Archived

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

saints10coach

Oldham /Salford

836 posts in this topic

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

Have you got a reference for that offer, I have a lot of stuff on this and its the first I've heard. Would love to take a look at anything that mentions it.

Edit:

Just thinking about this how could it have worked?

Any offer from the ARL would have had to involve Packer televising UK games, he had no UK presence and even if he bought the rights he would have no delivery method to the UK market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What we can't take out of those figures are the season ticket holders that don't show up - a practice of inclusion in attendance figures that is more prevalent now.

Whilst the increase in SL crowds is great for the game and headlines - we need the SL attendances to keep pace wit the union crowds and it was good when Leeds were the 'best supported rugby club' before Leicester union increased their ground capacity.

What is not so positive is that the SL attendances are a much greater proportion of the total RL crowds and that crowd increases are gravitating to only one competition, whilst the Championship is about level overall (but less of the total), the Challenge Cup and internationals have decreased.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't surprise me that crowds are up,

But people keep denying it???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing about season ticket holders, their numbers cannot always be the actual number sold for each match so the total number of season tickets sold is divided by the number of home matches they are used for and that average number is added to the pay at the gate numbers, to show the attendance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But people keep denying it???

Aggregate Attendance Pre-SL and SL

93/94 -- 1,364056

2011 --- 1,615,939

minus 251,883 season ticket holder games in which they didn't show up.

nett total 1,364.056

Crowds have not increased under Superleague. Fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What we can't take out of those figures are the season ticket holders that don't show up - a practice of inclusion in attendance figures that is more prevalent now.

Whilst the increase in SL crowds is great for the game and headlines - we need the SL attendances to keep pace wit the union crowds and it was good when Leeds were the 'best supported rugby club' before Leicester union increased their ground capacity.

What is not so positive is that the SL attendances are a much greater proportion of the total RL crowds and that crowd increases are gravitating to only one competition, whilst the Championship is about level overall (but less of the total), the Challenge Cup and internationals have decreased.

Season ticket holders that don't turn up are irrelevant, they have paid for their seat, its money in the bank, and its that what counts.

The differential is a natural result of the maths of growth. If overall the games attendances increase by 5%, if one club averages 1,000/year and another 10,000 and they both have 5% growth for 10 years then at the end of 10 years the lower number has increased by 551, but the higher crowd will have increased by 5,513.

In the next year the lower crowd wil increase by 775 where as the higher figure jumps by 7756. As crowds increase the differences get more exaggerated.

A major factor though in distorting the average figures is the changes in divisional formats and the explains a lot of the sudden swings that are seen in the graphs I put up for averages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing about season ticket holders, their numbers cannot always be the actual number sold for each match so the total number of season tickets sold is divided by the number of home matches they are used for and that average number is added to the pay at the gate numbers, to show the attendance.

Do the clubs give season ticket holders money back for games they don't attend, thought not, their seat is sold, it can't be used by anyone else it is therefore occupied whether there is a bum on it or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would imagine that the switch to Summer rugby could have helped the increase in crowds ?

It will be a combination of factors, Summer being one, once people got used to the idea. Marketing has improved immensely also and better facilities seem to have certainly helped some clubs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd put better facilities/new stadia ahead of the switch to summer as one of the reasons for the SL increase.

Friday nights v Sunday afternoons? Maybe a small factor? Can you split them Padge?.................

..............Thought not :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What you miss is your championship darlings currently don't even meet the latter standards, but Castleford, Salford and even London beat them by a mile.

I have said on many occassions that I am happy where Fax are whether they actually meet the standards or not. In March 2011 they did the RFL said so publically, then in the space of 2 months didnt for some reason. Whether my club is in SL or not is not that important, but you seem to think for me it is.

You also raise the silly old chestnut of telling us a club who is not under pressure to compete in the lower division making a few grand on a small turnover is "well managed" and those badly stretched to compete, and pushed to compete against the biggest clubs in Britain are "badly managed".

Championship Clubs who are working to maybe one day return to the top division are under pressure if only from their fans and sponsors. And surely its better to be making a small modest profit playing and working at a level you can compete with than playing in the Utopian world of SL where clubs dont have the finances or business management to be run well and end up making massive losses like Crusaders, Salford, Bradford, London, Wakefield , Castleford have done. You can keep making excuses for clubs in SL but the fact is the game at the top is not viable and the RFL are wrong to go throwing away millions over the years on pro clubs when that money should be going into grassroots and development rugby at amateur level.

