I think part of the problem stems from the fact that countries in cricket, football and RU use the emblem of their national association, whereas the RFL have always been more of an overall governing body in that sense. That said, the lion on the GB shirt was always iconic as far as I'm concerned.

agree, get a decent shirt design and stick to it (look at how classic the Kangaroos shirt is/has become). Get a decent logo and stick with it and finally lets have a name so we can be called something, England Knights, Crusaders, etc etc



GB Lions had history, decent shirt and decent name. If we are to stick with England we need to create the same.

I'm not keen on our current badge. I would have much preferred a red lion(s) of some description, which could sometimes become gold if being put on the red cross part of the shirt. The England commonwealth games team logo is a good example.



However, I think the shirt design is fairly insignificant compared to the importance of actually having the national team play some games at home. What other serious sport only has one home game for their national team in a given year? Football? No. Cricket? No. Rugby union? No.



A solitary one-sided game against France is not enough. We need to get either the Aussies or Kiwis over every year.

i would like to see new approach to intl rl aswell...every 3 years play the world cup

every 3 years play the tri/ 4 nations whatever is decided

every 3 years play a world club challenge.. rather than having the waste of time 1 off game as we do now, have the last 3 winners from each continent( i know the same team might win more than once, but that can be sorted by selecting teams) and have a round robin event where each club plays 3 games against " foreign" clubs and then the best 2 .. 1from each continent play a final...at least the 3 teams travelling accross the globe get to play at least 3 games with a match fit squad rather than use it as a pre season game

Shorter domestic season, longer rep season. Until we get back to being able to get 70k at games though on both sides of the world the game couldn't afford it sadly.



I still think there is room in teh calendar for some Int rep stuff in Feb time. World 9's for example.

Reducing the Super League into 2 divisions of 10 to reduce the games to 18 would do a couple of things:



It would allow the season to start when its a little bit warmer, and end when its still sort of warm, the International Season could start before the Autumn Internationals. I got a calender, and I've worked it out that the season could start 13th March, and end the regular season at 7th August, and have the grand final at 3rd September. The International game would be longer and would teams would have longer to settle into the climate they're in.

It would also bankrupt most of the clubs

Indeed.



If you have a VERY wealthy owner (for now) you are probably safe.



Otherwise...goodnight Eileen.

Fair Enough.

the theory is sound ,but why not have two Super leagues of 14 teams,top four from each play each other ie 1 v 3 & 2 v 4 then the final and each league winner plays each other in the GF - similarly the bottom two from each league play each other and the loser is relegated or something along those lines

It's the number of games and length of the season that is the issue, not the format.



Given most clubs probably earn around 50k pounds profit per home game it wouldn't take a massive increase in International ticket sales, sponsorship and TV deals to suppliment the clubs incomes to lose 2 or 3 home games.

it would surely depend on the quality of international competition ? it's ok playing Oz or NZ but who how many people will want to see England demolish France,Wales,Italy etc etc each year ?