Jump to content


Rugby League World Issue 400 - Out Now!

RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD MAGAZINE - ISSUE 401 - OUT NOW!
84 pages, full colour, in-depth coverage from the grassroots through to the international game.
Click here for the digital edition or just download the Rugby League World app from Apple Newsstand or Google Play now.
Click here to order a copy for delivery by post. Annual subscriptions also available worldwide.
Find out what's inside Issue 401
/ View a Gallery of all our previous 400 covers / WH Smith Branches stocking Issue 401
Read Jamie Jones-Buchanan's Top 5 RLW Interviews including Marwan Koukash, Lee Briers, Gareth Thomas, Steve Ganson & Matt King OBE


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

Stadia we should use for the 2013 World Cup


  • Please log in to reply
83 replies to this topic

#61 JWAD

JWAD
  • Coach
  • 14,332 posts

Posted 28 August 2010 - 10:18 PM

QUOTE (ParisSurtout @ Aug 28 2010, 08:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Why can't you make predictions based on evidence of past experience, rather than based on nothing?

They aren't. You're ignoring past internationals of this decade.

#62 gazza77

gazza77
  • Coach
  • 2,178 posts

Posted 28 August 2010 - 10:28 PM

I know a number of Fev fans have openly stated they would never attend an international due to the way the club was treated over the start of SL and also due to franchising. I'm not trying to start the old arguments about this here, or whether they are right or wrong to say this, but how many lower league teams supporters feel the same way? Could that have a significant impact on international attendances?

"Featherstone outside the Super League is like Rooney, Ronaldo, Villa out of Euro 2012."

Please view my photos.

 

http://www.hughesphoto.co.uk/


Little Nook Farm - Caravan Club Certificated Location in the heart of the Pennines overlooking Hebden Bridge and the Calder Valley.

http://www.facebook.com/LittleNookFarm


#63 ParisSurtout

ParisSurtout
  • Coach
  • 3,956 posts

Posted 29 August 2010 - 08:29 AM

QUOTE (JWAD @ Aug 28 2010, 06:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
They aren't. You're ignoring past internationals of this decade.



How could I be ignoring internationals of the past decade? During most of the past decade Wembley was closed and under reconstruction. It was only reopened in 2007.

But in 2001 Nigel Wood began allocating internationals to 25,000 seater stadia. Once Wembley was reopened he was not interested in having any internationals there. He preferred the smaller stadia with smaller crowds and smaller profits for reasons a rational man cannot possibly fathom, given the success of the 1990s at Wembley, and the impoverished state (relative to other sports) of rugby league in Britain.

Wembley has never been used in the past decade, so it has never been tested. I am very surprised that a man of your age and background did not know any of this.

Edited by ParisSurtout, 29 August 2010 - 08:32 AM.

Le rugby a treize, c'est moi!

_____



______________________________________________________

#64 JWAD

JWAD
  • Coach
  • 14,332 posts

Posted 29 August 2010 - 08:35 AM

QUOTE (ParisSurtout @ Aug 29 2010, 09:29 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
How could I be ignoring internationals of the past decade? During most of the past decade Wembley was closed and under reconstruction. It was only reopened in 2007

Internationals still took place and did not fill up.
Or have you conveniently forgotten?

#65 ParisSurtout

ParisSurtout
  • Coach
  • 3,956 posts

Posted 29 August 2010 - 08:50 AM

QUOTE (JWAD @ Aug 29 2010, 04:35 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Internationals still took place and did not fill up.
Or have you conveniently forgotten?


I haven't forgotten. You haven't grasped my point. Whenever you lowball internationals by holding them in second rate venues ( and doing little promotional expenditure) you get second rate crowds.

When you put them in prestige stadia people -- who include soft core fans of rugby league --- take them more seriously.

The other factor is the soft core southern audience for rugby league. A huge percentage of the crowds for internationals at Wembley are from the south of England. They won't travel north, while the hard core northern fans will travel south to Wembley. Look at the figures I posted and try to digest them. Wembley outscored even a prestigious northern venue like Old Trafford every year, while Old Trafford got bigger crowds than Elland Road.

Look at the venues where Tests were held in the 1980s. Old Trafford, used once in 1986, attracted 50,583. The other venues like Hull, Leeds and Wigan got the same miserable 20-30,000 crowds that we have seen in the last decade.

