Archived

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

saints10coach

Oldham /Salford

836 posts in this topic

Maybe size matters. In this brave new world of the 21st century, it about real bums on seats, vitual bums on seats i.e subscribing viewers and ultimately pound notes...income, expenditure and value. By any measure Id say that the economic value of our game is at a record high.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A measly 5 teams have won the Premier League in the last 20 years. And that's with all their billions of pounds and thousands of players to pick from.

They have all that wealth and global fame and yet only one more team have won it than a comp like SL, which struggles for money and coverage. It's rubbish.

Eeeeh I forgot to quote the fact above. Worth a second look.

And don't forget Wasps and Leicester's dominance of RU's elite.

Still everyone's bored with Superleague that's why they don't bother to go to games once they've bought their season tickets.

I also forgot that after Wigan won the RL Challenge cup every year from it's inception in 1897 to 1995, under Superleague seven different clubs have actually won it.

I forgot Sheffield which proves beyond doubt you cannot rely on my facts and figures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Where do you think Rugby League would be today if the game had rejected the SKY offer of millions of pounds a year to stage an elite competition"

Rugby League is more than just the Pro League. The amateur game has benefitted little from Sky or SL. In fact the way the clubs have raided amateur clubs giving next to nothing in return it possibly has damaged the amateur game to an extent. A club like Siddal or King Cross park has to put up with SL clubs coming along and taking a good 5 or 6 players a year. And what do they get in return? Maybe a couple of hundred pounds if lucky. And the amateur game and grassroots rugby has seen the game throw away money trying to help Crusaders, London, Bradford, Keighley etc whilst it sees many development officers disappear. Instead of money being invest to help, not just improve standards, but help develop clubs that money has been thrown at the Pro game. I dont see how SL or Sky money has benefitted the amateur game at all. The amateur game probably would be just as it is with or without the Sky money that came. None of the clubs saw any of that money. The facilities at clubs has come from other areas like Sport England, Local Government etc. Sky money has played next to no role in the improvement in playing facilities. Any the amateur game has actually seen a drop in numbers and Sport England has decided not to give the game millions of valuable cash due to the not so good numbers. Whilst its clear the game is spreading nationwide much of that is nothing to do with SL or Sky but the work of volunteers and development officers around the place. Many amateur clubs in the heartlands are facing problems. Clubs like Todmorden, Sowerby Bridge, Sowerby Spartans, Deighton Woolpack, Shipley, Huddersfield YMCA, Moldgreen, Prospect Warriors from the Pennine League have folded during the SL years. others only run with one team instead of 2 or 3 like yesteryear. These problems are of course nothing to do with Sky/Sl. But you claim the amateur game is in a better state because so many people play because of Sky/Sl for me is wrong as you dont seem to know too much about the state of the amateur game or Junior rugby and the concerns of many at this time. In answer to your question the amateur game would be somewhere around where it is today.

SL has benefitted a few Pro clubs, but more so Players and their agents. The Pro game was on its knees, but it still as a whole not learnt its lessons and the clubs are still in a similar mess as before. Sl has been around for 17 years. Probably a good billion pound has come into SL via Sky, Various Sponsors, The fans via tickets, merchandise etc plus RFL money and private investors over that period. And the game is still a minority sport whos profile has shrunk on the National stage. Clubs still overpaying players with money they dont have. Still thinking short term instead of long term and making decisions which effect other parts of the game like amateur and International Rugby League. There is no doubt advancement has been made but it certainly hasnt seen major benefits for the Pro game as we still see the majority of Sl struggling to cope with being Full time and such poor decisions like axing the U20 comp to save money doesnt help other parts of the game at all. And I cant see things changing in the future because clubs fail to invest and build off the field with the money they have or receive and instead waste money on players or trying to keep the wolf from the door. Crowds have increased but that only tells half the story. If like Huddersfield and Bradford etc who have thrown tickets out for nothing or low prices that may mean less money coming in. A big crowd doesnt automatically mean more money coming in. And also no doubt the overheads are getting higher each year especially with inflation, the rising cost of utility bills etc. I fail to see how you think SL is so great. It may have improved certain areas but many areas are being neglected.

