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.

I find myself in agreement with you once again.

Last time I checked, Great Britain & Ireland Lions comprised of two sovereign nations.

One is the UK. The other is the Republic of Ireland.

Therefore, his statement of multiple sovereign nations is correct.

I never said England or Scotland were sovereign nations. Read again.
Your passport doesn't say "Great Britain and Ireland". The Republic of Ireland has nothing to do with the UK. GB&I Lions are two sovereign nations combined into one.


Just because RU does it doesn't mean we should.
It's up to the Irish how they decide to run their national team. It shouldn't be up to the English, or the UK (unless we had a UK team and took away Northern Ireland.
Anyway that anyone tries to word it, GB&I is not a national team. It involves multiple nations.


I don't have much issue with that ONCE a Lions side actually features some players that don't qualify for England. Otherwise it's just pointless.

Ah, I see, I thought the reference was to the home nations. Has the GB squad always comprised of the Republic of Ireland?

It does incentivise, but the fact that England have developed these (English born) players means that they have rightfully put themselves into this competitive position where they compete against the top teams.

Wales, Ireland and Scotland need to develop their own sides and the game itself in their own countries. I don't see why they should have this right to have incentives for players to pick them on heritage. And I don't actually see fans of these nations screaming for heritage players. England fans aren't exactly wanting heritage players. Quite the opposite.

I just don't see the need for incentives that people are claiming would benefit them whilst the same people are rejecting it for their own country.

I'm not sure. I know that they have for as long as I've watched RL. Brian Carbey certainly isn't British.

Its not because RU do, its because we do. RU just also do the same thing. If we can have a UK team which doesnt include Northern Ireland, why cant we have a UK team which also includes Eire. The I in GB& I isnt the ROI, it is the island of Ireland, they arent representing two sovereign nations, they are representing one sovereign nation and the island of ireland.
Why? a Lions side would consist of the best players.

Im not screaming for heritage players to play for the home nations, I dont care who represents who, it is up to them. I just dont see why we should disincentivise players from representing the home nations bar england.

I didn't say I did

It wasn't always GB & I, by the way, it's been the 'Northern Union XIII', 'Great Britain & Northern Ireland', 'Great Britain & Ireland' and just plain old 'Great Britain'.

GB & I or GB, frankly I'm not bothered.


I didn't say it was.


Possibly. As you say we can't prove or disprove it. I'm not really that fussed and it wasn't me brought up the matter of profit.


I simply made the point we haven't beaten Australia since the abolition of GB. Spud made the point we've managed to beat NZ, twice.


Sigh. The point is, as Smokey put it, the current international set up actively incentivises players to choose England over Wales, Scotland & Ireland. Yes, it weakens England a little but would you rather have a stronger Wales or a slightly weaker England (who have a far bigger pool of players)?


If they're not competitive, what's the point?


I have no evidence of that, I was responding to spud, though I can see why someone working for the WRL, SRL or RLI would be cagey about the return of GB. Certainly wouldn't say it's the 'biggest' argument though.


As a DIRECT result of the abolition of GB? No. He just cited some general developments.


Sigh again. The existence of GB allows higher level players to opt for Wales, while still getting a shot at GB and the big tours. That is an incentive to a) play for Wales in the first place, and b) fight for a GB spot.


Wales reserves? What are you on about? Was it Wales reserves who did so well at the 1995 World Cup, or scared the bejesus out of Australia at the 2000 World Cup? You know, when good players chose to play for Wales and could still play for GB. Oh, and let's now forget that following the abolition of GB, Wales failed to even qualify in 2008, after being spanked 50-26 by LEBANON!

Again, there is NO REASON why development in Wales can't carry on at the same pace, nor why it takes away interest in Wales, and I've no idea why people think it has to be one or the other. Wales compete as Wales in the World Cup and other competitions, and their players fight to play for GB in the tours. Simple.