The lessons should have been clear to everyone. Old Trafford is more attractive for Tests than the small club grounds, and Wembley has a greater ability to attract crowds than any stadium in the provincial north.

Only Nigel Wood and you don't seem to grasp this.

Edited by ParisSurtout, 29 August 2010 - 09:01 AM.

Le rugby a treize, c'est moi!

_____



______________________________________________________

#66 JWAD

JWAD
  • Coach
  • 14,332 posts

Posted 29 August 2010 - 09:12 AM

QUOTE (ParisSurtout @ Aug 29 2010, 09:50 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I haven't forgotten. You haven't grasped my point. Whenever you lowball internationals by holding them in second rate venues ( and doing little promotional expenditure) you get second rate crowds
When you put them in prestige stadia people -- who include soft core fans of rugby league --- take them more seriously

All very well in theory. If the birthplace of the sport isn't "prestigious" enough for you however . . .

QUOTE (ParisSurtout @ Aug 29 2010, 09:50 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The other factor is the soft core southern audience for rugby league. A huge percentage of the crowds for internationals at Wembley are from the south of England. They won't travel north, while the hard core northern fans will travel south to Wembley. Look at the figures I posted and try to digest them. Wembley outscored even a prestigious northern venue like Old Trafford every year, while Old Trafford got bigger crowds than Elland Road

You may as well go back to the forties and fifties if you're going to apply comparisons like that.

QUOTE (ParisSurtout @ Aug 29 2010, 09:50 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Only Nigel Wood and you don't seem to grasp this

If you think the stadia used are the reason for poor international crowds then its you who is missing the trick. Expectancy and who is on the field have a lot more of an effect on numbers than any of this.

#67 Wellsy4HullFC

Wellsy4HullFC
  • Coach
  • 9,719 posts

Posted 29 August 2010 - 09:28 AM

QUOTE (ParisSurtout @ Aug 28 2010, 08:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Why can't you make predictions based on evidence of past experience, rather than based on nothing?

Possibly the same reason you can't? i.e. using 70k stadia for the semis that have never attracted more than 31k, even at bigger grounds.
Posted Image

#68 ParisSurtout

ParisSurtout
  • Coach
  • 3,956 posts

Posted 29 August 2010 - 10:54 PM

QUOTE (Wellsy4HullFC @ Aug 29 2010, 05:28 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Possibly the same reason you can't? i.e. using 70k stadia for the semis that have never attracted more than 31k, even at bigger grounds.



Wembley has never been tried for a World Cup semi final. So there is no direct equivalent evidence to go on.

However what we do have is a World Cup pool game, when an England vs Australia match in 1995 got 41,271 at the Old Wembley. We also have the pool game from 2000, held in the worst English storm weather in 100 years, when the rail lines to the north were shut down, yet still attracted 31,000 to the enemy territory of Twickenham.

It is reasonable to assume that a semi-final involving England could top the 1995 pool match crowd of 41,271, and go well over 50,000 -- maybe even hit the 73,000 plus World Cup record -- if properly promoted.

Edited by ParisSurtout, 29 August 2010 - 10:59 PM.

Le rugby a treize, c'est moi!

_____



______________________________________________________

#69 Bleep1673

Bleep1673
  • Coach
  • 3,430 posts

Posted 30 August 2010 - 08:21 AM

QUOTE (ParisSurtout @ Aug 29 2010, 11:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Wembley has never been tried for a World Cup semi final. So there is no direct equivalent evidence to go on.

However what we do have is a World Cup pool game, when an England vs Australia match in 1995 got 41,271 at the Old Wembley. We also have the pool game from 2000, held in the worst English storm weather in 100 years, when the rail lines to the north were shut down, yet still attracted 31,000 to the enemy territory of Twickenham.

It is reasonable to assume that a semi-final involving England could top the 1995 pool match crowd of 41,271, and go well over 50,000 -- maybe even hit the 73,000 plus World Cup record -- if properly promoted.

Yes play a game at Old Trafford! 41271 would still look empty in a 80000 stadium, how much does it cost to hire Old Trafford? How much profit can the RFL make? We don't use these stadia for free, we are trying to turn a profit in the 2013 WC, the last one here made a loss, poor weather didn't help, neither did taking matches to Gloucester, Twickenham, and the Millenium, which was only open on the lower 2 tiers (I was there).
Swinton RLFC est 1866 - Supplying England with players when most of your clubs were in nappies

#70 Derwent

Derwent
  • Coach
  • 7,831 posts

Posted 30 August 2010 - 09:06 AM

The one thing we can see from past GB v Oz attendances is how much more popular regular Ashes series were compared to current arrangements.