The International scene in the early to mid 90s was probably at its strongest with regular Wembley visits with crowds of over 73,000 in 1992. Another plus 57,000 crowd at Wembley in 1994. Regular tours for PNG etc against GB. Since SL international crowds have struggled. The Kangeroo Tours of 2001 and 2003 didnt even see crowds of 30,000! Even in 2011 when England played Australia and before Wales played NZ at Wembley just 42,000 turned up. How has SL helped the International part of the game? The International Scene right now has sees little benefit from Sky money except for England. And we see SL clubs pulling players out of Internationals. We see SL clubs getting rid of academy teams to save money which in turn means less or no Welsh, Scottish or Irish kids get to be involved at a SL club doing full time training. So the International scene sees Wales amongst others having weaker less experienced part time players. Catalans has not really improved the French team at all as many of the players in key positions are actually overseas players. And the problems with Catalans and the French National team have been well documented on here. So again I dont see how the International game of RUgby League has benefitted. The development of the game in Serbia, Czech Rep, USA, Canada, Norway etc has nothing to do with Sl but is down to exiles or people interested in RL promoting and developing the sport with money coing in from the RLIF and RFEL via WC and EU and other such money not from anything with Sky or SL. So for me the International Scene at the top level has gone backwards since Sl for whatever reason.

The Challenge Cup has also lost its power and Sky have managed to promote the SL Grand Final as THE final at the expense of the Challenge Cup. The RFL and clubs have tried different means to reignite interest in the cup especially in the early rounds but crowds of 2000 or so even between SL teams shows sadly the cup magic has gone. Whether that is because of Sky its hard to say. But the fact remains this area of the game has been weakened during the Sky/Sl years. I dont see how you can say the cup has benefitted from Sky/SL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With pleasure my good sir.

There are figures and articles easily available to see if under Superleague more fans watch the game, to see where all the professional players come from, and to see how much Superleague has attracted in revenue from TV and private investors enthused by pro-RL.

I'm quite happy to spend some time and effort putting these together to see if we can agree some facts, I'm quite happy to table them. and people are quite happy to pick them to bits and contrive to tell me they are all wrong.

If they are wrong and it's not a fact that Superleague attracts lots more fans, TV money, Private money and quality players - everything our games needs - then perhaps those who argue with the figures can do their own figures and show me what the real facts are?

When they don't do this I suspect it's because they really know the truth, but just don't like it.

I'm not bothered but Padge makes some very big efforts in this direction and it's quite unfair to call his efforts "dubious"

There's just one small problem with that, I'm not and never have made any of the claims you're railing against.

It's perfectly possible to agree with the general thrust, in this case that more people are passing through the gates now than in '93/'94, whilst pointing out an apparent flaw in the comparison which makes the improvement seem larger than it really is. I thought I had taken the trouble make sure it was clear I wasn't disputing the basic claim, an increase in overall attendance, apparently not. I'm happy to ensure you do not continue labour under such a misapprehension.

If you take issue with 'dubious' I'll certainly take the trouble to clarify. It wasn't my intention to label Padge's efforts as dubious but to suggest the way the figures had been compiled left them open to questioning. Something to the effect of; your point stands regardless of which way you present the figures so why choose the way which leaves them most open to question?

In terms of disputing figures or facts but not providing my own figures, the only claims I'm making re facts and figures are that the constituent parts of the merger that formed UTC in 2000 did exist in '93/'94 and that they were not playing in front of zero crowds. You surely can't be disputing any of that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's just one small problem with that, I'm not and never have made any of the claims you're railing against.

It's perfectly possible to agree with the general thrust, in this case that more people are passing through the gates now than in '93/'94, whilst pointing out an apparent flaw in the comparison which makes the improvement seem larger than it really is. I thought I had taken the trouble make sure it was clear I wasn't disputing the basic claim, an increase in overall attendance, apparently not. I'm happy to ensure you do not continue labour under such a misapprehension.

If you take issue with 'dubious' I'll certainly take the trouble to clarify. It wasn't my intention to label Padge's efforts as dubious but to suggest the way the figures had been compiled left them open to questioning. Something to the effect of; your point stands regardless of which way you present the figures so why choose the way which leaves them most open to question?

In terms of disputing figures or facts but not providing my own figures, the only claims I'm making re facts and figures are that the constituent parts of the merger that formed UTC in 2000 did exist in '93/'94 and that they were not playing in front of zero crowds. You surely can't be disputing any of that?

But the point is UTC had nothing to do with the RFL and didn't contribute money to or where a member club in any shape or form of the RFL, Catalan are, it doesn't matter where they are, as I said people will want Welsh clubs excluding next because they aren't English if it suits their argument. Crusaders were born of a union club, should we take into account the crowds of the union club beforehand. What about Scorpions who born of the old Crusaders, which one do you want to use to cancel the other.

I only use official records not made up numbers, vague guesses or gut feelings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The figures quoted, and the figures used for all charts presented are the official figures for ALL clubs under the auspices of the RFL, nobody has been deliberately added in nor anyone deliberately left out.

