838 replies to this topic

[intheshed]

With pleasure my good sir.

There are figures and articles easily available to see if under Superleague more fans watch the game, to see where all the professional players come from, and to see how much Superleague has attracted in revenue from TV and private investors enthused by pro-RL.

I'm quite happy to spend some time and effort putting these together to see if we can agree some facts, I'm quite happy to table them. and people are quite happy to pick them to bits and contrive to tell me they are all wrong.

If they are wrong and it's not a fact that Superleague attracts lots more fans, TV money, Private money and quality players - everything our games needs - then perhaps those who argue with the figures can do their own figures and show me what the real facts are?

When they don't do this I suspect it's because they really know the truth, but just don't like it.

I'm not bothered but Padge makes some very big efforts in this direction and it's quite unfair to call his efforts "dubious"

There's just one small problem with that, I'm not and never have made any of the claims you're railing against.

It's perfectly possible to agree with the general thrust, in this case that more people are passing through the gates now than in '93/'94, whilst pointing out an apparent flaw in the comparison which makes the improvement seem larger than it really is. I thought I had taken the trouble make sure it was clear I wasn't disputing the basic claim, an increase in overall attendance, apparently not. I'm happy to ensure you do not continue labour under such a misapprehension.

If you take issue with 'dubious' I'll certainly take the trouble to clarify. It wasn't my intention to label Padge's efforts as dubious but to suggest the way the figures had been compiled left them open to questioning. Something to the effect of; your point stands regardless of which way you present the figures so why choose the way which leaves them most open to question?

In terms of disputing figures or facts but not providing my own figures, the only claims I'm making re facts and figures are that the constituent parts of the merger that formed UTC in 2000 did exist in '93/'94 and that they were not playing in front of zero crowds. You surely can't be disputing any of that?

[Padge]

There's just one small problem with that, I'm not and never have made any of the claims you're railing against.

It's perfectly possible to agree with the general thrust, in this case that more people are passing through the gates now than in '93/'94, whilst pointing out an apparent flaw in the comparison which makes the improvement seem larger than it really is. I thought I had taken the trouble make sure it was clear I wasn't disputing the basic claim, an increase in overall attendance, apparently not. I'm happy to ensure you do not continue labour under such a misapprehension.

If you take issue with 'dubious' I'll certainly take the trouble to clarify. It wasn't my intention to label Padge's efforts as dubious but to suggest the way the figures had been compiled left them open to questioning. Something to the effect of; your point stands regardless of which way you present the figures so why choose the way which leaves them most open to question?

In terms of disputing figures or facts but not providing my own figures, the only claims I'm making re facts and figures are that the constituent parts of the merger that formed UTC in 2000 did exist in '93/'94 and that they were not playing in front of zero crowds. You surely can't be disputing any of that?

But the point is UTC had nothing to do with the RFL and didn't contribute money to or where a member club in any shape or form of the RFL, Catalan are, it doesn't matter where they are, as I said people will want Welsh clubs excluding next because they aren't English if it suits their argument. Crusaders were born of a union club, should we take into account the crowds of the union club beforehand. What about Scorpions who born of the old Crusaders, which one do you want to use to cancel the other.

I only use official records not made up numbers, vague guesses or gut feelings.

Edited by Padge, 07 December 2012 - 12:01 AM.

[intheshed]

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.

I can't dispute that, it is factually accurate. I would simply add, 'under the auspices of the RFL' seems to be an unnecessarily narrow parameter given that Catalans Dragons did exist, under the auspices of FFR, prior to their entry into SL and were drawing crowds, albeit not of the level they do now.

[Padge]

I can't dispute that, it is factually accurate. I would simply add, 'under the auspices of the RFL' seems to be an unnecessarily narrow parameter given that Catalans Dragons did exist, under the auspices of FFR, prior to their entry into SL and were drawing crowds, albeit not of the level they do now.

