Wellsy4HullFC
-
Posts
11,445 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
11
Posts posted by Wellsy4HullFC
-
-
What's your point?
I'll help you...
RFL announce first round of playoffs to be in February???Engage Super League play-off ties
Saturday 4th September 10
Ties in the opening round of the Engage Super League play-offs are:
Qualifying play-offs: Wigan Warriors v Leeds Rhinos, St Helens v Warrington Wolves.
Elimination play-offs: Huddersfield Giants v Crusaders RL, Hull FC v Hull KR.
Ties to be played on the weekend of February 10-12.
-
Never been so infuriated by an official in my life. An absolute disgrace. I would back up Agar all the way if he had a rant about him. Absolutely appalling.
-
Only thing it prove is how arrogant the Aussies still are.
-
There'd be a 3rd option in there, and we'd pick them.
Or have I got it wrong?
You can't pick the other team that wins in week one. It's their reward for not getting beat. Leeds couldn't pick Saints last year.
-
Say the team that finish 4th manage to beat Wigan in week one.
And say Warrington somehow beat Saints in week one also.
And say Wigan and Saints then go on to beat whoever in week two to progress to week three.
Warrington would have to choose either Wigan or Saints. Who would you pick? Wigan being the best team in the league (but you have a good record against them), and Saints being your ultimate bogey team (although you would have finally just beaten them two weeks prior).
-
Considering the Midlands' reasonable proximity to the heartlands it's a reasonable risk to have one game there, and the bigger it is the more it should appeal to people in the Midlands who I'm sure include many former northern residents who'd be fans of RL. Ricoh Arena's management is open to hosting all manner of events so they might come forward with a great offer and it's a lot smaller capacity than new venues in London are. I do think that with more countries than 1995, having one more game outside the heartlands than there was then would be a way to show some modest growth in the sport's national appeal.
Part of the marketing has to be building up the World Cup as the pinnacle of the game, like they are in other sports. Then combine that with great ticket offers to get fans excited about seeing it.
But in order to show that, there has to have been one. Is there one? Playing-wise there is. But spectator-wise there is no such evidence. And it's all well and good saying the bigger the game the better, but when we don't know which teams will be playing then it is essential that there is a core audience to fall back on should an unattractive fixture pop up. It could be a game like New Zealand vs France, which would be a massive flop in a 30k stadium in Coventry. This is what I think people keep forgetting when they say put games in these huge stadiums and watch people come in for the semis. They forget that there are only 3 big test draws in the competition, which means one of the semis will be a lot less interesting to the average punter (and on top of that, there is less appeal to watch New Zealand than there is Australia which is shown in past attendances, so a game involving them and second tier test nation will be very hard to sell).
-
Funnily enough, I
-
I wouldn't suggest a stadium like Wembley for a semi-final, it's clearly too big. I'd look at venues like City of Manchester Stadium and Ricoh Arena instead and offer ticket packages that incorporate group games and knockout stage ones together as a way to fill them. I'd offer discounts for SL, Championship (both levels) and NRL season ticket holders and when tickets for more than one game are bought at the same time, have family ticket packages where the kids are included and price the group games according to which countries are in those groups. I'd allow fans to combine discounts too, so season ticket holders could get an extra discount when buying tickets for more than one game at the same time. The key thing is to make it attractive and compelling for the fans to attend.
I'm not sure the Challenge Cup can be used as a direct comparison when it features teams fans see all the time in league games.
I wouldn't even touch Ricoh Arena for the entire competition. A 30k stadium in a non-heartland area is a massive ask to get any sort of decent crowd, especially for a potential non-England game. Until the format is announced, I don't really want to suggest stadia for the semis, but I would most definitely keep them both in the heartlands, with only a slight possibility of one in London (but not Wembley FFS, it's huge!).
There is also a lot more to marketing than just offering good deals (not saying you're suggesting that, but needs a mention). If people don't know about these offers, it won't make a difference. And if you're preaching to the converted, you could end up losing money.
-
Why can't you market a semi-final for months (or years since the World Cup is 3 years away)? A semi-final should be much bigger than any group games, it's only one step away from the final of what should be the biggest event in the sport. Are you suggesting it's not bigger than the group games? A World Cup is special and real fans should want to see the big games regardless of who's in them.
