You actually make some good points in that article and talk sense for once LF.

HOWEVER, the RFL have 4 years to get themselves in gear and prepare for this. They managed it in 1992 and 1995 afterall.

My thoughts would be to keep the same format as 2008 only swap PNG and France.

Group A:

England/Australia/France/NZ - games to be played in class A stadiums

Group B:

Wales and 2 Qualifiers - games to be played in South Wales

Group C:

Scotland/Ireland/PNG - games to be played in either class B stadiums or Scotland and Ireland.

Obviously with relation to stadiums it depends upon new grounds and renovations, but i'd try to split it evenly between Lancs and Yorks.

The Major semi finals will be at Hull, Huddersfield or Wigan and the final at Wembley.

The minor semi final (group b v group c winner) at a class B stadium such as Widnes or Warrington, whilst the 'positional games' will be at smaller venues.

Imagine this as an itinerary:

Group A:

England v NZ - Wigan
Australia v France - Widnes
England v Australia - Hull/Huddersfield
France v NZ - Leeds
England v France - Doncaster
NZ V Australia - Twickenham Stoop or wherever Quins are then

Group B:

Wales v Qualifier - Bridgend

Qualifier v Qualifier - Bridgend

Wales v Qualifier - Cardiff/Swansea

Group C:

Ireland v Scotland - Castleford

Scotland v PNG - Halifax

Ireland v PNG - Bradford

Winner B v Winner C - Warrington
B2 v C2 - Halifax
C3 v B3 - Bradford

Semi Final 1 - Wigan
Semi Final 2 - Huddersfield/Hull

Final - Wembley

Like I said, grounds are subject to those build. Maybe St Helens or Salford could be used for example.

Another possibility could be to play a Scotland game (say v Ireland) IN Scotland if sales to locals for MM is on the increase by 2013.

Scotland v Ireland at Easter Road or Tynecastle could be a good draw.

So we've gone from places like Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Newcastle.....to Halifax?

How the **** is that good?


And 1992 ans 1995 was an age ago. A large scale competition requires so much more than either of those competitions had.

And by the way....you want to just forget about what happened in 2000?


The ARL and NZRL have only just come out of the "We have to go to England at the end of the year to help them pay off their 2000 World Cup debt" era!


As for swapping France for PNG.....why? France were diabolical and now they are coached by a bloke with more teeth and IQ points...and he hasnt even got many teeth left!


Basicaly, we're f*cked. The concept of a Rugby League World Cup is dead.

The only reason PNG were put in with the big three was because the tournament was in Oz. Therefore put France in there when in England (ala the 4 nations).

Didn't you say that before the last world cup?

I seem to remember Herr Freak being a big doubter prior to the WC last year as well....

Anyway, the whole point of a World Cup is that it is a WORLD CUP, not some event that stays in Aus all the time. Whilst the NRL may be bigger and beter than SL, SL is the only other pro comp in the world, and probably it will always remain that way.

BTW the Wallabies get big crowds for games against showers of sh*te like Italy as do the other major RU nations, so don't bang the usual rubbish about 'competitiveness' being the only thing that brings crowds in.

We need big sponsorship - corporate freebies brings in big crowds and that only comes with sponsorship. RL as we know IS a big draw in Oz, here it's still very much a minority sport. I'm excited about the prospect of it being a success but very worried that it won't be and the effect that will have on our game.

a lot of people are suggesting using in the region of 20 destinations to hold games. i think that would be a mistake and it would just end up bein a mess like the 2000 tournament which had 25 odd destinations? the footballe world cup only ever uses about 10-12 host cities and thats for a 32 team tournament. for a 12 team RL tournament i'd use 8-10 host cities max with each place hosting at least 2 games so that the community in those places can properly get behind the comp. I'd use:

Saints new stadium
DW stadium
KC stadium
Headingly
Stoop
One out of huddersfield, castleford or wakey stadium
Cardiff
Old Trafford (for double header opening two games and double header semis)
Wembley (for final alone but it has to be sold out in advance!)

this will great when we play STATE OF ORIGIN @ the new wembley.and the new olympic stadium

Its going to be a 12 team tournament so im not sure how they could make the super pool work again. Id go for 4 groups of 3 teams top 2 go to quarter finals, bottom team play in a plate competition.

France, Wales, Scotland and Ireland should play their pool matches at home. Keep the rest of the games in the heartlands with a decent pool game at the stoop and the final at wembley.

It really needs to be on the bbc, been on sky is going to do nothing for raising the profile of the game.

In Dubai?


Why not play it in Canada lol?

Think you find thats where a soccer teams plays out of. Ar$e something or other!





By the way the super group idea was fantastic and hopefully its used again. I'd like to only see the top two teams from the 4 get atuomatic rides to the semi's with possibly third place having to play off to continue in the competition.

The RFL need to realise two things:

1) The only games that will get good ticket sales are the England games, and the semis/final.

2) Hosting the majority of the games in small northern towns will do nothing to increase the popularity of the game. Especially if they are held in crapp stadiums.