If I did the stats for 1979/80 compared to 80/81 should I include Fulham football clubs attendance in the 79/80 figure.

The whole argument is patent nonsense from the desperate.

As far as the bit in bold goes then what is the significance of the supposed error in the overall figure. Does it may that the figure is actually a negative figure, obviously it doesn't, does it mean the figure is static, obviously it doesn't.

Tell us the perceived error and tell us its significance, time to put up or shut up I think.

Edited by Padge, 07 December 2012 - 12:27 AM.

[intheshed]

If I did the stats for 1979/80 compared to 80/81 should I include Fulham football clubs attendance in the 79/80 figure.

The whole argument is patent nonsense from the desperate.

If Fulham Fc had spent the 79/80 season playing RL, yes.

[CANETMAN]

There's just one small problem with that, I'm not and never have made any of the claims you're railing against.

It's perfectly possible to agree with the general thrust, in this case that more people are passing through the gates now than in '93/'94, whilst pointing out an apparent flaw in the comparison which makes the improvement seem larger than it really is. I thought I had taken the trouble make sure it was clear I wasn't disputing the basic claim, an increase in overall attendance, apparently not. I'm happy to ensure you do not continue labour under such a misapprehension.

If you take issue with 'dubious' I'll certainly take the trouble to clarify. It wasn't my intention to label Padge's efforts as dubious but to suggest the way the figures had been compiled left them open to questioning. Something to the effect of; your point stands regardless of which way you present the figures so why choose the way which leaves them most open to question?

In terms of disputing figures or facts but not providing my own figures, the only claims I'm making re facts and figures are that the constituent parts of the merger that formed UTC in 2000 did exist in '93/'94 and that they were not playing in front of zero crowds. You surely can't be disputing any of that?

Average crowds at St Esteve 1998/2001 (Prior to merger with X111 Catalan were around 300)Average crowds at X111 1998/2001 (Prior to merger with St Esteve were around 200)Average crowds after merger (UTC) were around 600 Highest crowd would be for local derby v Pia (1500/3000)Highest crowd pre Catalan Dragons v Pia (2005) 5000CM

[The Parksider]

There's just one small problem with that, I'm not and never have made any of the claims you're railing against.

It's perfectly possible to agree with the general thrust, in this case that more people are passing through the gates now than in '93/'94, whilst pointing out an apparent flaw in the comparison which makes the improvement seem larger than it really is. I thought I had taken the trouble make sure it was clear I wasn't disputing the basic claim, an increase in overall attendance, apparently not. I'm happy to ensure you do not continue labour under such a misapprehension.

If you take issue with 'dubious' I'll certainly take the trouble to clarify. It wasn't my intention to label Padge's efforts as dubious but to suggest the way the figures had been compiled left them open to questioning. Something to the effect of; your point stands regardless of which way you present the figures so why choose the way which leaves them most open to question?

In terms of disputing figures or facts but not providing my own figures, the only claims I'm making re facts and figures are that the constituent parts of the merger that formed UTC in 2000 did exist in '93/'94 and that they were not playing in front of zero crowds. You surely can't be disputing any of that?

No I can't, as long as you accept he "only uses official records not made up numbers, vague guesses or gut feelings".

Which are far more dubious, especially such "gut feelings" that pre-1996 all the attendance figures were false anyway and heavily under counted to dodge tax.

Thank you for your post.

Edited by The Parksider, 07 December 2012 - 06:47 AM.

[The Parksider]

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. 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. 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. In answer to your question the amateur game would be somewhere around where it is today.

Firstly the SKY money was not provided to benefit the amateur game, but if you mean through payments to junior clubs for players then the problem of ripping them off was around long before SL, but there we go. Blame SL for everything.

What you want to claim is Superleague i.e. a vibrant professionalised version of Rugby League, regularly showcased on television with top players with much higher profiles than if they were semi pros (if they were still in the game and not in Union), who go into schools and promote the game has no bearing whatsoever in regard to people wanting to form and administer clubs, and kids wanting to play RL at those clubs.

