Jump to content

Rugby League World
League Express
Garry Schofield Testimonial Brochure (Signed)

The Parksider

Member Since 06 Oct 2004
Offline Last Active Aug 22 2015 08:46 AM

#3179921 888 Crowdwatch: Not P&R v licencing!

Posted by The Parksider on 20 August 2015 - 10:14 PM

One , or two big attendances per year does not constitute a ' big ' sport......


Ha!! you got drawn into being teased.


In 1985 Wigan.v.Hull pulled 98,000


But the average top division crowd was 4,748 and the second division got 953......


I think Wembley was 78,000 this year and the average attendance in SL 9,000.


Why not go back to him and ask how he intends to get the 60,000 floaters going to all the SL matches?


Ah! I have the answer, make every game a Wembley cup final......

#3179918 Crowdwatch - (Merged threads)

Posted by The Parksider on 20 August 2015 - 10:05 PM

Good for you.........


Not sure what "excites you" but watching teams try to avoid a trip to Sheffield and instead get to go to Catalans but other than that have no chance of winning/being relegated is not exciting to me.


The ups and downs of the game excite me, and no matter what system you have there will be ups and downs...


Currently there's action fighting for top four, there's action fighting for SL places, every win is an up, every loss is a down.....


Dead rubber men walking Hull excited me winning at Saints as well.......


Had we had licensing then there'd have been less excitement.


Let me know where you are coming from here, whilst Hull scraping into the eight meant to most agenda driven people, that was their season over they now have a big chance to add Leeds scalp, to that of Saints and the pressure is on a makeshift Leeds.


My problem is probably that I like competitive Rugby League.


Don't you??

#3179416 888 Crowdwatch: Not P&R v licencing!

Posted by The Parksider on 20 August 2015 - 09:35 AM

Everyone has negative comments to make but has anyone got some good ideas as to how an unfashionable sport with limited money can improve crowds.


1. Do you really think 888 is the reason for decline? Something else is to blame.


2. I still maintain that the clubs (maybe due to lack of money) do nowhere near enough. Sticking the odd billboard up on a local junction or roundabout does not scream 'must see'. 


3. To significantly improve crowds, you need to convert non RL fans. A big barrier to that is predictability. 


1. I'd look at the massive growth from 1996 to 2012 as well as the much smaller decline this last couple of years to get it in context.


Then I would suggest we look at just how much RL we can get to fulfil our needs off the TV nowadays. I didn't go to Wakey/Bradford as enticing as it was because the full thing was on TV.


I would suggest we look at the list of stars we don't have in the game because of the lure of NRL & RU. I think this also has an effect.


I'd also cite the financial problems at clubs that have driven fans away from that negativity which people paying for entertainment don't want.


I'd look at competitiveness ad how many clubs are challenging the top four monopoly now as against a few years ago, you'd be surprised at how some current strugglers have made top four finishes 


"something else" is not to blame, it's a cheap idea that there is just one problem, solve that and we'll be flying......


2. This idea of "Market and they will come" was subject to a very long debate in which the "negative comments" were scornfully poured onto the marketing departments of clubs.


To market something it has to be a good product in the first place. Struggling cash strapped clubs losing star players and failing to compete with the same old winners every time.........


3.......And as you say that predictability barrier won't bring the fans in...


There's no magic bullet, but we do need to see a Calder club do well so Cas getting that ground, we do need a Hull club competing so Hull getting that recruitment and academy  right and becoming the force they once were, We desperately need the Bulls back because Fartown ain't working......


These are the achievable things that could see us get some fans back, but remember it's a limited market, it's about maximising that not setting ill thought out pie in the SKY ideas that are costly and impractical. 

#3178874 15 Aug: Middle 8 - Wakefield Trinity Wildcats v Bradford Bulls KO 3pm (TV)

Posted by The Parksider on 19 August 2015 - 06:53 AM

The deck is rigged in favour of the SL clubs for sure.  The middle 8 system has its merits, but it’s not there to facilitate P/R, it’s there in an attempt to generate interest and income.  In this environment Lowes is expected to beat the system.  God help us next year 


Last thing I wanted and argued hard against (OK only on a throw away fans forum) was the relegation of the Bulls assisted by the other SL clubs. Had there been auto P & R then introduced fine, and even if Leigh had deservedly got it this year, I'd guess Bulls would have been favourites for next year.


But the favourite will always be the SL clubs now to remain the same. Even the lame ducks as we saw at Wakey can have a mid season clear out, and new signings, and a short term lucrative contract to a Tim Sheens or a Brian Smith.


So for me the reversion to Lowes and Harrison being the "problem" is just what we fans do. When the team isn't good enough blame the coach. OK coaches do make a great difference but those that DO are those who want to do it in Superleague not in the Championship whether it be Smith, Sheens or Darryl Powell.....


Would the latter have knocked the Bulls into shape enough to have beaten Wakefield?? 


I doubt Powell's Featherstone Rovers would be winning any games had they been in this play off system, so for me it's not the coach but the players. No offence to them, anyone who steps on a Rugby League pitch has to be greatly admired but Bulls recruitment will always be the "Pick of what's left over" after the Superleague clubs have taken their 25 each.


