I remember Ray French once giving an interview in which he opined that, long-term, the only way for rugby to perpetuate itself as a major big money sport was for the top sides in RL and RU to join forces and combine their talent and resources in a single competition.

Whether that's being discussed at any level, maybe because of the parlous state of both RU and RL domestic games in the UK today, is uncertain of course, but it's probably unlikely.

The NRL doesn't need a hybrid version in order to survive. Likewise, international RU is doing fine without changing anything.

This sounds like nothing more than a charity one-off.

Objectively, in the modern era, with fit professional players, not tubs of lard, union would be a better game with 13 players, but as they insist on the primacy of their 16-man scrum, that's never likely to happen. Plus, they wouldn't to be seen as 'copying league', of course.

I hope the game is a success and makes a load of money, but I have absolutely no interest in union or any form of hybrid game. I grew up in the 70s and 80s when the hostility towards league was pretty intense. It was only when I moved away from Wigan that this became apparent. Union had to live alongside league in Wigan or it would have struggled. Not so in other places. The bloke who wrote the article would probably have been banned from his local club.

That's so true, Tony, as I lived most of my life elsewhere in the country and only moved to Wigan relatively recently.

The sports will never merge. The stumbling block will always be what to do when someone is tackled.

If it’s a play the ball the game will essentially be league, if it’s a rook/maul the game Will essentially be union.

I think the fuss about Suaalii playing for the Wallabies says a lot. He's a decent player, but hardly a jewel of the NRL; there are better centres, Herbie, for one! Maybe it says something about relative skill levels.