Jump to content


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

NRC Madness?


  • Please log in to reply
46 replies to this topic

#21 MikeFletchersBarmyArmy

MikeFletchersBarmyArmy
  • Coach
  • 441 posts

Posted 16 February 2013 - 09:59 PM

Unfortunately that was the 96 final. Gene hat trick was in 97.

#22 EQUALIZER

EQUALIZER
  • Coach
  • 1,548 posts

Posted 17 February 2013 - 01:39 AM

So we as clubs voted for this in order to put money back into the game, fair enough.

Surly a neutral venue such as Salford Headingley or the Halliwell Jones would have been a better options in this case. Why should one team get an advantage? Halifax have IMO a little extra incentive to reach the final and should they do so then you would think they already have the upper hand over their opponents.

I recall us beating Leigh in the Transpennine cup final at home 13 years ago, I'm not being hypocritical as it was wrong then and it is now.

This has been mentioned before but, why not have it as an opener to the Challenge Cup Final, after all the RFL have paid for Wembley on that day?!

The R.L own Wembley joint with the F.A, Strange if they have to pay again for it.

#23 Ramite

Ramite
  • Coach
  • 879 posts

Posted 17 February 2013 - 07:39 AM

I don't think they do Wembley is owned by the FA.
Homer: How is education supposed to make me feel smarter? Besides, every time I learn something new, it pushes some old stuff out of my brain. Remember when I took that home winemaking course, and I forgot how to drive?

[

i]Mr. Burns: Woah, slow down there maestro. There's a *New* Mexico?[/i]


#24 Griff

Griff
  • Coach
  • 7,786 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 08:47 AM

The R.L own Wembley joint with the F.A, Strange if they have to pay again for it.


Agree with Ramite. I think you're dreaming there.

As far as I recall, they have a contract to play at least one game there a season. May be a Cup Final, may not be.

Edited by Griff, 19 February 2013 - 08:48 AM.

"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

#25 colinb

colinb
  • Coach
  • 926 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 03:54 PM

As per the topic. If the clubs voted for the Shay and LSV they obviously did no think it through. Both those grounds are Council/Private owned and rent is paid, both those grounds give little , if any bar income to the clubs, both those grounds give little, if any,food income to the clubs. I find it mind blowing. Plus the actual COST of food and drink is astronomical and at LSV they even put the prices up 30 mins before kick off!!!!. And in all honesty neither of the grounds are geared up for 7/8000 , imagine the queues as it takes forever with crowds of 1 to 2000.
WHERE DO YOU WANT ME TO SWIPE THIS?

#26 Griff

Griff
  • Coach
  • 7,786 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 06:02 PM

As per the topic. If the clubs voted for the Shay and LSV they obviously did no think it through. Both those grounds are Council/Private owned and rent is paid, both those grounds give little , if any bar income to the clubs, both those grounds give little, if any,food income to the clubs. I find it mind blowing. Plus the actual COST of food and drink is astronomical and at LSV they even put the prices up 30 mins before kick off!!!!. And in all honesty neither of the grounds are geared up for 7/8000 , imagine the queues as it takes forever with crowds of 1 to 2000.


Clubs aren't entitled to any bar or catering income. Just a share of the gate, less expenses.
"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

#27 Keith T

Keith T
  • Coach
  • 8,872 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 06:34 PM

With this years NR Cup being knockout for Championship clubs it could mean Halifax could win the cup without playing away from the Shay, if the draw goes in their favour!!!!!

I remember when .............................

"It is impossible not to feel a twinge of sympathy for Workington Town, the fall guys this season for the Super League's determination to retain it's European dimension, in the shape of Paris. While the French have had every assistance to survive, the importance of having a flagship in a heartland area like West Cumbria has been conveniently forgotten." - Dave Hadfield - Independent 25th August 1996.


#28 colinb

colinb
  • Coach
  • 926 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 07:05 PM

Clubs aren't entitled to any bar or catering income. Just a share of the gate, less expenses.


Exactly my point, so why not play it at a ground where a Championship Club OWNS their own ground and the receipts will go back into a CLUB and not the council or a private company.
WHERE DO YOU WANT ME TO SWIPE THIS?

#29 Ramite

Ramite
  • Coach
  • 879 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 07:08 PM

I believe they moved it from Blackpool because of the increasing prices to rent the ground not to keep the money within RL.
Homer: How is education supposed to make me feel smarter? Besides, every time I learn something new, it pushes some old stuff out of my brain. Remember when I took that home winemaking course, and I forgot how to drive?

[

i]Mr. Burns: Woah, slow down there maestro. There's a *New* Mexico?[/i]


#30 Griff

Griff
  • Coach
  • 7,786 posts

Posted 20 February 2013 - 06:53 PM

Exactly my point, so why not play it at a ground where a Championship Club OWNS their own ground and the receipts will go back into a CLUB and not the council or a private company.


If that's the thinking - yes. But who owns a good enough ground ? :mellow:
"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

#31 Ackroman

Ackroman
  • Coach
  • 1,902 posts

Posted 20 February 2013 - 07:49 PM

It's not just about price, it's also about cost.