I can't dispute that, it is factually accurate. I would simply add, 'under the auspices of the RFL' seems to be an unnecessarily narrow parameter given that Catalans Dragons did exist, under the auspices of FFR, prior to their entry into SL and were drawing crowds, albeit not of the level they do now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't dispute that, it is factually accurate. I would simply add, 'under the auspices of the RFL' seems to be an unnecessarily narrow parameter given that Catalans Dragons did exist, under the auspices of FFR, prior to their entry into SL and were drawing crowds, albeit not of the level they do now.

If I did the stats for 1979/80 compared to 80/81 should I include Fulham football clubs attendance in the 79/80 figure.

The whole argument is patent nonsense from the desperate.

As far as the bit in bold goes then what is the significance of the supposed error in the overall figure. Does it may that the figure is actually a negative figure, obviously it doesn't, does it mean the figure is static, obviously it doesn't.

Tell us the perceived error and tell us its significance, time to put up or shut up I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I did the stats for 1979/80 compared to 80/81 should I include Fulham football clubs attendance in the 79/80 figure.

The whole argument is patent nonsense from the desperate.

If Fulham Fc had spent the 79/80 season playing RL, yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's just one small problem with that, I'm not and never have made any of the claims you're railing against.

It's perfectly possible to agree with the general thrust, in this case that more people are passing through the gates now than in '93/'94, whilst pointing out an apparent flaw in the comparison which makes the improvement seem larger than it really is. I thought I had taken the trouble make sure it was clear I wasn't disputing the basic claim, an increase in overall attendance, apparently not. I'm happy to ensure you do not continue labour under such a misapprehension.

If you take issue with 'dubious' I'll certainly take the trouble to clarify. It wasn't my intention to label Padge's efforts as dubious but to suggest the way the figures had been compiled left them open to questioning. Something to the effect of; your point stands regardless of which way you present the figures so why choose the way which leaves them most open to question?

In terms of disputing figures or facts but not providing my own figures, the only claims I'm making re facts and figures are that the constituent parts of the merger that formed UTC in 2000 did exist in '93/'94 and that they were not playing in front of zero crowds. You surely can't be disputing any of that?

No I can't, as long as you accept he "only uses official records not made up numbers, vague guesses or gut feelings".

Which are far more dubious, especially such "gut feelings" that pre-1996 all the attendance figures were false anyway and heavily under counted to dodge tax.

Thank you for your post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The amateur game has benefitted little from Sky or SL. In fact the way the clubs have raided amateur clubs giving next to nothing in return it possibly has damaged the amateur game to an extent. Money has been thrown at the Pro game. I dont see how SL or Sky money has benefitted the amateur game at all. The amateur game probably would be just as it is with or without the Sky money that came. None of the clubs saw any of that money. Whilst its clear the game is spreading nationwide much of that is nothing to do with SL or Sky but the work of volunteers and development officers around the place. In answer to your question the amateur game would be somewhere around where it is today.

Firstly the SKY money was not provided to benefit the amateur game, but if you mean through payments to junior clubs for players then the problem of ripping them off was around long before SL, but there we go. Blame SL for everything.

What you want to claim is Superleague i.e. a vibrant professionalised version of Rugby League, regularly showcased on television with top players with much higher profiles than if they were semi pros (if they were still in the game and not in Union), who go into schools and promote the game has no bearing whatsoever in regard to people wanting to form and administer clubs, and kids wanting to play RL at those clubs.

How low would senior RL have to sink before people start to disregard it, I remember when it was at it's lowest ebb in the early seventies and the amateur game was equally on it's knees. But it suits you to make out there is no correlation whatsoever. Perhaps Shinty development officers can form clubs all around Great Britain? Once it's explained to the kids and adults what it is they can start clubs and the kids can stop playing soccer and play shinty instead.

A quick look at the amateur leagues especially junior leagues shows the wealth of people in SL areas who form and administer clubs, and the wealth of young players who join and go on to become professionals. The vast majority of professionals today come from Superleague areas, places where loads more people go watch their local SL club then go form or get involved or get their kids involved at the local club.

Still it must be a mirage before my very eyes the adults and kids enthused by the Rhinos, and the new clubs that have formed on the back of that, for according to you there's no correlation whatsoever between the success of the senior game in an area and the amateur game, which flies flat in the face of the analysis.

