Saints - Oldham agreement
Posted 18 October 2012 - 10:26 AM
Hull KR have increased their stadium due to them having only two stands and relative poor viewing due to the original design of the ground, and no real terrracing behind the goals, Hull KR were not filling Craven Park every week. Fantastic for them, and the game in general.
Leeds have modenised Headingly, not just to increase capacity (only one of two), but to put a roofed stand at one end as opposed to the original open ended terrace.
Warrington have increased the HJ due to demand, and that's good - they are enjoying a successful period at present. But out of all the SL that's only 2 clubs out of 14, but that's only that they are the two successful of the past few years. Look at Sale for comparison, they are at the bottom at present yet can pull in 5843 for their last home game (the one previous was 8k plus), yet Salford could only pull in 3458 and 4000 for the visit of Champions Leeds. On those sort of crowds, and it's been said that Salford need 30k a game to play at the stadium, it's no wonder Salford are in trouble.
The article you refered to stated that some RU clubs were at their capcity limit, thus reducing their potential for income.
Research from the Sports Business Group at Deloitte based on financial data referring to the 2007/08 – the most recent season for which information was available - reveals that revenue growth, which topped £100 million year, may be being restricted by the limited capacity of some clubs’ stadiums
It doesn't matter how big your stadium is, it's the people that attend that matter, and like most modern stadia , it can become a white elephant if it's half empty every week.
Look at the next England V Australia international, and see how many RL get compared to RU. We used to be able to fill Old Trafford for a test match against the old enemy, but struggle to fill a 25k stadium. In fact, look at a Scotland V Namibia international, and even that would get more these days than a RL test match against the Aussies. That's a sad fact of the state of the International game at RL at the moment. Even the Aussies paly it second fiddle to SOO these days. That's progress?
Posted 18 October 2012 - 12:01 PM
In reality the opposite has happened,we're certainly no closer if not further away and like Oldhamer says we no longer get the crowds we used to.
Has SL brought anything positive to the game except make the top level players considerably richer?
Posted 18 October 2012 - 02:52 PM
Crowds may have increased at SL clubs, but beneath the SL, crowds have plummteted dramatically, yet nothing is done to address this. Yet they keep nailing the coffin lid shut by the franchise farce it is. League has a limited fan base, and it's not rocket science that the fans missing, have either given up watching all togther, or gone watching their nearest SL club. Are the RFL doing anything to entice fans to the Championship or Championship 1, as currently they have nothing to play for apart from pride.
The reason SL clubs are abandoning the teams below the firsts is down to greed. They want more money to fund players salaries, and let the championship clubs do their development for them. Personally, I could see this happening 7/8 years ago, and unfortunately, it's becoming the accepted 'norm'. We are further behing the Aussies at test level than ever before, and being honest, they aren't a patch on their 80s/90s counterparts. But before SL, we competed, and competed well against them. Not anymore.
Posted 18 October 2012 - 07:05 PM
Give my blog a read if you like!