Oh my! You have to be joking? Oldham have re-built? Workington have re-built? This is another old chestnut that you can re-build in the Championship, a league in which crowds actually go nowhere and stay the same as they have always been for years, unless you do well in the league which pulls a few hundred more in. A league in which you feed of the Superleague scraps when it comes to players and if you develop your own you get the lads who couldn't make SL academy. Anyone who slips the net gets picked up by SL. A league in which rich men show no interest in being in. Is the championship really somewhere where you can build a playing squad build a crowd and build up a large pot of money?

What happened to Oldham in SL? Went bust disappeared. The current Oldham club is in a better shape than the SL version as it lives within its means and is not ready to go bankrupt and disappear. Workington in SL ran up massive debts that again nearly killed them. The Workington of today is finacially in a much better shape and is living within its means and has been promoted. Its rebuilt itself into a better run club than previously. Shame that you cant see that but then I am not surprised due to your SL is so super blindness. You may choose to belittle the Championship as you just have done. The fact is Championship clubs dont go running up huge debts like SL clubs. Some even make a small profit unlike Sl ones. Championship clubs live within their limits. And if you believe that rich men dont invest in Championship clubs then you clearly have no idea. Try reading about Tony Abbott and Reactivmedia http://www.halifaxcourier.co.uk/news/local/600-new-jobs-on-the-way-in-elland-1-3889323 .

You now prove my point. 15 & 16 years on and Oldham and Workington are "not ready". Halifax crashed out 10 years ago.

Who said they are ready for SL? Nobody. Its just you thinking what people put instead of actually properly reading what people put. But then thats how you base your argument on most of the time.

SL has attracted £250,000,000 into the game in SKY contracts and investments from rich businessmen, that's a quarter of a Billion pounds isn't it? I'm not surprised the RFL bend over backwards to shore SL up. I don't see how that's "bad" for the game.I challenge you and all the other posters on here condemning Superleague to set out a vision for the games future success without this evil thing called SKY that so consumes the game by it's demands?

Your love affair with SL clearly clouds your judgement of views of the game as a whole. The RFL should not be stepping in and helping the likes of Crusaders, Bradford, London or any other Pro club. There is enough money in the Pro game via Sky, Various sponsors, crowd attendances, Merchandise as well individual backers to cover costs. Its only down to poor management and overpaying players and such things as wasting money on Pre Season trips to USA, South Africa etc that sees clubs in debt. If clubs cant compete at SL level then maybe they should accept things and step down to Championship level and live within their means like others manage to do.

The RFL should be ploughing money in to Development Officers and grassroots development not spending hundreds of thousands at Bradford or Crusaders. We have recently seen a large number of Development Officers disappear after a big reduction in money from Sport England. The RFL should have done is spent the money used at Bradford, Crusaders etc on this to keep improving this area. The RFL have done well with development and grassroots rugby but it has to keep investing as much money and time and effort in to it still than wasting money, time and effort on basketcase Pro clubs. Instead of having a top heavy system the game needs to build a strong grassroots foundation. The reason why Union and Soccer is strong is because they have for many years a solid structure away from the Pro League/top divisions. Its often the reason why many will attend Internationals etc. The Union network works very well with its International scene and often why they get such good crowds. Rugby League has a history of poor grassroots and development foundation with many splits and nobody uniting the game so that one teir like the amateur supports the Pro and vice versa. Maybe its time to accept that sadly 14 or even 12 clubs in SL is not right. Minimum Standards should apply in SL and if teams cant keep or reach then standards then they shouldnt be in SL. Its very simply. P & R is again something that I am not too concerned with. If we are to have it then it should come with strict rules that apply for both teams hoping to get into Sl and teams already there. That doesnt seem to be the case right now. There is no perfect plan as each option will have weaknesses. But for me the game should be built on having a much stronger youth and amateur scene nationwide than what is currently there. The Pro game has enough money being thrown at it and its not the RFLs Job to bail out any club whether it be a Sl or Championship club. It can offer advice but not give away money in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd put better facilities/new stadia ahead of the switch to summer as one of the reasons for the SL increase.

Friday nights v Sunday afternoons? Maybe a small factor? Can you split them Padge?.................

..............Thought not :P

I probably could given time, but can I really be @r$ed, no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The £250 million has been available to SL clubs for them to take their future in their hands by their development of reserve, academy and scholarship structures.

Now that the reserve competition has been declared as not fit for purpose, and not of the standard of lower level Championship clubs says a lot about how a proportion of that £250 million has been spent.

They can't even afford £1.4million between them for a whole season of development via the reserve competition

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I probably could given time, but can I really be @r$ed, no.