Again, not sure what you're on about. Spud (strangely) claimed that Wales Under-18s wouldn't have beaten Scotland Under-18s 6 years ago. The results prove otherwise, Wales beat Scotland in 2004 and 2005, while GB was still around.

I think so. And yes, I was trying to point out that the Lions aren't a team representing a single sovereign nation, much like the West Indies and so on. Anyway this argument seems to have progressed again, as you were...

I still don't like the idea of a Celtic team, definitely not anything suggesting it should compete like a nation does in internationals...

However.

I do believe that if the problem is that potential Welsh/Scottish/NI/Irish players are opting instead to play for England because England have the bigger matches more frequently, how would a UK/British Isles team solve that? You say players could play for GB in the big matches say once every four years, then if they want to up that to every year they still opt for England. If you make it that the Home Nations only compete in the WC, that basically destroys the team brands in the meantime, and as we don't really have enough presence in these nations the potential Welsh etc players don't get the gametime they do under the current system.

For me:

Yearly European Cup as a qualifier to 5/6N > Current Situation > Celtic Team > British Isles team

if you care about the HN teams.

That doesn't make sense.
Great Britain isn't a sovereign nation.
Ireland isn't a sovereign nation.

They're either representing no sovereign nations (two islands), or they're representing two (the two sovereign nations that make up the two islands).
You can't have it half way. It would be like me saying they're representing one sovereign nation (Rep of Ire) and the island of Great Britain.



Which for over 10 years has been basically England. I can only think of Brian Carney who wasn't England born (and Fa'asavalu, but that's another story!).


I don't think it's "we" that are. It's the lack of development in those individual countries that has led to their lack of incentive. That development need to start somewhere.

Agreed, we shouldn't ever be putting a system in place that is designed to actively encourage English players to commit to another nation. It's just totally backwards and counter-productive, and the people calling for this are probably the same ones who complain about non-English players in the England team and nation-swapping.

At the moment, England are on the same footing as Ireland, Scotland and Wales. I don't see therefore why it is a surprise that English players would want to play for England. Trying to make up some contrived system so that English players can turn out for other nations is just stupid and achieves nothing, all it does is sweep problems under the rug. Ireland and Scotland are weak because barely anyone in those nations plays RL. If they want to improve long-term then they need to develop the sport there, it's as simple as that. The point is that, under the current system, they are able to do so. The only thing holding them back is their lack of on-field development.

Then how can you argue AGAINST a Celtic side based on it being an artificial side, yet argue FOR a GB side, which you are apparently acknowledging are an artificial side? Can you not see the contradiction?


I know, I never said you brought it up. I just thought I'd throw my two pennies in on that one.


But I don't see how it's relevant to anything? It doesn't prove that Ebgland are weaker or GB are stronger so it's just a mute point.


I'd rather have an England that is English, a Wales that is Welsh, an Ireland that is Irish and a Scotlsnd that is Scottish. If they are cr*p, it means they can't paper over the cracks and HAVE to develop some players of their own rather than rely on ringers of heritage.

It has to start somewhere.

England fans weren't exactly chuffed about Chase and Heighington, yet there seems to be the same people wanting the Celtic sides filled with similar players. Did they stop to think maybe the Welsh/Irish/Scottish don't want to support plastic sides?


That's why I'm not currently in favour of it. In time they may be.


You wouldn't say it's the biggest argument that 3 out of 4 parties don't exactly want to see themselves merged/taken over? I'd say its pretty important!


Well we can't prove either way, but suffice to say developments are much stronger in Wales now. This may be due to the Crusaders, but you could argue that the RFL rushed them in to develop Wales on the international scene, and had GB still been active, wouldn't have seen as big a need.


Why is it an incentive to play for Wales? They can still play for England, who would still be a better side, and would be their only option for a shot at a decent run in a World Cup.
How many genuine Welshmen have made it into GB that weren't union converts?
All your advocating is strengthening Wales with heritage players, which would weaken England of genuine Englishmen, and thus weaken our chances of World Cup glory. What's the point? They are English born and English produced. Why shouldn't we give them incentives to play for England?