Absolutely not suggesting that, no. You can market it all you like, but you won't truly start to sell a lot of tickets until the teams are determined. If the majority of the fans would want to watch England in the semi, they will wait until they know which semi final they are in. If they are playing a small nation, not as many will come. If the other semi final is Australia/New Zealand vs say PNG or France, how many people would turn up to Wembley for that?
A semi-final should be much bigger than the group stages. Doesn't mean it will be better attended (look at the semi finals of the Challenge Cup for example).
-
Wembley has never been tried for a World Cup semi final. So there is no direct equivalent evidence to go on.
However what we do have is a World Cup pool game, when an England vs Australia match in 1995 got 41,271 at the Old Wembley. We also have the pool game from 2000, held in the worst English storm weather in 100 years, when the rail lines to the north were shut down, yet still attracted 31,000 to the enemy territory of Twickenham.
It is reasonable to assume that a semi-final involving England could top the 1995 pool match crowd of 41,271, and go well over 50,000 -- maybe even hit the 73,000 plus World Cup record -- if properly promoted.
Wembley has not been used for a semi-final. But large stadia have been used for semi finals, and have never sold out or come close to it. Old Trafford got 30,000. If you used Wembley and Old Trafford for the semi finals, the one that doesn't involve England will most likely struggle to even fill a quarter of the stadium.
You can't compare it to group games because you KNOW who is playing in the group game so you can market for it for months. You don't know who will be in the semis. It would be a huge mistake to use stadia that are too large. You seem to forget these stadia you're suggesting will need paying for, as well as this massive marketing campaign you want to fill them. Will it turn a profit? Not if you do it your way. The amount of marketing you'd need to fill these stadia for the semis (as well as paying for the actually costs of the stadiums themselves) would not be made back from the profit from the games.
-
i love all the expert accountants on here querying this figure
i dont know armchair RL fans were such experts at accountancy
perhaps they should lend their considerable skills to helping their own club make a profit
Is it hard to believe that RL fans can grasp basic accountancy? Just because you struggle with basic figures, doesn't mean everyone does!
-
*Double Post*
-
According to the SL website:
Most Points in a Regular Season:
Andrew Farrell (2001) - 388 (16 tries, 160 goals, 4 drop goals)
Currently, Pat Richards is on 27 tries, 132 goals, 0 drop goals, for a total of 372 points.
16 points to tie it, 17 to win it. 16 would put him top anyway, as the season had one extra game in 2001.
8 goals, 1 try and 6 goals, 2 tries and 4 goals, 3 tries and 2 goals or 4 tries will see him do it. Personally, I hope he gets it. Good luck to him.
-
Why can't you make predictions based on evidence of past experience, rather than based on nothing?
Possibly the same reason you can't? i.e. using 70k stadia for the semis that have never attracted more than 31k, even at bigger grounds.
-
This is all down to no P&R.
Last time I check, there was P&R in the Championships. Keighley (last year's promoted team) went into administration. Whitehaven (this year's relegated team) are now also in administration.
Maybe it's all down to P&R?
-
Please stop posting that Wembley should be used. 15000 in a 90000 stadium would look shockingly bad.
Even England v Australia in a final will not top 50k
Go on then, enlighten us. What makes you think that England vs Australia in the World Cup would get 15,000? Past attendances wouldn't be one of them, so we all must be missing something...
-
erm thats the point i'm making.. the second bite comes from their first match.. one off match and 7th goes through ahead of 2nd without a 2nd chance.. no dont think thats very good..
and i dont think you should get a second bite later on.. the only reason you have it is becuase of the large gap between 2nd and 7th and the possible upsets in one off matches..
2nd gets no added advantage if they are out in the first round.. the advantage is a first round cock up reprisal..
I do see what you're saying, but it's the only way you can really get it to work with seven teams. It's essentially just the same as the Top Six playoffs, but with an extra game in week one.
In the NRL playoffs, 3rd and 4th could be out in the first week. They could also get a second bite. It just totally depends on the results around them. Same sort of thing in this system.
-
2- erm no you dont read your week 1 again
Week 1
1st has bye to Week two
A) 2nd vs 7th (loser out)
3rd vs 6th (loser out)
C) 4th vs 5th (loser out)
loser out.. 2nd loses to 7th they are out.. there is no second bite of the cherry..
2 - erm, yes they do. Read the rest of it...
If 2nd win, they play first in week two. If they lose week two, they play the best of the rest in week three.
No team in the first week gets a second go if they lose, granted. But if they win, they win not only a straight game to the Grand Final, but also a second bite if they lose.