Workington Town. Then. Now. Always.


#71 ParisSurtout

ParisSurtout
  • Coach
  • 3,956 posts

Posted 30 August 2010 - 04:28 PM

QUOTE (Derwent @ Aug 30 2010, 05:06 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The one thing we can see from past GB v Oz attendances is how much more popular regular Ashes series were compared to current arrangements.



No it does not show that. We had an Ashes series in 2001, which was long anticipated (because of the gap of no series since 1994). Yet the RFL decided to put the Tests in tiny stadia.

No one expected Great Britain to win a game. But it did win the first Test. Then the second Test was at Bolton, and should have sold out all 28,000 seats. But it didn't because Nigel Wood, who was in charge of promotion and budget for the RFL, did not want to spend any money on promotion.

This all sums up the attitude of Nigel Wood. Hold the games in tiny northern stadia, which no southern England fans will travel to, and then don't spend any money promoting the event. Presto, an unfilled little stadium.
Le rugby a treize, c'est moi!

_____



______________________________________________________

#72 JWAD

JWAD
  • Coach
  • 14,332 posts

Posted 30 August 2010 - 06:39 PM

QUOTE (ParisSurtout @ Aug 30 2010, 05:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
No one expected Great Britain to win a game. But it did win the first Test. Then the second Test was at Bolton, and should have sold out all 28,000 seats. But it didn't because Nigel Wood, who was in charge of promotion and budget for the RFL, did not want to spend any money on promotion


Just down to "the promotion" was it? laugh.gif

#73 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 14,324 posts

Posted 30 August 2010 - 07:37 PM

Something I have thought before, and maybe this is quite negative, but why not have a 3rd place playoff, and hold a double header at Wembley on final day? I know it is manipulating things to ensure that England are pretty much guaranteed to appear on the finals day, but hey, we need to be realistic about what we can achieve.

Another alternative is to have a double header at Wembley for the semi finals, and then the Final at a more reasonable stadium like the City of Manchester Stadium.

#74 Methven Hornet

Methven Hornet
  • Coach
  • 9,496 posts

Posted 30 August 2010 - 08:07 PM

QUOTE (ParisSurtout @ Aug 27 2010, 10:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Rubbish. Here are the figures for the golden decade, before Nigel Wood began making decisions on venues:

1990. Great Britain 19 vs Australia 12 Wembley Crowd: 54,569
1990. Australia 14 vs Great Britain 10 Old Trafford Crowd: 46,615
1990. Australia 14 vs Great Britain 0 Elland Road Crowd: 32,500

1992. Australia 10 vs Great Britain 6 Wembley Crowd: 73,631

1994. Great Britain 8 vs Australia 4 Wembley Crowd: 57,034
1994. Australia 38 vs Great Britain 8 Old Trafford Crowd: 43,930
1994 Australia 23 vs Great Britain 4 Elland Road Crowd: 39,468

1995: Australia 20 vs England 16 (Pool match World Cup) Wembley Crowd: 41,271
1995: Australia 16 vs England 8 (Final World Cup) Wembley Crowd: 66,540


For the next three years Super League vs ARL war divided the Australian code. A Super League representative side came to Britain in 1997. No doubt it was not considered a regular Test. Here were the crowds:



1997. Australia 38 vs Great Britain 14 Wembley. Crowd: 41,135
1997. Great Britain 20 vs Australia 12 Old Trafford. Crowd: 40,324
1997. Australia 37 vs Great Britain 20 Elland Road. Crowd: 39,337

So except for the 1995 pool match and the 1997 Super League Test, all Wembley crowds have been over 50,000.

We also see that in each years series of Tests Wembley has attracted more fans than either Old Trafford or Elland Road.

Obviously a properly administered World Cup could expect more than 50,000 at Wembley for a final, and for a semi-final involving England. A crowd of over 73,000 has already been achieved there for a World Cup final, and could be realised under a competent management team in 2013.