I wouldn't have done it either Padge. Maybe the RFL will have those stats and analysis at their fingertips when they review each season and marketing strategies etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Picking up the attendances totals from previous posts :

SL has increased by 18.47% from 93/94 to 2011 - 1,364,056 to 1,615,939

All attendances have increased by 9.79% - 1,679,897 to 1,844,398

Remainder = championship - from 315,841 down to 228,459

Does that mean the Championship (the remainder) has decreased by 27.67% or have I missed another set of stats in a post? These are League games only, excluding Challenge cup and play-offs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Picking up the attendances totals from previous posts :

SL has increased by 18.47% from 93/94 to 2011 - 1,364,056 to 1,615,939

All attendances have increased by 9.79% - 1,679,897 to 1,844,398

Remainder = championship - from 315,841 down to 228,459

Does that mean the Championship (the remainder) has decreased by 27.67% or have I missed another set of stats in a post? These are League games only, excluding Challenge cup and play-offs?

Interpreting these type of figures is difficult.

One thing I have noticed, and I think this why the RFL have looked to go for the format for the second/third tier they have done, is that every time we split into a third tier we bleed support in the lower division. By grouping together teams that have traditionally low figures with new clubs who will naturally have low figures it allows the better supported clubs to form a second tier that will be naturally stronger.

Despite the championship supporters seeing them as the ones put on by the big SL, they are in fact attempting to do the same, get the lower supported clubs together in their own division and bring together the better supported clubs.

Its easy for supporters to dismiss what the RFL do, but just looking at a few simple charts and playing with some numbers can show what works and what doesn't, the RFL will be employing people (and software) that can analyze this stuff far better than me or others sitting behind a keyboard on a forum (unless you are working for the RFL doing this stuff), what is happening I see is part of a long term strategy (novel in RL) to help all levels of the game to maximize resources and potential for the level they are at.

Yes, these figures are league games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do the clubs give season ticket holders money back for games they don't attend, thought not, their seat is sold, it can't be used by anyone else it is therefore occupied whether there is a bum on it or not.

I don't know what happens with SL clubs but under Championships Salary Cap Relevant Income regulations 4.4.5, it does state :- "Although the majority of season ticket sales will be made during October to February, the total income from all season ticket sales should be apportioned evenly over the number of home league games during the season. The proportion equivalent to the total number of home matches played to the end of the quarter should be shown in the return".

Whilst no monies are returned as you say the numbers for each home game are not necessarily the correct number on the attendance figures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know what happens with SL clubs but under Championships Salary Cap Relevant Income regulations 4.4.5, it does state :- "Although the majority of season ticket sales will be made during October to February, the total income from all season ticket sales should be apportioned evenly over the number of home league games during the season. The proportion equivalent to the total number of home matches played to the end of the quarter should be shown in the return".

Whilst no monies are returned as you say the numbers for each home game are not necessarily the correct number on the attendance figures.

Attendance figure is a bit of red herring, it should be ticket sales, none season ticket holders could pre-buy a match day ticket and not turn up, it doesn't matter, they got the cash and if they booked a specific seat that seat could not be re-sold and if they were part of a sell-out crowd then the fact that their seat is empty doesn't stop it being a sell-out.

The actual numbers who don't turn up are so small in the scheme of things I don't see why anyone even considers it an issue of relevance in any way shape or form anyway. Crowd of 12,000 and 12 people don't turn up. A massive 0.1% error.

Edit:

Just to add, last season I was attending a game and bumped in a girl I know leaving the ground with her two kids, she had gone in but one of the young lads had taken ill and so she had to leave before kick-off, I carried on into the ground and watched the game. Her seat was empty throughout the game and she finished up watching the game at home on TV, had she and her sons attended or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interpreting these type of figures is difficult.

One thing I have noticed, and I think this why the RFL have looked to go for the format for the second/third tier they have done, is that every time we split into a third tier we bleed support in the lower division. By grouping together teams that have traditionally low figures with new clubs who will naturally have low figures it allows the better supported clubs to form a second tier that will be naturally stronger.

Despite the championship supporters seeing them as the ones put on by the big SL, they are in fact attempting to do the same, get the lower supported clubs together in their own division and bring together the better supported clubs.

Its easy for supporters to dismiss what the RFL do, but just looking at a few simple charts and playing with some numbers can show what works and what doesn't, the RFL will be employing people (and software) that can analyze this stuff far better than me or others sitting behind a keyboard on a forum (unless you are working for the RFL doing this stuff), what is happening I see is part of a long term strategy (novel in RL) to help all levels of the game to maximize resources and potential for the level they are at.

