Wellsy4HullFC
-
Posts
11,445 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
11
Posts posted by Wellsy4HullFC
-
-
Irrelevant.
The point still remains.
It was the lower placed team that "got on a roll" by winning their first game, whilst both 3rd and 4th took defeats in round 1 that they couldn't recover from.
It's totally relevant. The fact that the team that finished 5th was eliminated straight away last year shows that it's better to finish higher so you have MORE CHANCE to progress. 5th had one chance and lost. 4th had two chances, but also lost. The end result was the same, but one had two chances to put it right, the other didn't. Unless you're saying it's better to finish in 7th or 8th as well?
If this "roll on" is so impactful, why don't the team in 3rd and 4th just put out a reserve team for the first game, play a friendly the day after to get the "roll on" and take advantage of a home tie against the winners of the previous game? They could do that if they wished if it was that much of an advantage.
Or maybe they'd rather play to get the extra week off?
Maybe they'd come back stronger after defeat? And the other team become over confident in victory?
How often has the team with the roll on in the old top-6 play-off system beaten the team on the back of a loss to make the GF? Twice in seven years.
-
Wellsy, we're not RFL Marketeers it's up to them to build the profile of RL over the next 3 years, to get the media onside & really Market the RLWC 2013 well to get as many RL fans going to it as possible. Must aim higher.
I know this, you know this, but ParisS seems to think that by saying "serious marketing campaign" it actually has some meaning. There are budgets and other obstacles that restrict us. There is always room for improvement, and we should be getting better crowds. But it is ridiculous to think that we could get a decent crowd at Old Trafford (75k) for a semi final not involving England when we have only touched above 30k once with a semi final involving England.
What sort of miracle marketing campaign would turn around that record?
-
Reebok can fit 28,000. Is that big enough for the non-England semi-final?
Past RLWC semi finals:
2008:
England vs New Zealand - 26,659
Australia vs Fiji - 15,855
2000:
England vs New Zealand - 16,032
Australia vs Wales - 8,114
1995:
England vs Wales - 30,042
Australia vs New Zealand - 16,608
Is it big enough? Well it was too big for the England semi final in 2000, so I very much doubt its capacity would even nearly be tested without England playing. Only one semi has touched over that capacity, and that's when Wales were fairly good.
But with your superior marketing campaign (which you have yet to enlighten us on), I don't think there are stadia big enough to hold the RLWC13!
-
Also, from a Hull point of view, if we lose next weekend we'll probably be 6th (can't see Huddersfield losing to Catalans). But still, we'll either play Crusaders (a team we've lost to, and only just beat at home a few weeks ago), Castleford (who nearly turned us over last time we played them) or Hull KR (enough said!). If we manage to get through that, we'd then have to play Wigan, Saints, Wire or Leeds away.
Now, if we finished 4th and lost our first game, we'd have to play Leeds, Hudds or Rovers at home. A lot better than playing the above teams away. It's a no-brainer for me which is a better position to be in. In fact, IMO the gap between 4th and 5th is by far the biggest gap in terms of advantage in the play-offs.
-
Jeez calm down. Its plausible, but it's not likely to happen. Much more likely is the scenario Ive outlined at the start, or indeed what actually happened in 2009. The difference is patently not "absolutely massive" at all. 4th, 5th place. There shouldn't be much in it anyway. I was just speculating about whether they'd actually got the fine balance quite right. There are plenty of possible scenarios under which 5th could work out quite a bit better than 4th.
Happy to listen to your views on these other flaws.
You do realise that 5th got knocked out by 8th in the first week of the play-offs last year, don't you?
Yeah, it's much better to finish 5th!
-
They took a half-page advert in League Express, prominently placed in the newspaper, on the Monday morning prior to the game against Leeds. The main thrust of the advert, on my advice, was to emphasise how quick it was to travel from Leeds to Wrexham.
On the day they did that, they sold 800 tickets, and it enabled them to build up momentum and start talking about a sell-out. The momentum continued and they did reach that level of ticket sales, with some fans not being able to get in on the night.
They never did that for any other game.
Strange that they never did it again if it proved to be such a success.
Unless you charge them
-
Ok, fair enough, but ignoring the Gateshead fiasco there seems to actually be a fair amount of semi-pro, amateur & junior RL teams in Cumbria & the North East. If only we could get over RL fan apathy for the International game.
The main RL areas of Cumbria are still about 100 miles away from the Gateshead and the rest of the North East's population centres, so grouping them together is a bit odd.
