Yeah, because Twickenham has proven to be a real millstone round the RFU's neck hasn't it?

Sorry?

Twickenham – national stadium of a sport associated for the past 100+ years with the ruling elite, hosting every year an international series in spring and another in autumn, in the capital, within easy reach of the corporate entertainment market.

Proposed RL national stadium – somewhere up north, confirming the prejudice that the corporate world already has of RL as a minor regional sport, difficult to reach from most of the country, out of sight and out mind of the national capital, for a sport with maybe three international matches a year and no entry into, or history with, the lucrative corporate entretainment market.

And you think they're somehow comparable?

We should stick with the national stadium we already have, and utilise it properly rather than indulging in pipe dreasm.

That is a very bleak and hopeless summary TB. You seem to be of the opinion that things will never change. One thing is for sure, with visionaries like you RL will always be a second class poor relation to Rugby Union.

Feel free to point to any factual inaccuracies you feel there are in it.

You may call it 'bleak and hopeless' – on the other hand, I'd say that any talk of emulating Twickenham's £25m corporate revenue in a RL only stadium in the north – or any stadium outside the capital – is pure fantasy.

Especially when we can get Club Wembley members to actually use their free seats and corporate entertainment facilities at RL's current showcase event.

Just shows how much the draw of international rugby at Wembley has been sucessful over the years.
We played the aussies in 1990 infront of a crowd of 54,500 and in 1992 infront of 73,631.
The most recent international at wembley was 1995 where 66,500 watched England vs Australia final.
The group game in the same year attracted 41,000 also at wembley.

Think the above shows that Wembley is the home for international RL but should only be used for finals or semi's now.
Can't see the argument for "lets keep it in the north" when 73,631 went down for a world cup final.
Wonder if it would attract that many now. I hope so!

How much do you think a national stadium would cost, not only in building it what about its running afterwards.

What events are you talking about that will pay for a national stadium.

You said the RFL turns over 12m a year, of which most of that Turnover (not profit) is made from our events we have now.

Renting a Stadium saves us more money than building a stadium.

An even better idea would be to put our events out to tender, let towns and cities tender to host our events. Why should we pay someone when thay can pay us Didn't work out in Cardiff, so Edinburgh has given us a better deal

So we are to build a national stadium which is

a) too small to meet demand for the two major finals, and
b) too big for every other game that will be played

All this for a sport whose international game can be described as "developing" at best, during a global recession.

Exceptional idea.

Total non-starter. Besides the fact that we couldn't afford it, we currently have at least one guaranteed game a year at the country's most prestigious venue. This is, and probably always will be, when we get our best publicity. Why would we give that up in order to further marginalise (and bankrupt) ourselves?

Comparisons with the corporate income at Twickenham are meaningless, as it is based in London and is the home of a very popular international sport supported by the kind of people who end up in big business.

Taking internationals back to Wembley seems like a goer to me though. It was the right decision to stop using Wembley when we did, as the international game was in tatters and there were some embarrasingly low crowds. A few years of playing tests in front of full houses at smaller stadia, combined with a more consistent calendar, seems to have revived the international scene somewhat, and now might be a decent time to take it back there (assuming all the good work hasn't been undone by our abject performance in the WC).

Huddersfield?
I'd say an 80k stadium, also can be used for F.A Cup Semi Finals and any other big sporting events, have the Super League Semi Finals at Old Trafford and St James' Park and the final at Huddersfield. Challeng Cup Final can remain at Wembley, but the semis both at Huddersfield? Also can be used for internationals.

as an everton fan you should realise better than most that all fa cup semis will now be played at wembley to help the fa pay off the debt.super league semi finals,i trust you mean the play offs?,should be played at the home ground of the team finishing highest,its allready a joke being top 8,lets not water down the real season any more.we allready play cup semis at huddersfield,how many were there last year to see the top 2 sides?that would have looked silly in a 80k stadium.as for internationals,lets start winning a few first then worry about finding a ground big enough to stage them.

as you may be aware,i am against the idea of a national stadium