breed of homo sapiens unlike anything found anywhere else. That makes us a race.

The problem with the proposal is that two of the teams play in the same league as the actual champions. You could have the situation where neither of the finalists of the "Champions League" even made the play-offs.

So make it a pure champions league, and have the best from each league. But if it is to have any interest, SL has to play NRL in each game, and so you could end up with two NRL sides playing each other to prove themselves champions when they had done that shortly before in the Grand Final.

The World Club Challenge does the job well enough. It only works in football because of the number of leagues, and I kinda think that the players play enough games as it is. What benefit is there for any of the clubs? To say that they are the best team across the world? As there are only two leagues, hardly a boast.

Aren't Castleford the best team in Wakefield?

Only if you will admit you are the best team in the city of Manchester.

Right back at ya!

Why not have it every four years, and have the league winners from the previous four years, and if there's a overlap where if one team won it twice, the minor premier or second place would take the place, plus Catalans Dragons and NZ Warriors. It could be held in November the year after the World Cup, and could be held alternatively between Britain and Australia, get a sponsorship deal, we've got an event there.

This is evidently a numpty's a idea. More games? after 27 rounds of SL, 5 CC matches, IO match(es), the play offs, grand final, the four nations?

But Salford isn't in the City of Manchester though. Castleford is in the City of Wakefield. So why should he have to admit something that isn't true?

Cas is not in the city, its on the outskirts of the district - there's a difference