There is only one semi-pro club in the North East. There are a fair few amateur clubs popping up, but there are much bigger areas that would be much better for a big game than there.
It would be an awful idea to have BOTH semis away from the heartlands anyway. In fact, I think it would be verging on a bad idea to have any away from the heartlands in all honesty.
-
PMJ, get rid of that ridiculously large signature picture!
-
I think our own national stadium would be a big boost to the image of the sport, it's just getting the money for it. Then again I can think of some large stadiums that have been built at a relatively low cost, I think the Stadium of Light (48,000) was built for 23 million.
Considering the KC Stadium cost
-
If Old Trafford is too big for a semi-final not containing England the what about the Stadium of Light? Surely if the RFL had special deals for all the semi-pro, Amateur & junior teams in Tyne&Wear, Durham, Teeside, Northumbria, Durham, Cumbria & North Yorkshire & their fans then they could get 30,000+ to watch the Aussies or the Kiwis? Plus it's not that far from the 'heartlands'.
It would be easier to fill Old Trafford than Stadium of Light!. It's about 100 miles away from the heartlands, and there isn't much going on up there RL wise.
-
nonsense.
they spent 3 years preparing for SL in NL1 and 2.
this preparation did nothing for them.
you say it was too soon for CC to be promoted to SL after 3 years preparing yet wrexham had 6 weeks and have done better.
pretty conclusive.
and im not buying the way you pick the crowds to suit your argument. their average is over 5000 which is excellent
It's impossible to say it did nothing for them without seeing the difference had they just started up from scratch in Bridgend. If Celtic Crusaders started up from nothing and went straight to SL at Bridgend, for all we know they could have averaged 1,500 and those three years in the lower leagues could have proved pivotal. It's not conclusive in the slightest.
And as MD says, there is still time for it all to come crumbling down ala Paris St Germain, who also started off well. They got some really good crowds, but also went down to getting a 500 crowd vs Salford (worst in SL history), 1,000 against Wigan and 1,500 against Warrington.
-
i would put the quarters at one ground and the semis.. i think thats a good idea but i would use it as similar to a magic weekend and take it around grounds not just at one.
Just depends on what ground is used. Unlike the Magic Weekend, we don't know what teams will be playing in them so they would have to be fairly local IMO in order to be a success. They're just examples of an increased number of events to maximise use of a national stadium if we went down that path (and again, if we keep moving events to different grounds it gets hard to build up stability and event familiarity so could affect its growth). I suppose it's a different topic of conversation really.
The good thing about it (CC rounds being used as Magic Weekend style events) is that they are outside the football season so we'd be better placed to use football grounds without disrupting their seasons. There are a number of grounds we could use around the heartlands that are of a good size: Anfield, Goodison Park, Elland Road, Hillsborough and Bramall Lane spring to mind.
-
Wait, what does the police moving a game due to safety concerns have to do with sky?
The Warrington and Saints games should be played on the same day at the same time as they're battling for the same place. Because Sky have moved the Saints game to a time that Quins can't play at home against Warrington, then this cannot happen.
At least Crusaders kick off at the same time as Castleford, which to be fair there is more at stake on that one.
-
How many seasons in Super League did they have in Bridgend and what exactly is my opinion that I'm basing on one year?
I have used attendances actually but the averages alone are worthless here because there is a definite decline in the attendances of the Crusaders in Wrexham. This is due to the excitement they generated when they came into the division. If you want the facts you can have them, just because some of them aren't positive doesn't mean they should be ignored.
Crusaders first 5 game average at Wrexham: 6690
Crusaders second 5 game average at Wrexham: 3759
Celtic Crusaders average at Bridgend: 3507
I was originally replying to Dally who was suggesting that they have been successful in comparison to Bridgend, despite Bridgend being given time in the Championship. They've obviously done better on the pitch but off the pitch this isn't quite so straight forward. The most worrying thing about the second 5 games is that they included 2 of their biggest away followings in Warrington and St Helens. The CC average isn't much different despite Crusaders being bottom for all but 3 weeks of last year and having the biggest RL scandal in recent times.
The Crusaders have done some good things this year but the jury is certainly still out on their long term viability. Next year they won't have that initial burst of enthusiasm for something new and this will probably result in a lower average overall.
All very fair and valid points. However, you need to remember that there will hardly have been any season ticket sales due to moving there 6 weeks before the start of the season, which will affect the core crowd greatly. Next year while there may not be the huge burst of enthusiasm, there will hopefully be a more stable fan base through season ticket sales.
