Sod 'em, We'll be paying them rent for the use of their ground. Just gives Fergie or Hughes or Benitez a good excuse if they lose the week after. City of Manchester is an epic stadium. We should play Australia there whenever they are over and try and sell it out.

The owners/ Chief Executives would take the cash on offer whatever the manager thought imo(bar Man City maybe who don't need the cash).

Any ground picked would have to be on a weekend when the occupents were away from home anyway.

City of Manchester is the best option IMO. It isn't quite as big as OT [55k Capacity if im not mistaken? Only a mile from the City Centre with pretty much regular buses/trains/trams to anywhere in England. Play the game here with ticket prices no more than say 15 quid. With offers for families and juniors and we should get a good crowd. Do this every time the aussies come over, make it a regular occasion and it should be a sellout before long!

Don't get me wrong. I'd love to see us playing at a 40,000 seater stadium, but I just think the football clubs involved would have a problem with it.

One thing that would help is getting the fixture list out as soon as possible. We'll know who's going to be taking part in the 2011 Four Nations by this time next year so get the fixtures out in December allowing a year for people to buy tickets.

48,000.

Anything above 30,000 if people are sat on the bottom tiers to start with would look fine.

We should take a game there the next time we have a home series imo.

30k is very respectable. Like I said, build on this every time we do a Four Nations/Ashes and we could make it a regular sell-out.

Last time we played at COM we got 37k on iirc but we decided not to bother building on it.

It's a disgrace imo.

I said we had the belief that being before we played do keep up.....

City don't want or need the money, you can't force them to allow us to use their pitch.

What are you some sort of RFU mouthpiece?

50% corporates is a good start...

Of course it comes back to my two favourite points (as does everything in the context of the marginalisation of the game):

1. exposure; and
2. misinformation.

It was over 40,000...

The cricket?

Another furphy.

Soccer's concentration in the box actually damages pitches more.

Ah the irony!

mmm, just what I was thinking.

Well my parties seats were taken up by some idiots who claimed their seats had been taken, they refused to budge and the stewards were useless. On the plus side we got better seats in the end but we missed like 15 minutes of the first half.

I think most people know that given that it's usually balder than Tele Savalas in the penalty areas and centre circle. Mark Lawrenson, Alan Amith and the like just like to prove they really are ignorant every once in a while.

No it wasn't.

It was 38,572.

I usually go to at least a couple fo matches, but this year I simply can not be bothered. I have been watching them on Sky, its cheaper, warmer and I can vent my speeen without worrying about people sat around me.

I think the game was well attended and the empty seats looked like the dearer ones.

Blessing in disguise?

Does anyone else not think that the 2.30 KO affected the turn out?

I had a game myself and so had to watch the game on sky plus later.

Had it not clashed, i'd have been there with another 10-15 people instead we all watched it at mine after the game.

BBC's decision?

have'nt fans "wanted" a afternoon kick off for years?

Whatever the reason.... the game should have been a sell out. It's played in Wigan... supposedly a hot bed for RL... yet the best team on the planet cannot turn up to a sell out roughly 25,000. The RFL may have to answer to some of this... as keeping it as Great Britain would have certainly made me a little more interested than the diluted entity that is England.

How many Scottish, Irish or Welsh players would have got into the team had it been called Great Britain?