All those clubs in York Doncaster Rochdale Swinton and Sheffield springing up with kids queuing up to play thanks to development officers, my what powers of persuasion they must have........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The International scene in the early to mid 90s was probably at its strongest. Since SL international crowds have struggled.

I asked you...........

"Where do you think Rugby League would be today if the game had rejected the SKY offer of millions of pounds a year to stage an elite competition"

Care to tell me where we would be on the "International scene" without SKY, SL and the money?????

I don't think you do, you've danced completely around that one.

Anyone else care to tell me where we would be internationally without Superleague??

Come on it's not that hard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly the SKY money was not provided to benefit the amateur game, but if you mean through payments to junior clubs for players then the problem of ripping them off was around long before SL, but there we go. Blame SL for everything.

What you want to claim is Superleague i.e. a vibrant professionalised version of Rugby League, regularly showcased on television with top players with much higher profiles than if they were semi pros (if they were still in the game and not in Union), who go into schools and promote the game has no bearing whatsoever in regard to people wanting to form and administer clubs, and kids wanting to play RL at those clubs.

How low would senior RL have to sink before people start to disregard it, I remember when it was at it's lowest ebb in the early seventies and the amateur game was equally on it's knees. But it suits you to make out there is no correlation whatsoever. Perhaps Shinty development officers can form clubs all around Great Britain? Once it's explained to the kids and adults what it is they can start clubs and the kids can stop playing soccer and play shinty instead.

A quick look at the amateur leagues especially junior leagues shows the wealth of people in SL areas who form and administer clubs, and the wealth of young players who join and go on to become professionals. The vast majority of professionals today come from Superleague areas, places where loads more people go watch their local SL club then go form or get involved or get their kids involved at the local club.

Still it must be a mirage before my very eyes the adults and kids enthused by the Rhinos, and the new clubs that have formed on the back of that, for according to you there's no correlation whatsoever between the success of the senior game in an area and the amateur game, which flies flat in the face of the analysis.

All those clubs in York Doncaster Rochdale Swinton and Sheffield springing up with kids queuing up to play thanks to development officers, my what powers of persuasion they must have........

Not sure about the Lancs but the three Yorkshire areas (York, Doncaster & Sheffield) have far less amateur teams playing since the start of Super League, I'd also add Barnsley, maybe that points out that the RFL failed in not forcing a Sheffield/Doncaster merger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Average crowds at St Esteve 1998/2001 (Prior to merger with X111 Catalan were around 300)Average crowds at X111 1998/2001 (Prior to merger with St Esteve were around 200)Average crowds after merger (UTC) were around 600 Highest crowd would be for local derby v Pia (1500/3000)Highest crowd pre Catalan Dragons v Pia (2005) 5000CM

Very vague figures, source please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With all due respect, no-one has proven categorically that SL has been the catalyst for an increase in attendance at RL matches in the UK since 1994..

I don't care about France, only SL cares, I care about the UK. I care that the propagandist won't admit SL only benefits SL to the tune of £££££. Nothing else.

The other facts are bluster and hot air.

The only caveat I had for the stats was that we look at the UK. So when Tolouse enter SL, crowds will go up again. Hoorah for SL.

Fine for you all, dance a jig if you want. Carry on repeating time and gain how better off WE are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fine for you all, dance a jig if you want. Carry on repeating time and gain how better off WE are.

Simple question......

"Where do you think Rugby League would be today if the game had rejected the SKY offer of millions of pounds a year to stage an elite competition"

I'll dance a jig for RL even if WE (Hunslet) are not better off at all.

You can dance round the question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How should we be measuring and against what baseline? Should we be comparing the current situation with that of 1995? Or should we be comparing the current situation with what it might be now had SL, Sky, summer rugby, Clare Balding, Radio Five Live etc not happened. In the last 17 years so much has changed across all fronts that match day attendances are only part of it.

Are there more teams - amateur, semi-pro, fully pro, are there more players, are there more paying spectators, season ticket holders, TV viewers?

More people making a living out of the game?

Are there more televised games? Are there more column-inches? More SPOTY awards? More mentions in the news?

Is there more money circulating in the game? Are there more assets?

In short, how does the value of our game compare?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sky have managed to promote the SL Grand Final as THE final at the expense of the Challenge Cup.

"evidence" "evidence" and thrice "evidence".......

Three points that go whoosh over your head........

a. Wigan won it ad nauseum in the dark days of one club being able to dominate the competition

b. Superleague wiped away that dominance and SEVEN clubs have won it since

c. The BBC have the challenge cup and therefore have the promotional wherewithall to promote the hell out of the RLCC to a terrestrial audience far larger than SKY sports have.