And, compared to Bridgend, at least there was that burst of enthusiasm and for that long.
It's a shame that Bridgend didn't continue in the Championship though which they were trying to do at the start of the season alongside the Scorpions. Could have been a good local derby there.
-
It is not ridiculous if the World Cup is given the buzz that a properly marketed sporting event is given.
It is beyond your ability to imagine this because you are forgetting that I have predicated this all these ground choices on a serious marketing campaign --- something that has not occurred since Nigel Wood became prominent in RFL decisonmaking in 2001. If Richard Lewis is not prepared to go 21st century, and relieve Wood of the status as chief marketing decisionmaker, then everything I have written is pointless.
If England is playing in one semi final at Wembley on a Saturday, and England wins, expect a massive walk up to any northern stadium (including Old Trafford) the next day to see which of Australia, New Zealand, France, Wales etc will be England's opponent the following weekend.
The only sizable alternative to Old Trafford is Elland Road, which fans on here seem not to like going to. Bramall Lane may be too small. The other rugby league stadia (e.g. DW, Galpharm) will definitely be too small.
What would you be doing in this serious marketing campaign and how would you be paying for it? What would you do if the people didn't turn up? You've not actually said anything.
The thing is, you've later gone on to say that you would expect a huge walk-up crowd should England win. If they lose, what are you going to do with the less than 20k rattling around OT? It would be a disaster.
So what is this serious marketing campaign you'll be doing?
-
i would be suprised if they went with 4 groups with the strength of nations and tonkings being a major concern seemingly (not so worried myself).. so would expect it to be similar to last time to be honest.
but i agree format first, venues second.
I have no idea what to expect in all honesty! 14 teams is a weird number to get groups from!
-
News Ltd has buggered the game in Australia with Gallop etc ruining the show and the farce of News Ltd at Melbourne. Meanwhile Sky is making a joke of the game in the UK. The RFL is a a Sky Puppet and what Sky wants they get. The RFL have no proper strategy that is fair for all clubs whether SL or Championship. The Championship next year will see Widnes have a massive advantage and likely win everything as they prepare for SL. Whilst the rest like Fev, Barrow, Leigh etc just play a set of friendlies.
Er, won't the rest of the clubs still want to be working towards getting a license for the next franchise period? So they'll need to get into a GF or win the NRC again. They'll need to get the crowds. They'll need to get the turnover. So why would they just be friendlies?
And what makes you think Widnes will be doing anything different to what they were doing this year and last? They can't spend over the cap. So what advantage will they have compared to the last two years?
-
on the field wrexham have done better than CC.
off the field they have exceeded them too
CC had 3 years to prepare in what was nl1 and 2
wrexham had 6 weeks to get a team together.
new coach, many new players, new ground etc .
top down does work if there is money behind it.
i do agree the crowd vs saints was a little disappoining, things certainly arent 100% there but they are looking ok
They had the coach from the back end of the previous season. The squad, however, was slightly harder to come by with not knowing where they would be playing!
I wouldn't judge just yet to say whether it is a success or not. But the opening signs are much more encouraging than Celtic Crusaders, which was a poor set up from the beginning. We may have hit a niche here. But it's not necessarily top-down. The club relocated, so have had the chance to learn from their previous mistakes and start afresh somewhere else. Moving Quins to Oxford for example wouldn't be the same as Oxford starting up from scratch.
-
I am not too certain that I agree with Elland Rd as being the best situated stadium I have ever attended but I do believe that you could be spo on with your other suggestions, especially with regards to the CC.
I am one of those that believes the CC could even become a comp for the National League sides, I admit. But your suggestion for a magic weekend style occasion sounds very good, it could be the solution to breathing something back into what the final apart has become a pretty poor competition overall, well done it ought to warrant some thought.
PS; your other aspects also look very meritable.
Thank you for the feedback. Whether anything I have mentioned would work or not is another question, but it is too easy to just dismiss something out of hand. Nothing gets done that way.