-
Can they afford all these signings?
-
whats the advantage of finnishing higher.. one off games anyone can beat anyone.. the bonus of finishing in the top 4 is a second bite of hte cherry in the present format which is good.. straight knock out means a poor decision etc could kill off the best team in one swoop... 7th can beat 2nd in any game and does, but for 2nd to mean anything you need a second bite of the cherry..
1 - You get a home game and an easier tie.
2 - You have the opportunity for a second bite of the cherry (rather than just given one). If 2nd wins, they'll get two bites of the cherry. If 2nd lose and 3rd win, they'll get two bites of the cherry. If 2nd and 3rd lose and 4th win, they'll get two bites of the cherry. Even 5th could get it.
I think it's good to reward those finishing higher in the table. But I think the team at the top should get the bigger advantage between positions (i.e. there's not much difference between finishing 1st and 2nd, but there's a huge advantage between 4th and 5th).
-
Top 7 Play-off
Week 1
1st has bye to Week two
A) 2nd vs 7th (loser out)
3rd vs 6th (loser out)C) 4th vs 5th (loser out)
Week 2
D) 1st vs highest ranked winner of week 1 (winner to GF, loser to week 3)
E) 2nd highest ranked winner vs lowest ranked winner (loser out)
Week 3
F) Loser of D vs Winner of E
Week 4
G) Winner of D vs Winner of F
It's pretty much the same as the Top 6 play-offs, except 2nd don't get a bye to week two (instead they play 7th).
The only potential problem is that it favours the top side tremendously compared to the rest. But in all fairness, it should do! They finished top!
-
1st place team loses out on sponsorships, live TV rights and attendance revenue.
No chance.
Doesn't all of the play-off money go into a pot and is dished out as prize money anyway? Or something similar...
-
A 7 team finals series could work for both Super League and NRL. That would involve only the top half of the competition.
Week 1 (Highest place at home, losing teams eliminated)
1st place - week off.
A 2nd vs 7th
B 3rd vs 6th
C 4th vs 5th
Week 2 (losing teams eliminated).
C 1st v winner Game C (4th/5th) (1st at home)
D Winner A v Winner B (2nd/7th vs 3rd/6th) (neutral venue)
Week 3
Grand Final - Winner C vs Winner D.
Bit of flawed system.
Why do 4/5th have to play first? In week one, 7th could beat 2nd, and 6th could beat 3rd. Then in your system, 6th would play 7th and 1st would play 4/5th? 6th and 7th get an easier game? 4/5th get shafted? And why a neutral venue?
-
Actually I said 30,000+ stadium and hope for well over 20,000 fans but chickened out.
I would hope with raising the profile of RL & plenty of promotion & ticket deals I would like to see over 20,000 fans going to the none England semi-final but I'm sad to admit I know that's extremely unlikely.
Totally depends on the format for me.
At the end of the day, it's pretty certain that England, New Zealand and Australia will be 3 of the 4 teams. So it depends on:
1. which two of them teams are playing each other
2. who the fourth team are
3. whether England are playing the fourth team or one of the other big two.
The problem is, unless the format is construed in a way that England are playing a certain team, there is no way to predict this sort of thing. To me, with the possibility of certain games, your most likely attendances will be around these marks:
England vs New Zealand (20k), Australia vs AN Other (12k)
England vs Australia (30k), New Zealand vs AN Other (10k)
England vs AN Other (15k), New Zealand vs Australia (20k)
Something like Elland Road and Keepmoat would probably be suitable if we wanted a good sell out. But they don't seem that ambitious really. It's a shame really, but without other teams that will draw in a decent crowd, this will always be the case. I can't see England vs France, Wales, Fiji, Tonga, PNG, Samoa, etc. drawing 20k at this stage. And certainly can't see Aus/NZ versus the above drawing anywhere near it.
Hull FC v Leeds Rhinos
in The General Rugby League Forum
Posted
I aren't too fussed about the red card. It could have been a yellow, but you can justify a red just as easily.
What I am p*ssed about is that Bailey got away with everything. No punishment. He was allowed to elbow someone four times in the head, then allowed to attempt to butt Sean Long (which the referee was in full view of, and even blew the whistle after seeing), then allowed to carry on like an indisciplined footballer when the ref was controlling the situation. He didn't even get a talking to. It's a disgrace.
What Radford did was worse, but he got his punishment. Bailey behaved like a moronic coward and got away with it. That's the disgrace.