Mr Wind Up

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

69 Excellent

Profile Information

  • Gender
  1. Stadium names in the WC

    It's really simple. Major tournaments remove sponsor names. Happens in FIFA world cup, champions league etc. Why? Because these events have their own sponsors. That's all it is. If a major tournament has Etihad an airline sponsor, that sponsor doesn't want any games being played at 'Emirates Stadium'. So it'll be called Arsenal Stadium or London Stadium.
  2. Germany

    But it's not really, is it? OK, the national team can get a crowd here and there, but to say union is big in Italy doesn't really stack up.
  3. There were actually 77,000. And NZ had 37,000 in Wellington against Peru. But again, doesn't really prove anything. These are do or die games. Australians are as good as anyone when it comes to attending big events, or things that are deemed to involve big brands. Like Liverpool being able to draw 95,000 in a meaningless friendly in Melbourne. It all comes down to public perception of whether the event is something worth being part of. As for Sydney, it is a RL city. RU or NFL can get the largest crowd in London on any given weekend. Does it make London any less of a football city?
  4. Media Watch World Cup

    In that case, yes, he is wrong. There is an adage that goes something like: The media doesn't tell you what to think, but it does tell you what to think about. In saying that, we have to make a distinction between public broadcasters and commercial ones. The BBC has far more leeway to influence public opinion than ITV, largely because ITV is driven solely by economics. Then again, even the commercial stations have biases based on what sporting properties they own.
  5. Media Watch World Cup

    Well, he's not wrong. Women's team sport is definitely agenda driven. There has been a noticeable shift in pushing it for the last 3-4 years in particular. Before that, you'd almost never hear about it. And it's not driven by demand because it doesn't take a lot of investigate work to figure that there is very little demand.
  6. crowd for opener

    Let's look at the last year of attendances for australia ru: vs England @ brisbane : 48,735 vs England @ melbourne: 29,871 vs England @ Sydney (allianz): 44,063 vs New Zealand @ sydney (ANZ): 65,328 vs South Africa @ brisbane: 30,327 vs Argentina @ perth: 16,202 vs Fiji @ melbourne: 13,538 vs Scotland @ sydney (Allianz): 30,721 vs Italy @ brisbane: 21,849 vs New Zealand @ brisbane 45,107 vs New Zealand @ sydney (ANZ): 54,486 vs South Africa @ perth: 17,528 vs Argentina @ canberra: 14,229 A grand total of 2 sellouts in 13 games, both against England, one in Melbourne and the other in Sydney (allianz). The first 'big' game against New Zealand at ANZ was 15k short of capacity. the second big game vs NZ at anz was 25k short of capacity. 80k at every big match indeed
  7. I dont get it, this stuff has been used in sports for ages. Not new, but a lot of it is done behind the scenes. Opta is a big name in this field. It adds absolutely nothing to a sport to see heart rates in real time. Individual player statistics are tracked, just rarely shown on screen (for good reason, they add very little to the viewing experience). Even things like possession stats arent necessary.
  8. In tennis, there is one major tournament held in Britain every year. Golf I dunno anything about, but I imagine it too only has a handful of major tournaments a year in Britain. Neither sport is team based, and is basically a year-long circus that travels around the world. It would seem obvious then that 'attendance' in Britain has very little to do with their popularity among the British public. These are television sports. Media, broadcast and sponsorship goes to sports that have the most viewers. Sometimes this goes hand in hand with attendance, as is the case with the big team sports. But it's not a necessity.
  9. No State of Origin on U.K. TV?

    Of course it hasn't, because it's wrong. Grand Prix, Australian Open, the Ashes off the top of my head would all garner a bigger global audience.
  10. Rugby League Entertaining

    You can repeat this a million times, and some people will never be able to grasp it. There is no great mystery here why there are sports more popular than RL. A significantly bigger number of people are exposed to football over the course of their lives starting from a young age compared to RL. That's it. Nothing more. For the person who can't comprehend this simplicity, just imagine that someone who doesn't follow RL likes another sport as much as you like RL. And sees it exactly in the same terms as you see RL. If you can understand this, you will save yourself a lot of grief in trying to figure out why RL is not more popular than it is.
  11. Growth in Bromley and Greenwich is certainly possible, but it's also a fairly big Crystal Palace/Charlton area.
  12. Is it a new dawn for Salford?

    The amount of people is meaningless if few of them have an interest. For starters, less than half of those people would have any interest in sport, let alone MUFC/MCFC or Salford. Just because 120,000 people attend games regularly doesn't mean that what's left over is a potential floating customer waiting to be whisked away. I would imagine the vast majority of sports fans in Manchester that don't attend live sport regularly are still probably footballs fans. They just consume it like most other sports fans: TV, radio, newspapers etc. I agree that Salford should be able to target 10k average in their future. It's a realistic aim. But it's not as simple as saying 'look how many people there in the city'. Of course Manchester can support a strong Salford. But the football tradition makes that very difficult to do.
  13. People overestimate the importance of local players. This is important for a number of reasons, but not for attracting interest.
  14. Football

    Dont need to wait for his response. I dunno how payouts early on work, but that is very, very, very solid. The Chelsea one you have down no question. Leeds wont get automatic promotion, but will be one of four teams vying for it through playoffs. To be honest, this might be what trips you up. Leeds are for mine the best of the lot, but these playoffs have a tendency not to promote the most deserving team. sheffield and doncaster both topping the league, but with 8 games to go, their leads arent sufficient enough to say it is cast iron. Still, both look good at the moment. Man Utd, outside of Lyon, are clear favourites for EL. I think this will happen. Barcelona are just as likely to win UCL. But...unlike EL....there are a lot of good teams left. This one is a toss up. Real, Atletico, Bayern and even Barcas QF opponent Juventus could easily topple Barca. Bascially, you have a good bet you have to feel very good about right now. But i cant see any bookie oaying out early based on what remains. Leeds and Barca still have much work to do before any bookie would start panicking I think.
  15. French RL exposure vs. other sports

    I just drew that line... Marseille, Lyon, Nice, even Bordeaux. Please enlighten us as to how much bigger rugby is in these cities than football.