A few things to bear in mind about those days:-

Test matches were shown on terrestrial TV on a Saturday afternoon - while you could argue that this would reduce the match attendance, it was also had a massive marketing effect. GB games were national events, in the public eye and looked attractive enough to want to attend. These days that just isn't the case - the games are played at a strange times on a satellite station.

In the early/mid 90s it was just about possible to believe that 1982 had been a temporary low for GB, and that we were improving and catching the Aussies up. Surely it was just a matter of time before we had that historic test series victory. 15/20 years later who really thinks that there is a realistic chance of England (or even GB) getting the better of the Kangaroos?

Those Wembley attendances didn't just happen, they were built up over a number of years, using soccer stadiums such as Elland Road and Old Trafford at first. Sure we can moan about the recent marketing of internationals but we are where we are, and we are now used to tests being smaller affairs. It will take years to change this perception.

I think there is just about a case for making Wembley the venue for the final, and given a marketing effort that has not been seen in recent years, and the game's fans rallying round, then it could just about be played in front of a decent crowd. Not a semi as well, though.
"There are now more pandas in Scotland than Tory MPs."

#75 ParisSurtout

ParisSurtout
  • Coach
  • 3,956 posts

Posted 30 August 2010 - 08:41 PM

QUOTE (Dave T @ Aug 30 2010, 03:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Something I have thought before, and maybe this is quite negative, but why not have a 3rd place playoff, and hold a double header at Wembley on final day? I know it is manipulating things to ensure that England are pretty much guaranteed to appear on the finals day, but hey, we need to be realistic about what we can achieve.

Another alternative is to have a double header at Wembley for the semi finals, and then the Final at a more reasonable stadium like the City of Manchester Stadium.



I like the first option. It is a good idea.

However the second option does not make good marketing sense. I would not use Wembley for the semis and then a smaller northern stadium for the final. It goes against the basic marketing psychology of building up to the final as the ultimate event of the competition.

Edited by ParisSurtout, 30 August 2010 - 08:42 PM.

Le rugby a treize, c'est moi!

_____



______________________________________________________

#76 Wellsy4HullFC

Wellsy4HullFC
  • Coach
  • 9,719 posts

Posted 31 August 2010 - 02:23 PM

QUOTE (ParisSurtout @ Aug 29 2010, 11:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Wembley has never been tried for a World Cup semi final. So there is no direct equivalent evidence to go on.

However what we do have is a World Cup pool game, when an England vs Australia match in 1995 got 41,271 at the Old Wembley. We also have the pool game from 2000, held in the worst English storm weather in 100 years, when the rail lines to the north were shut down, yet still attracted 31,000 to the enemy territory of Twickenham.

It is reasonable to assume that a semi-final involving England could top the 1995 pool match crowd of 41,271, and go well over 50,000 -- maybe even hit the 73,000 plus World Cup record -- if properly promoted.

Wembley has not been used for a semi-final. But large stadia have been used for semi finals, and have never sold out or come close to it. Old Trafford got 30,000. If you used Wembley and Old Trafford for the semi finals, the one that doesn't involve England will most likely struggle to even fill a quarter of the stadium.

You can't compare it to group games because you KNOW who is playing in the group game so you can market for it for months. You don't know who will be in the semis. It would be a huge mistake to use stadia that are too large. You seem to forget these stadia you're suggesting will need paying for, as well as this massive marketing campaign you want to fill them. Will it turn a profit? Not if you do it your way. The amount of marketing you'd need to fill these stadia for the semis (as well as paying for the actually costs of the stadiums themselves) would not be made back from the profit from the games.
Posted Image

#77 Big Picture

Big Picture
  • Coach
  • 1,163 posts

Posted 31 August 2010 - 02:34 PM

QUOTE (Wellsy4HullFC @ Aug 31 2010, 02:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Wembley has not been used for a semi-final. But large stadia have been used for semi finals, and have never sold out or come close to it. Old Trafford got 30,000. If you used Wembley and Old Trafford for the semi finals, the one that doesn't involve England will most likely struggle to even fill a quarter of the stadium.

You can't compare it to group games because you KNOW who is playing in the group game so you can market for it for months. You don't know who will be in the semis. It would be a huge mistake to use stadia that are too large. You seem to forget these stadia you're suggesting will need paying for, as well as this massive marketing campaign you want to fill them. Will it turn a profit? Not if you do it your way. The amount of marketing you'd need to fill these stadia for the semis (as well as paying for the actually costs of the stadiums themselves) would not be made back from the profit from the games.

