Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

saints10coach

Oldham /Salford

836 posts in this topic

However, what you can't claim as a benefit because of the "facts" are;

1 The overall balance at the gates. No real significant improvement across the game. I would need to see evidence.

Aggregate Attendance Pre-SL and SL

93/94 -- 1364056

2011 --- 1615939

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When SKY first came in, I remember a statement which went along the lines of. The money should not be frittered away on players wages, but should be used to improve facilities. As there was promotion and relegation initially, the clubs did not have the greed they have now. The member clubs voted to deny promotion so they could keep the spoils for themselves. The gulf that has been created between the divisions is now so big it is almost insurmountable. It does not matter if we lose players else where. It just allows us to blood other new players, and this way we get a larger more talented pool of players. Look at Kyle Eastmond's departure to the dark side. He has not been missed at Saints, it just accelerated another talented individuals path to the first team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When SKY first came in, I remember a statement which went along the lines of. The money should not be frittered away on players wages, but should be used to improve facilities. As there was promotion and relegation initially, the clubs did not have the greed they have now. The member clubs voted to deny promotion so they could keep the spoils for themselves. The gulf that has been created between the divisions is now so big it is almost insurmountable. It does not matter if we lose players else where. It just allows us to blood other new players, and this way we get a larger more talented pool of players. Look at Kyle Eastmond's departure to the dark side. He has not been missed at Saints, it just accelerated another talented individuals path to the first team.

Of course the clubs and SL put out a statement saying don't use it to pay players wages, the players had the upper-hand, they're not going to put out a statement saying come and join us the sky's the limit (no pun intended) we are awash with cash. But don't doubt it the money was handed over with a main purpose and that purpose was to fight off Packer by allowing the British game to be able to compete against him financially.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aggregate Attendance Pre-SL and SL

93/94 -- 1364056

2011 --- 1615939

To balance the argument please can you publish the player wage bills which serviced the one full time professional club in 93/94 and the 14 full time professional clubs now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To balance the argument please can you publish the player wage bills which serviced the one full time professional club in 93/94 and the 14 full time professional clubs now?

There weren't any full time professional clubs in 93/94.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aggregate Attendance Pre-SL and SL

93/94 -- 1364056

2011 --- 1615939

Sorry those figures were for the top division only. For the whole league its:-

2011 --- 1,844,398

93/94 -- 1,679,897

This graph may help.

AggregateAttendances.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry those figures were for the top division only. For the whole league its:-

2011 --- 1,844,398

93/94 -- 1,679,897

This graph may help.

AggregateAttendances.jpg

So if you take the French team out of the equation there is not much difference at all. Except now you are paying 14 teams of full timers and then only one team of full timers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not even Wigan?

Correct, not even Wigan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if you take the French team out of the equation there is not much difference at all. Except now you are paying 14 teams of full timers and then only one team of full timers.

What are you wittering on about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are you wittering on about.

Hinting at the fact that attendances were not quite as high, but also wages would have been a lot lower. Oh by the way, Wigan were full time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if you take the French team out of the equation there is not much difference at all. Except now you are paying 14 teams of full timers and then only one team of full timers.

What link is there between what you are paying and the attendances? You can't do all that and ignore all other factors like ticket prices, merchandise sales, sponsorship etc.

It's a reason I try and stay out of many of these debates as people simply spin things to suit their agenda, on both sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hinting at the fact that attendances were not quite as high, but also wages would have been a lot lower. Oh by the way, Wigan were full time.

Ask Phil CLarke, full time student and joint owner of a sports clinic, Billy McGuinty, landlord or Andy Farrell apprentice joiner or any of the many others who weren't full time.

Wages were lower because people like the ones above had other income streams. Wages are irrelevant to attendance, unless you are trying ti show some bizarre link.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Padge - on the aggregate numbers - how many games? Basically what was the average then and now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Padge - on the aggregate numbers - how many games? Basically what was the average then and now.

I can give you the averages graph, but the question was are more people watching now than in the past.

Averages

AveragesTotals-2.jpg

AveragesTotals-1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure that the Sky money was the saviour of the game either, The game perhaps wasn't as flush with cash as it is now (sic) in straight £'s. I'd contend that in comparative terms the clubs are still spending more than 100% of their income now as they were then. Its only the absolute numbers that are different due to inflation

There were decent income streams coming into the game as well in 1995 - not on the scale of Sky however.

Test matches revenues - in 1994 the 3 test attendance was 140,432

In 2003 the 3 tests attracted slightly more than half of that - 73,887

So nearly double the income if you assume some like for like parameters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would either of you like to show us evidence or simply shout counter arguments without any basis either?

Your arguments didn't come with evidence.

The simple question was where would the game be today if it had refused the SKY money and the rich men had not come in??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I asked a question.

So did I, where would the game be today without the SKY money from the last 17 years and without the large private investment SL has had?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree we couldn't turn it down.

Nope. "Where would the game be today without the 17 years of SKY funding and the rich private investors money"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The game was in a very weak, very wounded state when he came along. The cash injected saved the game as far as I am concerned.

Well at least you can answer a straight question Mr. Keighley.

Usually people win a cigar for the right answer.

You my friend win promotion for a club of your choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aggregate Attendance Pre-SL and SL

93/94 -- 1364056 16 Team Top Flight

2011 --- 1615939 14 Team Top Flight

Ave. 93/94 85253.5

Ave 2011 115424.214

30170 increase per club in 2011, for less games

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can give you the averages graph, but the question was are more people watching now than in the past.

Cheers Padge - so whichever way it is cut, the crowds are up!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which begs the questions that I trust you will answer..

1. How competetive would we be today internationally without SKY money??

2. Will P & R improve international competetiveness??

We can only compare it with the past. In 1995 we got to the World Cup final, we beat Australia at Wembley in the first round of the comp. Immediately before Super League. We haven't come anywhere near being as competitive since. The last two World Cups have been unmitigated disasters as far as England's performances on the field are concerned.

P &R will provide the intensity that players need in more games. ATM there are too many easybeats. Clubs can write games off thinking they've little chance. They do. John Kear admitted it in 2011. They wouldn't be able to do that with P&R. So yes I think P&R would improve our international performances. Fev and Batley both proved in the cup that they're both capable of either beating or at least giving SL sides a scare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm fairly certain that if RL had rejected the SKY money, Australian clubs would also have rejected theirs and would not have advanced one inch from that point. :rolleyes:

But it's said there was another offer on the table for the British clubs from the ARL. It was not even discussed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't surprise me that crowds are up, this is one area where clubs have really worked hard with pre-match entertainment being anything from a Opera singer to a Pop group, Clowns to tigers on motorbikes, then there is the various ticket packages from freebees to 2 for the price of 1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



League Express - Mon 10th April 2017

Rugby League World - April 2017