By retreating into the heartland and not, for example, playing the NR CUP final at Wembley, we save money but the true cost is the lack of exposure of the part time game to new punters. I find this particularly puzzling considering the game is at a high level of expansion at the part time level in comparison to our SL cousins.

For the price of extending the use of Wembley for a couple of hours, the cost is the lost opportunity to attract more fans and to raise the profile and desire to win the NR Cup.

Note of interest. I predict more fans will watch Oxford, Hemel and Gloucester when aggregated together, than watch the Broncos, so it is an even bigger shot in the foot not to think big for the part time game.

#32 MikeFletchersBarmyArmy

MikeFletchersBarmyArmy
  • Coach
  • 441 posts

Posted 20 February 2013 - 09:19 PM

It's not just about price, it's also about cost.

By retreating into the heartland and not, for example, playing the NR CUP final at Wembley, we save money but the true cost is the lack of exposure of the part time game to new punters. I find this particularly puzzling considering the game is at a high level of expansion at the part time level in comparison to our SL cousins.

For the price of extending the use of Wembley for a couple of hours, the cost is the lost opportunity to attract more fans and to raise the profile and desire to win the NR Cup.

Note of interest. I predict more fans will watch Oxford, Hemel and Gloucester when aggregated together, than watch the Broncos, so it is an even bigger shot in the foot not to think big for the part time game.


Good post, would be interesting to know If the RFL even bothered to look into it.
We do not even know if wembley is rented in hours or days, in which case would cost no more.

#33 Rammo23

Rammo23
  • Coach
  • 201 posts

Posted 20 February 2013 - 09:33 PM

I stand corrected your right Robbie Paul did get his hat trick in 96 I always thought S Gene was the first one

#34 Griff

Griff
  • Coach
  • 7,786 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 08:50 AM

We do not even know ...................


Yet we're happy to make assumptions and criticise on the basis of them.
"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

#35 MikeFletchersBarmyArmy

MikeFletchersBarmyArmy
  • Coach
  • 441 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 01:19 PM

Yet we're happy to make assumptions and criticise on the basis of them.


Without being informed, you are left to make assumptions.

God forbid if a governing body would inform anyone what their plans/ future intentions are for the game that could effect those who have followed/ funded the organisation over many years.

#36 Griff

Griff
  • Coach
  • 7,786 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 01:30 PM

Without being informed, you are left to make assumptions.

God forbid if a governing body would inform anyone what their plans/ future intentions are for the game that could effect those who have followed/ funded the organisation over many years.


With all due respect, you commented that it would be interesting to know if the RFL bothered to look into a double header at Wembley. There are hundreds of possible grounds in the country. Are we to expect the RFL to say whether or not they considered all of them ?

There's a limit to the information a governing body can be expected to provide. I'm cheerfully critical of the RFL when the time is right. This is not one of those times.

Edited by Griff, 21 February 2013 - 01:30 PM.

"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

#37 MikeFletchersBarmyArmy

MikeFletchersBarmyArmy
  • Coach
  • 441 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 02:01 PM

It would be ridiculous to think that the RFL would look at hosting it at somewhere like st James park in Exeter, so you would not expect the RFL to look at every ground in the country. If they did, then they would truly be incompetent.

However with wembley, it has been a venue used in recent history for the semi pro game to host a final as a build up to the final. As previously stated, this would raise the profile of the game at semi pro level, make it more of a occasion for the club/players/sponsors.
This could also solve the problem that wembley struggles to sell out for the challenge cup final. Which does not give the best image in front of the national media.

I would like to think that the people at the RFL would at the very least look into this option.

Edited by MikeFletchersBarmyArmy, 21 February 2013 - 02:02 PM.


#38 Ramite

Ramite
  • Coach
  • 879 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 04:37 PM

Im not sure it would add much on the gate maybe another 5/6 k?
The CC clubs make the final decision on the venue maybe Wembley was considered. I think if it was before hand it would likely be overshadowed by the challenge cup and playing in a near empty stadium wouldn't do much for the clubs playing.
Homer: How is education supposed to make me feel smarter? Besides, every time I learn something new, it pushes some old stuff out of my brain. Remember when I took that home winemaking course, and I forgot how to drive?

[

i]Mr. Burns: Woah, slow down there maestro. There's a *New* Mexico?[/i]


#39 Griff

Griff
  • Coach
  • 7,786 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 04:50 PM

Im not sure it would add much on the gate maybe another 5/6 k?
The CC clubs make the final decision on the venue maybe Wembley was considered. I think if it was before hand it would likely be overshadowed by the challenge cup and playing in a near empty stadium wouldn't do much for the clubs playing.


Agree.
"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

#40 MikeFletchersBarmyArmy

MikeFletchersBarmyArmy
  • Coach
  • 441 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 06:02 PM

In the last one, by the 2nd half over 50000 thousand fans were spectating, I am sure majority of the semi pro players would never get another opportunity to play in front of such crowds. Maybe this would be bigger incentive for clubs to take it more seriously/ add more spice to the tournament. When was the last time Dewsbury or Sheffield - bar their own final appearence played in front of such crowds?

Even just adding another 6k to the gate at wembley is better than 6 thousand empty seats on display on national tv, overall the profile must surely be better than playing at a half empty shay for final. By this rate I reckon the NRC will scraped in another 5 years.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users