Other than World Cup years, will these players have a realistic chance to play for their elite squad? Will they be realistically good enough? And I'm not talking heritage players here. You've basically taken away top level rep footy from them for 3/4 years.

And the Wales team that got spanked in the qualifiers, that was in 2006-7. GB were still around. They still had English ringers (Harris and Briers). And they still lost.
Had any if their best players been good enough for GB, they'd have been even further disadvantaged as they wouldn't have been able to select them. Great system that.


Do the Welsh WANT to be part of GB? If they don't, then yes it would harm development.
It's like someone in France saying we should be playing as Europe. We'd be stronger then. Do we want that?


I'm not sure what he was trying to prove either.
My point was that none of these were genuine internationals as GB were playing at the same time. Yet there were no Welshmen or Scotsmen or Irishmen (other than Carney) in the GB squad, so they could have been, and there could have been more interest. It's helped France now that there are genuine tests.

Thank God someone gets it.

Are there any genuine Irish, Scottish or welsh people out there that WANT to go back to GB?
I say genuine because the only people I've heard from those areas who want a return to GB are also part English, and therefore only want a return so they don't have to choose a nation.

Born bred Glaswegian who moved to Wigan in his teens.

Nothing bigger in sport than GB v Aus IMO.

I also shout and scream for England RL, but i would puke at the tought of doing that for the wendyball team.

Having GB back in RL would rank higher for me than Wigan doing the double next year. I enjoy it that much.

Why? You've already admitted you support England in RL, so what possible difference does it make to you?

No it wouldnt. Its pretty simple, the Ireland RL team isnt the Eire RL team, it isnt the NI RL team it is the entire island of Ireland team, which is one sovereign nation and part of another. The GB and Ireland side is the GB and Island of Ireland side, not the GB and NI and ROI side. It is a side which represents on sovereign nation that of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, and the island of Ireland which isnt a sovereign nation it is one sovereign nation Eire and Northern Ireland which is part of another.

So what?

It is us which are excluding them from regular top level and as such disincentivising players from choosing to represent those nations.

No-one is suggest giving incentives to players to play for Wales, Ireland and Scotland, simply dont disincentivise them. Counter-acting the imbalance caused by the limits and structures of the current international set up isnt about giving the home nations an advantage, its about putting them on a level playfield.

Wellsy and others, you are completely missing the point. 99% of people in Aus and NZ would have zero interest in watching the Celtic Tigers play the Kangaroos or Kiwis.

Everyone knows and loves the GB Lions. It makes zero difference if the team has only one non-English player in it as it's representing GB.
No-one cares about the players. It's the jumper and name the fans know.

This thread is the ultimate in bollox, I congratulate you all, except Headhunter, who I actually agree with on this subject

Does everything have to be in absolutes?

Is it not possible to like some things more than other?

History and tradition make it a better spectacle.

But I've already pointed out numerous logical, practical reasons why it would be a negative, and all you can come up with is 'I like it more'? Come on. Like I said, if it means that much to you, just pretend England have a bit of blue on their shirt and that it's actually GB playing, because that's all this boils down to and is about as logical as your argument is here.

So you want to include them in top level internationals by relegating their national teams to 'B' status?

As I have already said, the only thing holding back home nations under the existing system is the lack of on-field development there. No nations are excluded at present, but they were under the old system. All the home nations currently have the opportunity to play at the top level. Wales played in the Four Nations last year, since GB broke apart they have had all the same opportunities as England. Ireland and Scotland had those opportunities too, they just haven't been good enough to take them because the reality is that the sport is at a very low level in those places. If Scotland were to suddenly find 20 world class Scottish players then they should be afforded the same opportunities as everyone else, and that is the case under the present system. Your argument seems to be based upon trying to encourage or make it easier for these nations to fill their sides with English players and thus mask the lack of actual development in those places. I don't see how anyone can really advocate that as being a good thing.