The problem in dancing a Polka around the question is you may lose sight of the fact that what you post instead of answering that question is weak.

Now........

"Where do you think Rugby League would be today if the game had rejected the SKY offer of millions of pounds a year to stage an elite competition"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Average crowds at St Esteve 1998/2001 (Prior to merger with X111 Catalan were around 300)Average crowds at X111 1998/2001 (Prior to merger with St Esteve were around 200)Average crowds after merger (UTC) were around 600 Highest crowd would be for local derby v Pia (1500/3000)Highest crowd pre Catalan Dragons v Pia (2005) 5000CM

Thank you, with those figures it is now possible to reach a much more informed conclusion as to how much of Catalans' current aggregate attendance may reasonably be represented as growth attributable to SL. The vast majority would appear to be the answer.

Without asking you to compile detailed stats would it be fair to say that crowds in the domestic competition held up or even increased since 2006?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How should we be measuring and against what baseline? Should we be comparing the current situation with that of 1995? Or should we be comparing the current situation with what it might be now had SL, Sky, summer rugby, Clare Balding, Radio Five Live etc not happened. In the last 17 years so much has changed across all fronts that match day attendances are only part of it.

Hi John,

You seem to be dancing an Argentinian Tango around the issue here. Try this....

"Where do you think Rugby League would be today if the game had rejected the SKY offer of millions of pounds a year to stage an elite competition"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why isn't it thriving and becoming a world wide game now? Ok the Sky coverage is good and the money's good, but it's a ghetto.

Can I ask you Tro to "Take to the floor"

"Where do you think Rugby League would be today if the game had rejected the SKY offer of millions of pounds a year to stage an elite competition"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The three Yorkshire areas (York, Doncaster & Sheffield) have far less amateur teams playing since the start of Super League,

Is that Superleague's fault do you think Mr. M?.

Also try this question "Where do you think Rugby League would be today if the game had rejected the SKY offer of millions of pounds a year to stage an elite competition"......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the complement. You have clearly never witnessed my impression of Terpsichore

To me the answer is clear. The game would have been reduced to the level of say Lacrosse or Fives and Wigan, Saints, and one or two others would be playing rugby union.

My previous posts are meant to remind people that match day attendances are merely one part of the story. Add it al up and the game is worth much more thanks to Sky/SL that it ever would have been otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"evidence" "evidence" and thrice "evidence".......

Two points that go whoosh over your head........

a. Wigan won it ad nauseum in the dark days of one club being able to dominate the competition

b. Superleague wioed away that dominance and SEVEN clubs have won it since

c. The BBC have the challenge cup and therefore have the promotional wherewithall to promote the hell out of the RLCC to a terrestrial audience far larger than SKY sports have.

The problem in dancing a Polka around the question is you may lose sight of the fact that what you post instead of answering that question is weak.

Now........

"Where do you think Rugby League would be today if the game had rejected the SKY offer of millions of pounds a year to stage an elite competition"

The game woud still be plodding along nicely with everyone being friends, granted today with SKY money we have full time professionals with about a dozen more than in yesteryears being household names, as for development in expansion areas I'll think you'll find that the RFL are now showing how shallow they are by withdrawing development officers in these areas (Looking like the BARLA years) simply to afford the induced payments to the heartland leagues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"evidence" "evidence" and thrice "evidence".......

Three points that go whoosh over your head........

a. Wigan won it ad nauseum in the dark days of one club being able to dominate the competition

b. Superleague wiped away that dominance and SEVEN clubs have won it since

c. The BBC have the challenge cup and therefore have the promotional wherewithall to promote the hell out of the RLCC to a terrestrial audience far larger than SKY sports have.

The problem in dancing a Polka around the question is you may lose sight of the fact that what you post instead of answering that question is weak.

Now........

"Where do you think Rugby League would be today if the game had rejected the SKY offer of millions of pounds a year to stage an elite competition"

....and could the reason why seven clubs have won it since be due to an equal and equitable sharing of central SKY funds?

Just think how strong all our clubs could be Parky, given a fighting chance.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No I can't, as long as you accept he "only uses official records not made up numbers, vague guesses or gut feelings".

Of course I do.You'll probably save a fair bit of time and angst if you accept a rule of thumb that if I haven't made or supported a specific allegation its probably because I don't believe or accept it.

Which are far more dubious, especially such "gut feelings" that pre-1996 all the attendance figures were false anyway and heavily under counted to dodge tax.

Again, you seek to project onto me a claim I haven't made, why?

.

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 24th July 2017

Rugby League World - August 2017