How low would senior RL have to sink before people start to disregard it, I remember when it was at it's lowest ebb in the early seventies and the amateur game was equally on it's knees. But it suits you to make out there is no correlation whatsoever. Perhaps Shinty development officers can form clubs all around Great Britain? Once it's explained to the kids and adults what it is they can start clubs and the kids can stop playing soccer and play shinty instead.

A quick look at the amateur leagues especially junior leagues shows the wealth of people in SL areas who form and administer clubs, and the wealth of young players who join and go on to become professionals. The vast majority of professionals today come from Superleague areas, places where loads more people go watch their local SL club then go form or get involved or get their kids involved at the local club.

Still it must be a mirage before my very eyes the adults and kids enthused by the Rhinos, and the new clubs that have formed on the back of that, for according to you there's no correlation whatsoever between the success of the senior game in an area and the amateur game, which flies flat in the face of the analysis.

All those clubs in York Doncaster Rochdale Swinton and Sheffield springing up with kids queuing up to play thanks to development officers, my what powers of persuasion they must have........

Edited by The Parksider, 07 December 2012 - 07:11 AM.

[The Parksider]

The International scene in the early to mid 90s was probably at its strongest. Since SL international crowds have struggled.

I asked you...........

"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"

Care to tell me where we would be on the "International scene" without SKY, SL and the money?????

I don't think you do, you've danced completely around that one.

Anyone else care to tell me where we would be internationally without Superleague??

Come on it's not that hard.

[Marauder]

Firstly the SKY money was not provided to benefit the amateur game, but if you mean through payments to junior clubs for players then the problem of ripping them off was around long before SL, but there we go. Blame SL for everything.

What you want to claim is Superleague i.e. a vibrant professionalised version of Rugby League, regularly showcased on television with top players with much higher profiles than if they were semi pros (if they were still in the game and not in Union), who go into schools and promote the game has no bearing whatsoever in regard to people wanting to form and administer clubs, and kids wanting to play RL at those clubs.

How low would senior RL have to sink before people start to disregard it, I remember when it was at it's lowest ebb in the early seventies and the amateur game was equally on it's knees. But it suits you to make out there is no correlation whatsoever. Perhaps Shinty development officers can form clubs all around Great Britain? Once it's explained to the kids and adults what it is they can start clubs and the kids can stop playing soccer and play shinty instead.

A quick look at the amateur leagues especially junior leagues shows the wealth of people in SL areas who form and administer clubs, and the wealth of young players who join and go on to become professionals. The vast majority of professionals today come from Superleague areas, places where loads more people go watch their local SL club then go form or get involved or get their kids involved at the local club.

Still it must be a mirage before my very eyes the adults and kids enthused by the Rhinos, and the new clubs that have formed on the back of that, for according to you there's no correlation whatsoever between the success of the senior game in an area and the amateur game, which flies flat in the face of the analysis.

All those clubs in York Doncaster Rochdale Swinton and Sheffield springing up with kids queuing up to play thanks to development officers, my what powers of persuasion they must have........

Not sure about the Lancs but the three Yorkshire areas (York, Doncaster & Sheffield) have far less amateur teams playing since the start of Super League, I'd also add Barnsley, maybe that points out that the RFL failed in not forcing a Sheffield/Doncaster merger.

[Padge]

Average crowds at St Esteve 1998/2001 (Prior to merger with X111 Catalan were around 300)Average crowds at X111 1998/2001 (Prior to merger with St Esteve were around 200)Average crowds after merger (UTC) were around 600 Highest crowd would be for local derby v Pia (1500/3000)Highest crowd pre Catalan Dragons v Pia (2005) 5000CM

Very vague figures, source please.

[Ackroman]

With all due respect, no-one has proven categorically that SL has been the catalyst for an increase in attendance at RL matches in the UK since 1994..

