It doesn't matter to me..........
But what I would like to see is a breakaway....
If it doesn't matter your not in SL .why do you want to breakaway Gaz??.
your letting the team down mate.......
Posted 06 December 2012 - 06:53 PM
It doesn't matter to me..........
But what I would like to see is a breakaway....
Posted 06 December 2012 - 06:56 PM
The advent of SL has totally undermined what used to be our Blue Ribbon event.
Posted 06 December 2012 - 06:59 PM
What is not so positive is that the SL attendances are a much greater proportion of the total RL crowds. and that crowd increases are gravitating to only one competition, whilst the Championship is about level overall (but less of the total), the Challenge Cup and internationals have decreased.
Posted 06 December 2012 - 07:00 PM
If it doesn't matter your not in SL .why do you want to breakaway Gaz??.
your letting the team down mate.......
Posted 06 December 2012 - 07:02 PM
The attendance figures do not show a significant increase in the fan base in the UK over the period of SL.
Posted 06 December 2012 - 07:03 PM
Cheers Padge - so whichever way it is cut, the crowds are up!
Posted 06 December 2012 - 07:55 PM
There is no reason to exclude Catalan, unless of course you would like to skew the figures more to your own liking.
Should Crusaders be taken out of the figures, they didn't exist in 93/94 and they existed in 2011, should any club who hasn't existed since 1895 to present be excluded from any historic analysis after all they skew the figures for the period they existed.
The question was how many watched RL pre SL and how many now. Whether its France or Wales, Lancashire or Yorkshire or even Essex is irrelevant. The RFL had no authority over and got no money from the previous incarnations of Catalan, they are however responsible for Cataln and make money from Catalan. That is the big difference.
Posted 06 December 2012 - 07:59 PM
It doesn't matter to me as long as we have a team to watch every matchday. But what I would like to see is a breakaway like they have in darts so the CC clubs can get a decent stream of income.
Posted 06 December 2012 - 08:22 PM
Theres no need use dubious figures to make growth in crowds look even larger than they are.
Posted 06 December 2012 - 08:38 PM
Why not get off yer bum and do the research yourself?
Come on give us some facts and figures yourself.
Edited by intheshed, 06 December 2012 - 08:40 PM.
Posted 06 December 2012 - 08:42 PM
You read about Tony Abbott. The point is simple - very rich men have come into the game to support Superleague clubs with large amounts of money from £500K a year to up to a £1,000,000.
If Abbot ever decides he wants Superleague he can fill all the massive holes in Fax's SL application found by KPMG and be another one, same with Nahaboo.
The big investors want Superleague, not a semi pro club. Hence Superleague attracts major private investment which is one of it's big achievements.
Posted 06 December 2012 - 09:04 PM
Do tell me where this decent stream of income is going to come from.It doesn't matter to me as long as we have a team to watch every matchday. But what I would like to see is a breakaway like they have in darts so the CC clubs can get a decent stream of income.
Posted 06 December 2012 - 09:12 PM
You throw out challenges like some fairground brawler confident that you will not be challenged or beaten, then when two rich investors involved with two Cc club s are quoted to you, you immediately rubbish their involvement.
Posted 06 December 2012 - 09:20 PM
I'm not sure shat you find so provocative about what I've said, care to expand?
Posted 06 December 2012 - 09:23 PM
There is no reason to exclude Catalan, unless of course you would like to skew the figures more to your own liking.
Should Crusaders be taken out of the figures, they didn't exist in 93/94 and they existed in 2011, should any club who hasn't existed since 1895 to present be excluded from any historic analysis after all they skew the figures for the period they existed.
The question was how many watched RL pre SL and how many now. Whether its France or Wales, Lancashire or Yorkshire or even Essex is irrelevant. The RFL had no authority over and got no money from the previous incarnations of Catalan, they are however responsible for Cataln and make money from Catalan. That is the big difference.
Posted 06 December 2012 - 09:23 PM
The figures quoted, and the figures used for all charts presented are the official figures for ALL clubs under the auspices of the RFL, nobody has been deliberately added in nor anyone deliberately left out.Couple of illustrative examples:
In your '93/'94 figures have you included the attendances of the Sheffield & Huddersfield? If so, why? They are no more relevant to the current Huddetsfield & Sheffield clubs than St Esteve/xiii catalan & laterly UTC are to the Dragons.
If, god forbid, Fev, Cas & Wakey merged tomorrow and were drawing average gates of 20k, could anyone plausibly claim that represented 20k new fans to the game? Thats the claim you're making with Catalans.
Without the figures to hand i'd wager that crowds for Catalans are at least double pre SL levels, admirable growth but there's no need use dubious figures to make growth in crowds look even larger than they are.
Posted 06 December 2012 - 09:24 PM
You throw out challenges like some fairground brawler
Posted 06 December 2012 - 10:05 PM
Posted 06 December 2012 - 11:21 PM
A measly 5 teams have won the Premier League in the last 20 years. And that's with all their billions of pounds and thousands of players to pick from.
They have all that wealth and global fame and yet only one more team have won it than a comp like SL, which struggles for money and coverage. It's rubbish.
Edited by The Parksider, 07 December 2012 - 06:41 AM.
Posted 06 December 2012 - 11:38 PM
Rugby League is more than just the Pro League. The amateur game has benefitted little from Sky or SL. In fact the way the clubs have raided amateur clubs giving next to nothing in return it possibly has damaged the amateur game to an extent. A club like Siddal or King Cross park has to put up with SL clubs coming along and taking a good 5 or 6 players a year. And what do they get in return? Maybe a couple of hundred pounds if lucky. And the amateur game and grassroots rugby has seen the game throw away money trying to help Crusaders, London, Bradford, Keighley etc whilst it sees many development officers disappear. Instead of money being invest to help, not just improve standards, but help develop clubs that money has been thrown at the Pro game. I dont see how SL or Sky money has benefitted the amateur game at all. The amateur game probably would be just as it is with or without the Sky money that came. None of the clubs saw any of that money. The facilities at clubs has come from other areas like Sport England, Local Government etc. Sky money has played next to no role in the improvement in playing facilities. Any the amateur game has actually seen a drop in numbers and Sport England has decided not to give the game millions of valuable cash due to the not so good numbers. Whilst its clear the game is spreading nationwide much of that is nothing to do with SL or Sky but the work of volunteers and development officers around the place. Many amateur clubs in the heartlands are facing problems. Clubs like Todmorden, Sowerby Bridge, Sowerby Spartans, Deighton Woolpack, Shipley, Huddersfield YMCA, Moldgreen, Prospect Warriors from the Pennine League have folded during the SL years. others only run with one team instead of 2 or 3 like yesteryear. These problems are of course nothing to do with Sky/Sl. But you claim the amateur game is in a better state because so many people play because of Sky/Sl for me is wrong as you dont seem to know too much about the state of the amateur game or Junior rugby and the concerns of many at this time. In answer to your question the amateur game would be somewhere around where it is today."Where do you think Rugby League would be today if the game had rejected the SKY offer of millions of pounds a year to stage an elite competition"
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users