Why can't you market a semi-final for months (or years since the World Cup is 3 years away)? A semi-final should be much bigger than any group games, it's only one step away from the final of what should be the biggest event in the sport. Are you suggesting it's not bigger than the group games? A World Cup is special and real fans should want to see the big games regardless of who's in them.

#78 Wellsy4HullFC

Wellsy4HullFC
  • Coach
  • 9,719 posts

Posted 31 August 2010 - 02:46 PM

QUOTE (Big Picture @ Aug 31 2010, 03:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Why can't you market a semi-final for months (or years since the World Cup is 3 years away)? A semi-final should be much bigger than any group games, it's only one step away from the final of what should be the biggest event in the sport. Are you suggesting it's not bigger than the group games? A World Cup is special and real fans should want to see the big games regardless of who's in them.

Absolutely not suggesting that, no. You can market it all you like, but you won't truly start to sell a lot of tickets until the teams are determined. If the majority of the fans would want to watch England in the semi, they will wait until they know which semi final they are in. If they are playing a small nation, not as many will come. If the other semi final is Australia/New Zealand vs say PNG or France, how many people would turn up to Wembley for that?

A semi-final should be much bigger than the group stages. Doesn't mean it will be better attended (look at the semi finals of the Challenge Cup for example).
Posted Image

#79 Big Picture

Big Picture
  • Coach
  • 1,163 posts

Posted 31 August 2010 - 03:35 PM

QUOTE (Wellsy4HullFC @ Aug 31 2010, 02:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Absolutely not suggesting that, no. You can market it all you like, but you won't truly start to sell a lot of tickets until the teams are determined. If the majority of the fans would want to watch England in the semi, they will wait until they know which semi final they are in. If they are playing a small nation, not as many will come. If the other semi final is Australia/New Zealand vs say PNG or France, how many people would turn up to Wembley for that?

A semi-final should be much bigger than the group stages. Doesn't mean it will be better attended (look at the semi finals of the Challenge Cup for example).

I wouldn't suggest a stadium like Wembley for a semi-final, it's clearly too big. I'd look at venues like City of Manchester Stadium and Ricoh Arena instead and offer ticket packages that incorporate group games and knockout stage ones together as a way to fill them. I'd offer discounts for SL, Championship (both levels) and NRL season ticket holders and when tickets for more than one game are bought at the same time, have family ticket packages where the kids are included and price the group games according to which countries are in those groups. I'd allow fans to combine discounts too, so season ticket holders could get an extra discount when buying tickets for more than one game at the same time. The key thing is to make it attractive and compelling for the fans to attend.

I'm not sure the Challenge Cup can be used as a direct comparison when it features teams fans see all the time in league games.

#80 Wellsy4HullFC

Wellsy4HullFC
  • Coach
  • 9,719 posts

Posted 31 August 2010 - 03:42 PM

QUOTE (Big Picture @ Aug 31 2010, 04:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I wouldn't suggest a stadium like Wembley for a semi-final, it's clearly too big. I'd look at venues like City of Manchester Stadium and Ricoh Arena instead and offer ticket packages that incorporate group games and knockout stage ones together as a way to fill them. I'd offer discounts for SL, Championship (both levels) and NRL season ticket holders and when tickets for more than one game are bought at the same time, have family ticket packages where the kids are included and price the group games according to which countries are in those groups. I'd allow fans to combine discounts too, so season ticket holders could get an extra discount when buying tickets for more than one game at the same time. The key thing is to make it attractive and compelling for the fans to attend.

I'm not sure the Challenge Cup can be used as a direct comparison when it features teams fans see all the time in league games.

I wouldn't even touch Ricoh Arena for the entire competition. A 30k stadium in a non-heartland area is a massive ask to get any sort of decent crowd, especially for a potential non-England game. Until the format is announced, I don't really want to suggest stadia for the semis, but I would most definitely keep them both in the heartlands, with only a slight possibility of one in London (but not Wembley FFS, it's huge!).

There is also a lot more to marketing than just offering good deals (not saying you're suggesting that, but needs a mention). If people don't know about these offers, it won't make a difference. And if you're preaching to the converted, you could end up losing money.
Posted Image




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users