Yes, these figures are league games.

I agree that the realignment of the cc Divisions seems to be designed to create a CC of bigger teams to increase competition and attendances and leaves a CC1 of smaller teams, mostly expansion teams. This will prevent too many blowout scores. If it s part of a plan that will be a first and if it s part of a plan why has it not been released for public consumption. Why would it need to be secret.?

The thing about it though that the new, bigger CC with the better, more well supported clubs is desirable, it is not ring fenced, set in stone. No drawbridge has been raised. There is still p and r between CC1 and CC and this gives the CC clubs an incentive to improve, compete and get into CC. This should result in some increased attendances at the top end of the division. This will happen every season, not every three years if you re very lucky.

Similarly, the CC clubs cannot relax,especially the weaker ones,or they will be relegated.

The problem will be at the top of CC. Apart from winning the Championship, what is the incentive. They are denied a place in SL.

An aspect of this which has not been considered is the feeder club business. This could result in teams being promoted or relegated and then the team is ripped apart by call ups from it s SL parent which leave it totally unprepared for the changed statusof being in a new division without the team that got it there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vic Wakelin, one of Murdoch's trusted and dependable lieutenants wrote in the book "Super League - The First Ten Years" by Phil Caplan and Jonathon R Dodge, - "Twice during the initial negotiations in 1995, the RFL went back to Sky and raised the ante, partly to assuage clubs outside the initially proposed structure that they would not be cut financially adrift. Many assume that it was the conductor who was leading the orchestra down the road of mergers and a broader geographical base to Super League. There was certainly never any requirements from Sky's point of view to have a European element to Super League."

Wakelin also says that the RFL already had a document "Framing the Future" which proposed taking the game from winter to summer and he says, "the RFL approached us and told us what they were doing." He adds that Maurice Lindsay went down to London for meetings and asked would Sky still be interested if they switched the game to summer. Wakelin says that their stance was to say to Lindsay, "yes, if you make the switch we will bid for the rights".

The initial breakdown of clubs was to merge 15 clubs in to Cheshire (Warrington & Widnes); Cumbria (Barrow, Carlisle, Whitehaven & Workington); Humberside (Hull & HKR); South Yorkshire (Doncaster & Sheffield); Mancjester (Oldham & Salford); Calder (Castleford, Featherstone & Wakefield) plus Bradford, Halifax, Leeds,London, Paris, St Helens, Toulouse, and Wigan, with talk of adding future clubs in Barcelona, Newcastle, Wales and even Rome. So that was the distribution of the original Sky money to 23 clubs and up to 27 clubs.

Why were there no plans to merge Wigan and Saints? Effectively two medium sized towns which are no bigger combined than Humberside

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me the main advantage of the 2nd tier going to 14 clubs is a much better fixture list.

The last few years must have been a nightmare for clubs with 9 home games and sometimes 6 weeks between home games. Supporters are creatures of habit at times.

If attendances increase because of i) a more even, regular fixture list then great, or ii) because of more competition then that is also good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know it's 2 pages since the attendance figures were posted but this includes games in France for 2011 but not for 1995.

The attendance figures do not show a significant increase in the fan base in the UK over the period of SL. It's about 20k, or 60 per game. It's not worth tackling the play-off figures either as it might highlight a significant drop in actual fans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know it's 2 pages since the attendance figures were posted but this includes games in France for 2011 but not for 1995.

The attendance figures do not show a significant increase in the fan base in the UK over the period of SL. It's about 20k, or 60 per game. It's not worth tackling the play-off figures either as it might highlight a significant drop in actual fans.

???

There was no French club in 1995, and if you are referring to the totals I posted I didn't post a figure for 1995.

You can't pick and chose the teams that are in and out of the figures, if France is ignored do we also ignore Wales.

What about Essex should that be included or ignored.

Maybe you should have a word with the RFL as you could be on to something, part of their operating profit should be ignored as a French team has contributed and their figures don't count. The tax man owes tthe RFL some cashback.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Talking about attendances, you must also look what has happened to the Challenge Cup. The advent of SL has totally undermined what used to be our Blue Ribbon event.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Talking about attendances, you must also look what has happened to the Challenge Cup. The advent of SL has totally undermined what used to be our Blue Ribbon event.

Presumably then the teams that are not in SL still draw cracking crowds for this comp?

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.



Rugby League World - April 2017

League Express - Mon 10th April 2017