77 replies to this topic

[vitocorleone]

Do you have those numbers to post? They would make interesting reading I'm sure.

Very interesting indeed.

I`ve compared tems that have played at this level over a few years before the summer split from 1989/90 until 1994/95 season and compared them to 2007-2011 seasons.

Some results are distorted due to the fact teams have been promoted or relegated.

The number in brackets denoted which division the club was in that season, and I have used divs 1,2,3 as they were before the advent of SL, eg 2 is the Championship.

Batley
1989/90 1506 (3) 2007 1023 (2)
1990/91 1188 (3) 2008 970 (2)
1991/92 1145 (3) 2009 856 (2)
1992/93 925 (3) 2010 992 (2)
1993/94 1227 (2) 2011 1065 (2)
1994/95 1509 (2)

Dewsbury
89/90 1227 07 1369 (2)
90/91 955 08 1196 (2)
91/92 1140 09 1293 (3)
92/93 1108 10 1145 (2)
93/94 1366 11 1048 (2)
94/95 1859

Workington
89/90 691 07 906 (3)
90/91 1426 08 717 (3)
91/92 1884 09 474 (3)
92/93 2040 (3) 10 470 (3)
93/94 2603 (2) 11 583 (3)
94/95 3776 (1)

Keighley
89/90 936 07 766 (3)
90/91 985 08 868 (3)
91/92 1196 09 916 (3)
92/93 2060 10 1045 (2)
93/94 3032 11 830 (3)
94/95 3723

Rochdale
89/91 2510 07 923 (2)
90/91 2542 (1) 08 586 (3)
91/92 1415 09 637 (3)
92/93 1308 10 567 (3)
93/94 1063 11 605 (3)
94/95 1089

Edited by vitocorleone, 23 October 2012 - 01:48 PM.

[vitocorleone]

I have no idea why it`s come out like that, but you can just about follow it.

[Blind side johnny]

I have no idea why it`s come out like that, but you can just about follow it.

Thanks, that's very interesting.

My view is that it is impossible to draw any sweeping conclusions from these figures unless you were determined to do so. Dewsbury's 94/95 figures were slightly boosted by the new ground effect I reckon, 3427 for the first home game being a significant number.

[oldrover]

Whilst many of us are concerned at how these changes may ultimately affect us I don't think and endless series of "what ifs" are truly helpful. Let's see how it all pans out then complain - as we (I) will.

you are neville chamberlain and i claim my £5

[grumpyoldram]

So what you are saying is your opinion isn't actually based on any actual facts? And you are strangely disregarding crowds against the bigger teams in the league to suit your agenda? Interesting.

yes I am gav - it's an opinion, and I don't have the facts to back it up. I am not disregarding the bigger teams, I'm just saying they slew the overall picture, I could be wrong but I think it's called truncation. As a journo, you would probably have access to the facts and could put me straight, but if you had stood on the terraces at the tetleys when we played york, swinton, hunslet etc. you might have wondered where the rest of the crowd were hiding. Like I said, whatever the official figures are, standing there on matchday there just dont seem to be as many faces as there were when we won ch1, bearing in mind the away support that year was minimal. Hope this doesn't confuse you, but what I'm talking about is the average crowd as opposed to the crowd average. Incidentally, what makes you think I have an agenda ?

[vitocorleone]

Thanks, that's very interesting.

My view is that it is impossible to draw any sweeping conclusions from these figures unless you were determined to do so. Dewsbury's 94/95 figures were slightly boosted by the new ground effect I reckon, 3427 for the first home game being a significant number.

That is a good point.

On the flip side of that in 1994/95, both Batley and Dewsbury were playing the likes of Highfield and Bramley etc not to mention all three cumbrian teams, who for obvious reasons don`t travel in large numbers.

Batley have been consistently in the second tier since 1999 now and in those seasons some big teams with large support have also been in the second tier, such as Castleford in 2005 and 2007, yet our attendances were still 500 off what they were in 1994/95, when we were playing the likes of Highfield.

Look at the heavy woollen derby attendances in recent years compared to the late 80s and 90s. Back then between 3 and 4 thousand turned up to watch a game played in the middle of winter, in terrible coditions and most of the supporters were stood in a stand with no roof! You could also argue that the quality on show is much higher than then, it is definately a lot quicker.

So I stand by my earlier comment that attendances are falling at this level.

Edited by vitocorleone, 24 October 2012 - 09:06 AM.

[Blind side johnny]

That is a good point.

On the flip side of that in 1994/95, both Batley and Dewsbury were playing the likes of Highfield and Bramley etc not to mention all three cumbrian teams, who for obvious reasons don`t travel in large numbers.