Money talks and of course Bulls can spend a £Million, but SL clubs can spend £1.8M. Even if Bulls could spend that the professional RL player always comes with the Tattoo "I want to play at the highest level" emblazoned across his forehead.


As for "building for the future" The championship isn't a place this has ever really happened, and that myth was blown apart by featherstones collapse. It's a place where if you hang around long enough your crowds will shrink, and your best academy players will be off. Just going down will knock a club back a long way even if they return immediately.


But as has been said again and again (and no doubt will be countered by the "doom and gloom" taunts) you have to get back on the SL horse ASAP or those crowds will take another knock. This is the one massive downside to the new system, that arguably the one club that really flew on the back of Superleague isn't there any more. Massive blow to the game. 

#3178034 Crowdwatch - (Merged threads)

Posted by The Parksider on 17 August 2015 - 01:08 PM

I'm saying that they don't want those things in the first place because they would be detrimental to keeping the sport a minority M62 interest. 


The RFL don't want to be able to sell franchises to rich men?? Really????


Why did Nigel Wood Stalk Koukash?


The RFL want rugby league to be just an M62 thing??  Really????


They have variously pushed hard to include Paris, Gateshead, Wales, London, Catalans, Oxford, Toulose, Coventry, Hemel, Gloucester, Newcastle?


The RFL don't want mergers?? Really???


They suggested Calder, Cheshire, Humberside, Cumbria and Manchester? 

#3177642 Super 8s - a joke

Posted by The Parksider on 16 August 2015 - 09:00 PM

Why not ? , it's sport , it isn't fair , sometimes the better team loses , any team that makes it to SL under this system WILL deserve to be there , of that there can be no argument



It shouldn't be easy to gain entry to SL


Then why not play the play offs at Mount Pleasant and make the CC team play uphill both halves?


Why not play 13.v.12 with the CC team playing a man short?


Why not give the Superleague club 12 points start




Why not allow the Superleague clubs £800,000 extra salary cap?


In fact


Why not all of these then anyone who gets promoted really has climbed the mountain and will deserve it? 

  • BBR likes this

#3176495 Crowdwatch - (Merged threads)

Posted by The Parksider on 14 August 2015 - 10:43 PM

Freak is your word - you're exaggerating a reasonable point to suit your own purposes. I was making a reasonable point that the increase in 2012 was explicable not by any structural issues, but instead down to the particular circumstances, 


Annual SL Crowd average changes are mainly down to the circumstances of the individual clubs and the moving of the goalposts from 12 to 14, and 14 to 12.


Whopping rises can come from dirt cheap season tickets

Whopping falls can come from financial collapse

Whopping rises can come from new grounds

Whopping falls can come from a run of bad results

Whopping rises can come from winning a trophy or two

Whopping falls can come from playing home games out of town for a season


etc etc. There's also the general falls from losing star players to RU & NRL


Agree with Scotchy that daft graph was meaningless.

Agree with you the structure has little influence on crowds.

#3175948 Mergers

Posted by The Parksider on 14 August 2015 - 08:15 AM

In light of recent debates on megers, I thought it would be prudent to have a merged a thread about it :drag:


Thank you.


Mergers as an idea originated from the SKY talks in 1995.


The idea lasted 22 days and died a death.


Instead Lyndsay wanted the principle of clubs based in areas where they would have all the resources.


That is what clubs who want to be Superleague clubs in perpetuity and want to be as big as they can started to try to do.


Licensing came in to try and assist but it failed to create growth


Wigan, Warrington, Leeds, Saints, Wigan and Catalans have got there. In a new ground Castleford may get there, Huddersfield should be there but nobody will watch them


Hull were getting there then along came Hudgell & Crossland.


Now an Elite set up is in place again with the hope the big clubs will get bigger.


Mergers are 20 years passe.


Now lock it...............

#3175493 Wakefield and belle vue

Posted by The Parksider on 13 August 2015 - 12:14 PM

Which is a charge that could be levelled at Wakey

Difference is Widnes actually got a new ground, did a decent job of structuring themselves to be competitive and plan for the future

Wakey have been a disaster area since they joined super league


Widnes would be in the Championship but for a rich man.


You'd know all about that Ant

#3174335 Wakefield and belle vue

Posted by The Parksider on 11 August 2015 - 10:14 AM

you can't polish a ######


No need to be nasty just because your club were gifted a stadium.


Wakefield have one of the finest playing surfaces, and the old terrace can have a new one built, the old stand can have a new one built, the clubhouse and sponsors building are fine and if there was money the far side could be re-built.


It's a silly comment in which "polishing" is a silly concept. After all wasn't your stadium re-built from the awful dump it was??


which makes your statement even sillier than silly!!

#3173690 North South Divide. It's time for RFL North, RFL South.

Posted by The Parksider on 10 August 2015 - 09:25 AM

Hemel scrapped their juniors last season but they appear to have re entered some age groups this year


Yesterday hemel conceded 70 at home to Oldham.