I don't care about France, only SL cares, I care about the UK. I care that the propagandist won't admit SL only benefits SL to the tune of £££££. Nothing else.

The other facts are bluster and hot air.

The only caveat I had for the stats was that we look at the UK. So when Tolouse enter SL, crowds will go up again. Hoorah for SL.

Fine for you all, dance a jig if you want. Carry on repeating time and gain how better off WE are.

[The Parksider]

Fine for you all, dance a jig if you want. Carry on repeating time and gain how better off WE are.

Simple question......

"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"

I'll dance a jig for RL even if WE (Hunslet) are not better off at all.

You can dance round the question.

[JohnM]

How should we be measuring and against what baseline? Should we be comparing the current situation with that of 1995? Or should we be comparing the current situation with what it might be now had SL, Sky, summer rugby, Clare Balding, Radio Five Live etc not happened. In the last 17 years so much has changed across all fronts that match day attendances are only part of it.

Are there more teams - amateur, semi-pro, fully pro, are there more players, are there more paying spectators, season ticket holders, TV viewers?

More people making a living out of the game?

Are there more televised games? Are there more column-inches? More SPOTY awards? More mentions in the news?

Is there more money circulating in the game? Are there more assets?

In short, how does the value of our game compare?

Edited by JohnM, 07 December 2012 - 10:23 AM.

[The Parksider]

Sky have managed to promote the SL Grand Final as THE final at the expense of the Challenge Cup.

"evidence" "evidence" and thrice "evidence".......

Three points that go whoosh over your head........

a. Wigan won it ad nauseum in the dark days of one club being able to dominate the competition
b. Superleague wiped away that dominance and SEVEN clubs have won it since
c. The BBC have the challenge cup and therefore have the promotional wherewithall to promote the hell out of the RLCC to a terrestrial audience far larger than SKY sports have.

The problem in dancing a Polka around the question is you may lose sight of the fact that what you post instead of answering that question is weak.

Now........

"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"

Edited by The Parksider, 07 December 2012 - 10:29 AM.

[intheshed]

Average crowds at St Esteve 1998/2001 (Prior to merger with X111 Catalan were around 300)Average crowds at X111 1998/2001 (Prior to merger with St Esteve were around 200)Average crowds after merger (UTC) were around 600 Highest crowd would be for local derby v Pia (1500/3000)Highest crowd pre Catalan Dragons v Pia (2005) 5000CM

Thank you, with those figures it is now possible to reach a much more informed conclusion as to how much of Catalans' current aggregate attendance may reasonably be represented as growth attributable to SL. The vast majority would appear to be the answer.

Without asking you to compile detailed stats would it be fair to say that crowds in the domestic competition held up or even increased since 2006?

[The Parksider]

How should we be measuring and against what baseline? Should we be comparing the current situation with that of 1995? Or should we be comparing the current situation with what it might be now had SL, Sky, summer rugby, Clare Balding, Radio Five Live etc not happened. In the last 17 years so much has changed across all fronts that match day attendances are only part of it.

Hi John,

You seem to be dancing an Argentinian Tango around the issue here. Try this....

"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"

[The Parksider]

Why isn't it thriving and becoming a world wide game now? Ok the Sky coverage is good and the money's good, but it's a ghetto.

Can I ask you Tro to "Take to the floor"

"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"

[The Parksider]

The three Yorkshire areas (York, Doncaster & Sheffield) have far less amateur teams playing since the start of Super League,

Is that Superleague's fault do you think Mr. M?.

Also try this question "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"......

[JohnM]

Thanks for the complement. You have clearly never witnessed my impression of Terpsichore

To me the answer is clear. The game would have been reduced to the level of say Lacrosse or Fives and Wigan, Saints, and one or two others would be playing rugby union.

My previous posts are meant to remind people that match day attendances are merely one part of the story. Add it al up and the game is worth much more thanks to Sky/SL that it ever would have been otherwise.