......as they are going to do major refurb work on they Olympic Stadium anyway and have had no takers for the venue from football or union think the LODA will be looking into a alternative seating format before to long.

Am sure the RFL would not be keen on the site if the running track can not be 'covered'...........

The RL has always needed it's own stadium for internationals etc. You only have to look at the RU to see it makes sense.

For years they talked up Odsal but that was never going happen and why play internationals in sub 30K stadiums as we do now - hardly makes them special. PRE the SL Wars we RL internationals were regularly getting 40 or 50,000 crowds.

With the recession and lack of interest by others maybe the RL feel this is to good a chance to pass up? Stage the SL season launch, Challenge Cup, SL Grand Final, NL Grand finals, WCC, major internationals and World Cup finals there - soon makes financial sense.

Plus you have the TV and written media on the doorstep. Rock concerts etc. could also be a money raiser.

60,000 to 70,000 seater would be ideal and fianlly we would be on an equal footing with the Rah Rah's.


Also we would not have to go to Wembley and either sit in the shade (and cold) or face the sun squinting. New Wembley is like New Labour, even worse than the old bl**dy versions. Think of the money saved there - going straight to the RL coffers?

There's thinking big and there's thinking stupidly.

That would mean the 80,000 at England v Italy the other week are very stupid then!

What is it with RL supporters (and especially this forum) that makes them think our sport can't set goals and aim high, that we have to settle for second best?


The last major international before the SL War attracted nearly 55,000 to the dump that was old Wembley. Build it and they will come! Re-build international RL and they will come!

Ye, of little faith in your sport!

(p.s. hope people sensed the sarcasm in my post!)

Yes they are, because they'll willingly pay £50 upwards to watch the England rugby union team, who, even by RU standards, play a shockingly turgid form of the game. But thats a seperate point.

There's no point in us moving to a stadium we're never likely to fill. We've just closed the bloody lexus stand because of (I assume) the financial cost of opening two stands we don't fill, so what is the point of moving to a stadium where that will be even more accentuated? Lets by all means think big, and start by aiming to fill to capacity The Stoop - our fecking ground - before we start with the pie-in-the-sky notions of filling Olympic arenas.

And, as for big internationals, yes why not have them at a big stadium - like Wembley. You know, the big one. Thats quite good.

You completely missed my point . I was not suggesting Skolars or Quins RL move to the Olyimpic venue - I was suggesting it be the national venue for the Rugby Football League - you know the governing body up north. Read again, where do I mention Quins or Skolars?

As for Wembley - it's the home of football, we are but small scale tenants that turn up once a year. I also have to say the new Wembley was a big let down when I got to go last year. Beckham and his chums/WAGs can keep it.


With regard to RU, I was not making a point about the game in its form, I was trying to make the point that the home nations all have a NATIONAL stadium to represent the country and it's supproters can gravitate around / to it and call the stadium HOME! Murrayfield, Millenium, Twickers, Stade France, Cork Park(Dublin?).

RL does not have this in the UK, we have Huddersfield as the founding point - but no national stadium - WHY NOT?

Hockey has a national home somewhere near Luton (stand to be corrected), tennis has Wimbledon, horse riding has Badminton, cycling has Manchester and soon SE London. Bl**dy hell, every other sport in this country has a national stadium/venue why NOT US! Rugby League National Stadium - not a new home for Skolars or Quins RL.

Now do you understand?

Rant over.

Milton Keynes I believe.

Thank you. Someone who can read!