I'm not saying that games should be plonked in any old place like in 2000, but the RFL should seriously consider where it wants the game to go. Holding the pool games of the home nations in their own countries is a must. Also, the only games that should be played at the smaller venues, such as the KC, the Pharm etc are the ones that wont normally get a crowd but because they are RL hotbeds more will turn up if they dont get many games. Here is what my tourne would look like (using the top 12 teams from last time as an example of what the groups would look like):

England (host)
PNG
Tonga

Ireland (host)
France
Samoa

Scotland (host)
Australia
Lebanon

Wales (host)
New Zealand
Fiji

Pool games:
England vs Tonga (Stamford Bridge/White Hart Lane/Olyimpic Stadium/similar sized London ground)
PNG vs Tonga (KC Stadium)
England vs PNG (COM Stadium)

Ireland vs France (Munsters ground)
France vs Samoa (DW)
Ireland vs Samoa (a ground in Dublin, my knowledge of Irish grounds isnt that good though)

Scotland vs Australia (Hearts/Hibs ground)
Australia vs Lebanon (Galpharm)
Scotland vs Lebanon (Motherwells ground (would have preferred Glasgow but there isnt any grounds holding around 20k there iirc))

Wales vs New Zealand (Cardiff Citys new ground)
New Zealand vs Fiji (Meadow Lane(test the water for Midlands and not too far from South Yorkshire))
Wales vs Fiji (Liverty Stadium in Swansea)

Semi Finals:
Group one winner vs Group four winner (Elland Road)
Group two winner vs Group three winner (Anfield)

Final (Wembley)

I just struggle to see the point of a RL World Cup as it stands. The sport just doesn't have the national footprint to get anything more than 4 or 5 thousand attendances for any of the games.

The logical thing is to withdraw to the heartlands and play all the games there. Sure the crowds would be a few thousand higher, but what is the point of that?

I'm also suprised that after 6 pages, no one has mentioned that the PM mentioned the fact he is pleased the RLWC is coming to the UK. Or is it too embarrasing to be linked with him?

....let's face it, by 2013 he will have plenty of time on his hands

Think about it but playing the final at the Olympic Stadium has so much potential for marketing and the chance of "local" people getting to see the facilities first hand.

I reckon not so many "locals" will want to pay the Olympic prices plus there will be far more overseas people for the Olympics that tickets may be hard to get.

And Stratford is easier to get to from Hackney than Wembley …

Two things.


1. I can see the game credibility shoot through the room when Australia win their group unbeaten and with a 387 for, 2 against against Lebanon and Scotland!


2. How about we play games at Rugby League stadiums? The idea of the crowd at the final watching Australia vs New Zealand and being 40 meters from the sideline doesnt fill me with any great feelings of joy.

It did'nt affect RU when NZ was battering the likes of Japan and Georgia...

I mean, come on Freaky... There global audience is 3 billion! And that is conservative....

Why stop there!

I am sure there is n estimated 2 billion watching the RU world cup on Saturn who are desperate to watch Romania, and another 5 billion in a quantum star eager to track the progress of Japan.

Just the other day I was chatting to a bloke from Libya who said the RUWC was the highlight of his life.

Pleased with the announcement (if not the timing although it may have been deliberate to get coverage off the back off the RU announcement) as an English fan but have reservations after the 2000 debacle. I liked the 2008 format, compare the group games in the super group with matches against Russia and Samoa which England and Australia had in 2000. Avoid random sets of venues like in 2000 too. We have to keep most games in the heartlands. Get venues announced ASAP, the Rah-Rah's have already announced some of theirs. It is a worry that instead of talking about England's or other team's propspects we are concerned about whether the tournament will or even can be credible. Shows how far international RL has to go. I just hope it is not a repeat of 2000!

Oh and Wembley final is a MUST in my opinion, if it goes to Elland Road I may scream

Easy. 3 groups of 4, the top 2 in the super group go into the semi-finals and the bottom 2 into the quarter-finals to play the winners of the other 2 groups.

This idea is possible and might be the best option. Might look bad if the 4 super group teams end being the 4 semi finalists tho. How to sort out the groups is just as important as the venues for this tournament imo. I suggest:

Super Group A:
Australia
England
PNG

Super Group B
NZ
France
Samoa

Group C
Tonga
Fiji
Wales

Group D
Scotland
Ireland
Lebanon


The winners of the 2 super groups go straight through to the semis. Quarter finals would be made up of 2nd from the two super groups plus the winners of the two lower groups.

The idea behind this format to is to introduce more importance and competition for 2nd place in the super groups, whilst also removing the possibilty of a second chance for the team finishing 3rd.

It frustrates me when people say "high one sided scores will make out game look daft"

I remember the last RU world cup in England, NZ played Italy at the McAlpine, it was a 96 to naff all drubbing, no one batted an eyelid

More importantly, a few years later when Italy joined the 6 Nations, no one batted an eyelid.

A few were raised when they started winning games though not long after that...

also, the final must be at wembley. If that is marketed right, with tickets sold well in advance, (e.g. discount if purchasing a combined ticket to the challenge cup final as well as the world cup final), then a sold out 90000 wembley would be amazing. we would also always be able to tell the union folk that our final sold more than theirs as twickers can only get 82000.