The "crowd" was published at 145 although how many of those paid I don't know.


This sadly looks more like a survival league not a development league, and the likes of Oldham have a massive advantage over Hemel with access to quality players whether from their local junior ARL or from M62 academies.  


If not enough talented people in Hemel and it's surrounds want to play RL and if not enough people want to go pay to watch games then it begs the question of why go/try to stay semi-professional, just so the RFL can claim "expansion works".


Skolars murdered too. 

#3173643 points at start of super 8's

Posted by The Parksider on 10 August 2015 - 07:37 AM

Why are we to discount the falls this year as been for the circumstances of the individual clubs (relegation, money issues, Salford being Salford, Hudds being Hudds) and not down to the system, but blame the falls of 2013 on a sudden apathy hitting the game because of licensing and ignore the circumstances at those clubs?


To suit the agenda. Even when I do the actual figures people claim "agenda agenda" but when no figures are offered....well.....


The circumstances of the individual clubs on my figures way outweigh any collective reason especially "The league structure". Obvious examples include Saints drop of thousands moving to Widnes, their rise of almost double at the new ground based on a hyped up new era of trophy winning, when they won nowt and thousands didn't bother second year. Wire rose on getting to finals and fell on not getting to finals.


Further down free season tickets put thousands on the crowds at Wakefied and Bradford, withdrawing this took thousands off.


I've a sympathy to a fall in crowds in general of a few hundred at a number of clubs being some kind of "apathy", but again not the structure, what has far more legs is the way in which the Aussies and RU were signing up the games biggest stars. I hold no opinion on this but point to those in the game itself admitting losing star players loses fans.


1. I'm saying you cannot assert any rises or falls to the new system which is obviously what some people are trying to do.  


2. Anybody trying to even imply that the new system has had a negative effect on crowds needs to address the 2013 season and the sudden drop across the board under licensing that continued the following year at a number of clubs.


3. My opinion is that the drop was down to a sudden apathy and massive negativity across the sport that kicked in around that time; I do put at least part of this blame at the door of licensing. 


4. I'm in favour of the new system over licensing not because I think it will increase crowds because I don't think it will. However, I do think it will provide more excitement and interest for people at the games which is better for the sport long term. Drama and tension create an attachment to clubs and licensing was often devoid of this


1. If you want to see someone trying to manipulate the crowds argument try Blake Solly who announce jeopardy would put up crowds. Then when they didn't he used the averages in which falling London and Bradford crowds were part of a sham statistic to prove crowds were well up in both divisions.  


2. I haven't seen anyone imply the new system has had a negative effect on crowds, the new system has seen the same number of fans watching the 12 SL clubs that watched them last year, based on a careful look at the figures over 23 rounds.


3. We all have a right to pass opinions, as does the flat earth society, but if you want your "licensing is to blame for a drop in crowds" Perhaps put some figures logic and reasoning up to back it?? 


4. This is double speak, you say the new system "won't improve crowds" but the "drama, excitement, tension and interest" will apparently "Create an attachment to clubs"


There was all the evidence under the sun last year that getting relegated under jeopardy created a massive "detachment". This year we are in the phase of the new structure when the drama is clicking in and the first crowds settling into their seats to watch it.


Rather than working off the top of your head why not analyse the stats for us throughout the tension and excitement of the qualifiers???

#3173151 NRL new $1.7 billion TV deal with Fox Sports for 2018-2022

Posted by The Parksider on 09 August 2015 - 07:00 AM

If the RFL increase the cap or even go the whole hog and get rid of the cap altogether we have perhaps only half a dozen teams who will have the ability not to mention the finances to make any difference to holding on to their star players should they need to.


Currently Saints. Leeds, Wigan, Warrington Huddersfield Salford & Catalans appear to have the capacity to introduce more private money to compete for top players.


In the first instance only Koukash seems to be chomping at the bit to do so.


In the second instance the "Marquee" window of opportunity to splash big cash is not doing anything to date to show clubs want to spend another £Million.


Thirdly I can't see the RFL allowing anyone to run away with SL with big signings, as the SKY audience have to be provided with a competition not a one horse race.


That a richer NRL can take our best off us has already happened.


That a richer NRL can attract more talent and new generations of antipodean RL stars means we will benefit by being able to feed off their surplus players as we do now. 


I see no logic in working out how we can go out there and fight them for top stars, the reality is we aren't producing many anyway and we benefit from their game being vibrant in that we get the surplus.

#3172682 troble at salford. theo fages has resigned citing breaches of contract

Posted by The Parksider on 08 August 2015 - 07:05 AM

Rubbish, someone will always be about to pick up a club


"Rubbish" isn't an argument.


"Pick up a club" is meaningless.


Who picked up Oldham or Workington when they struggled in SL?


Who picked up Wakefield after Richardson left??


Closer to home who has ever picked up Swinton since their demise??


Do all the big name clubs have a record of being picked up then?

#3172352 North South Divide. It's time for RFL North, RFL South.

Posted by The Parksider on 07 August 2015 - 01:55 PM

just leave leave league one alone...




Not because it's a league you can always do well in shurely?