Batley have been consistently in the second tier since 1999 now and in those seasons some big teams with large support have also been in the second tier, such as Castleford in 2005 and 2007, yet our attendances were still 500 off what they were in 1994/95, when we were playing the likes of Highfield.

Look at the heavy woollen derby attendances in recent years compared to the late 80s and 90s. Back then between 3 and 4 thousand turned up to watch a game played in the middle of winter, in terrible coditions and most of the supporters were stood in a stand with no roof! You could also argue that the quality on show is much higher than then, it is definately a lot quicker.

So I stand by my earlier comment that attendances are falling at this level.

To be precise attendances have fallen; the decline is not necessarily dynamic. If you take the averages across the seasons that you list (a crude measure admittedly) Batley's average has fallen by 270 (22%) and Dewsbury's by 66 (5%). Not terribly conclusive nor demonstrating any single common factor. Many factors can be cited and I'm sure will be but simple solutions are not obvious are they?

I suggest that a much broader analysis would demonstrate all sorts of things, not least the disastrous decline into the 70's that did truly threaten the future of the game. I stick to my earlier premise that no sweeping conclusions can be reasonably made.

[vitocorleone]

This is quite true. But if attendences fall by another 22% in the next 15-20 years will there be a club at all?

In the above figures, I would be extremly worried if I was a Rochdale fan, especially with the standard and location of opposition next season, they will be lucky to have an average gate of 500. Very sad.

I purpously used Keighley`s figures as they had monster crowds before SL crushed them, but do you ever see the likes of Keighley, Batley, Dewsbury, Hunslet etc getting those sorts of crowds ever again, no matter how good they are.

You only have to look at the amount of three figured attendances in our division to realise our level of rugby is in decline and should be a serious talking point for the big wigs at Red Hall. Or is it just part of their master plan to have an Austrailian model from top to bottom?

[M Hopkins]

In my eyes the problem with our sport is that the superleague teams have too much power. There should be free flowing promotion and relegation through all the tiers of the league. (regardless of capacities and such).

If a team wins the championship they should get a chance in superleague. Yes they might not stay up but they would raise the profile of their club. More exposure and potential to gain new long-term fans.

I believe that if P & R was back then crowds in the lower divisions would benefit in a number of ways. I.e superleague wouldn't be so out of reach anymore. I have tried and tried to get friends around my age (26) come to games at our level. They just don't want to. Mainly because they see it that we have nothing to play for. They see it as a reserve league.

A good example of this would be Featherstone. Look at their crowds. More than double ours. I believe that is down to the club having a good chance of getting to superleague and aspiring to be at the top level. Whereas most other clubs in our division dont really have a chance.

That's what I think anyway.

[Blind side johnny]

P&R is a red herring. Div 2 gates were declining when it existed and have declined since it was scrapped.

It is RL as a whole that needs to be promoted but we swim against a strong tide of media indifference at best. the rah-rah cheerleaders are very well placed throughout the press nowadays and RL gets little look in.

[Gav Wilson]

P&R is a red herring. Div 2 gates were declining when it existed and have declined since it was scrapped.

It is RL as a whole that needs to be promoted but we swim against a strong tide of media indifference at best. the rah-rah cheerleaders are very well placed throughout the press nowadays and RL gets little look in.

A very good point.

[marko9]

Once we know the team and ins and outs of this link up,can answer all the questions,if its good for us then ill back it,the way kear talks he don't want to be a feeder team,it's about player welfare which can only be a good thing and access to players if needed to cover injury

[grumpyoldram]

P&R is a red herring. Div 2 gates were declining when it existed and have declined since it was scrapped.

It is RL as a whole that needs to be promoted but we swim against a strong tide of media indifference at best. the rah-rah cheerleaders are very well placed throughout the press nowadays and RL gets little look in.

Still banging on about that then BSJ ? Top and bottom of it is that at pro level, RL is still largely an M62 corridor/Cumbria game, whereas RU is a national sport and duly gets national coverage. Their top premiership clubs market the game better than us ( a local derby last year attracted an 83,000 crowd) and IMO the game is generally more professionally covered by the television companies (no big units, keeping the ball on the island and all the tosh the chuckle brothers serve up). Interestingly, RU attendances in general are also falling, the powers that be pinning the blame on the media obsession with football. No point in criticising posters on here for continueing to believe the RFL is the source of all evil though BSJ (and strangely I'm not one of them), and then pointing the finger at the media coverage of a game that is absolutely nothing to do with us for our problems - except when they poach our players - something of course we would never have done.

[Blind side johnny]

Still banging on about that then BSJ ? Top and bottom of it is that at pro level, RL is still largely an M62 corridor/Cumbria game, whereas RU is a national sport and duly gets national coverage. Their top premiership clubs market the game better than us ( a local derby last year attracted an 83,000 crowd) and IMO the game is generally more professionally covered by the television companies (no big units, keeping the ball on the island and all the tosh the chuckle brothers serve up). Interestingly, RU attendances in general are also falling, the powers that be pinning the blame on the media obsession with football. No point in criticising posters on here for continueing to believe the RFL is the source of all evil though BSJ (and strangely I'm not one of them), and then pointing the finger at the media coverage of a game that is absolutely nothing to do with us for our problems - except when they poach our players - something of course we would never have done.

RU aficionados have always despised RL and their operatives are everywhere. I see their brainwashing has even got as far as you though GOR, which is worrying. At pro level RU is no more a "national" sport than RL and at amateur level RL has a massive spread nowadays. RU attendances are falling but that doesn't stop the Observer giving half a page to every game that has a 8000 attendance; tell me that RL gets equal coverage on that basis.

There is no argument that we don't do as well as we could in promoting our game but we sure as hell don't get the slightest bit of help from anyone in a position of power. Please don't try to tell me that the same applies to RU. Just look at the slack grin and sparkle in the eyes of any BBC bod who talks about any "rugby" world cup then compare it to their lack of enthusiasm (with a couple of honourable exceptions) when RL is mentioned.

Young people are attracted to anything that they perceive of as fashionable and, as long as RL doesn't have this perception it is a difficult game to sell.

[grumpyoldram]

RU aficionados have always despised RL and their operatives are everywhere. I see their brainwashing has even got as far as you though GOR, which is worrying. At pro level RU is no more a "national" sport than RL and at amateur level RL has a massive spread nowadays. RU attendances are falling but that doesn't stop the Observer giving half a page to every game that has a 8000 attendance; tell me that RL gets equal coverage on that basis.

There is no argument that we don't do as well as we could in promoting our game but we sure as hell don't get the slightest bit of help from anyone in a position of power. Please don't try to tell me that the same applies to RU. Just look at the slack grin and sparkle in the eyes of any BBC bod who talks about any "rugby" world cup then compare it to their lack of enthusiasm (with a couple of honourable exceptions) when RL is mentioned.

Young people are attracted to anything that they perceive of as fashionable and, as long as RL doesn't have this perception it is a difficult game to sell.

I knew you'd bite. The thing is that English RU has the second biggest player base in the world (biggest is the USA I understand), Yorkshire has about a hundred clubs, but many of them run fourth and even fifth teams, and that despite the fact we don't even have a premier team in the county. I'm not sure that the RL clubs based further afield have that kind of player base. Sure RU gets much more coverage than RL dahn sarf - it's because they ain't interested (got relatives in Rochester), they like Footy first, then RU then hockey - RL lies somewhere between fly fishing and curling. TBH, I don't really care either. In fact, if I'm being honest I take a little satisfaction from the fact that the wider press treat SL in the same way the northern press treat the championship, and that is what I really care about. I'm first and foremost a dewsbury supporter, but if the club folded I'd have no qualms about crossing to the dark side in preference to the alternatives - in other words it's dewsbury or nowt. (OK I'd still watch the amateurs).

[Blind side johnny]

I knew you'd bite. The thing is that English RU has the second biggest player base in the world (biggest is the USA I understand), Yorkshire has about a hundred clubs, but many of them run fourth and even fifth teams, and that despite the fact we don't even have a premier team in the county. I'm not sure that the RL clubs based further afield have that kind of player base. Sure RU gets much more coverage than RL dahn sarf - it's because they ain't interested (got relatives in Rochester), they like Footy first, then RU then hockey - RL lies somewhere between fly fishing and curling. TBH, I don't really care either. In fact, if I'm being honest I take a little satisfaction from the fact that the wider press treat SL in the same way the northern press treat the championship, and that is what I really care about. I'm first and foremost a dewsbury supporter, but if the club folded I'd have no qualms about crossing to the dark side in preference to the alternatives - in other words it's dewsbury or nowt. (OK I'd still watch the amateurs).

I repeat..........."their operatives are everywhere".

Another RU propagandist raises his ugly head.

[grumpyoldram]

I repeat..........."their operatives are everywhere".

Another RU propagandist raises his ugly head.

Fair do's - I'm not an oil painting.

[Piggy's mate]

Heard on radio other day that Yorkshire has more registered players for RU than the whole of New Zealand!