I just believe that the game needs more events for the sport as a whole in this country and not just for select clubs. I think the Challenge Cup needs some kind of rejuvenation as it is just being left to fend for itself at the moment. It is the one competition that brings the game together as a whole and would be a terrible loss. Would moving the Magic Weekend to the Challenge Cup help? Possibly. Look at the attendances this year:
Fifth Round:
Bradford vs Leigh - 4,250
Leeds vs Blackpool - 5,316
Huddersfield vs Warrington - 6,641
Widnes vs Wigan - 5,504
Barrow vs Hunslet - 2,241
Crusaders vs Catalans - 1,817
Harlequins vs St Helens - 3,381
Swinton vs Batley - 633
Total - 29,783
Quarter Final:
Batley vs Catalans - 2,132
Leeds vs Wigan - 9,242
St Helens vs Barrow - 4,972
Bradford vs Warrington - 7,092
Total - 23,438
Semi Final:
Leeds vs St Helens - 15,267
Warrington vs Catalans - 12,265
Total - 27,532
For the quarters and semis definitely, I reckon you could easily get more than that in one stadium, especially with the extra neutrals. The 5th Round is a push, but still a possibility. 15,000 people on each day shouldn't be too difficult.
You can't complain that it would look bad on TV because the ground is empty as the ground is empty at pretty much all the earlier CC games. If they're all in the same ground as well, then all the games could be televised (or highlights would at least be in better quality!). You could have extra games on BBC3, etc.
-
If the England bid gets accepted, Elland Road will be upgraded to 50,000 capacity IIRC.
51,240 according to a letter from the council on this forum. There are also some very interesting comments regarding investment into the ground, etc. on there.
There are some artist impressions, etc. on there for the proposed redevelopment as well, although just sketchy at the moment.
-
each one of the areas i mentioned would help grow the game and give it stability thus bringing potentially more supporters/players to the game meaning that we get more through hte gates.. just building a stadium does not bring them in, it may bring in a few more ut to bring in 10 thousand more and so seeing a good retiurn on your money you need to do the other things to increase your audience and playuing potential and as such the potential return on your investmnet is much greater here than in fudning a ground for someone else.
You make it sound like I'm suggesting just building a stadium and hoping for the best? There would still be marketing, etc. In fact, it would probably be to a greater extent and more effective if in the same place. Everyone will already know where the event is. They'll know how to get there, where's good to go beforehand, where they like to sit, how much to travel, etc. as it will already have been done regularly. You could do deals for people to keep a certain seat, like a season pass, etc. You'd be able to sell to businesses in the area easier (investment in Leeds is huge at the moment). It would be far more efficient to stay in the same place than to keep moving.
BTW getting the game going in scotland and ireland i believe is very much in the RFL's remit..I thought RLI do their own thing now? Not sure what the situation is in Scotland. What I do know is we can't spend our
-
My computer crashed when replying to this as I got to the very end! Nightmare.
Apologies for the long response! It's a good debate though.
Are leeds united going to be selling us part of Elland Road then? if not then its just investment for a promise of usage..Like I said at the start, Leeds City Council are looking for investment for the redevelopment as they haven't found enough yet. I'll try and find the article I read about it later. Terms for the investment would be negotiated to suit us obviously. We'd be more efficient with our money sharing a facility than we would going it alone. It's the same for SL clubs sharing with soccer clubs in a way. You could look at the RFL annual events diary in a similar way as a SL clubs season fixtures.
as such we would be getting no more than we are now so no its investment for no greater gain.. will we get bigger crowds with lower costs??Bigger crowds- if we are getitng bigger crowds for the games that are staged at elland road now why are we staging them there and not at bigger grounds?? i cant think of one match that we could have moved and got that many more fans in there to be honest (plus what how stupid we would be if we did up the number of spectators with everything else and then we have to find a better stadium than our national stadium to play in!)
I'm not quite sure what you mean here? Staging a game at a bigger ground doesn't necessarily make a difference to the crowd. It's like saying we sell out DW Stadium, so take games to a bigger ground such as Ewood Park. Result? A smaller crowd in a bigger stadium outside of the RL heartlands. You're totally ignoring the impact that a ground in a good location for its market has on the customer. Even in the RL heartlands it can make a difference. Look at 83k in Sydney and 53k in Brisbane. Which one gets the better crowds on a more regular basis?
Leeds is slap bang in the middle of the RL heartlands. It is also slap bang in the middle of the biggest RL market in the country. It is the perfect location for international RL IMO. It's like our version of Brisbane. IMO, we'd get far better crowds for games against NZ and Australia at Elland Road than we would anywhere else in the north on a regular basis. The only thing that puts people off is the state of it, but with redevelopment on the cards that hopefully wouldn't be the case.
When Elland Road is redeveloped, they're looking at a capacity of 51k. Now, I can't see the international game getting regular 51k crowds any time soon so it's hardly an issue. If they do, then what's wrong with keeping at 51k for a while? Why do we need to move? If we want to make more money, and we have the customers, then increase the ticket prices like every other sports club would. We're currently giving them away as it is. And that hasn't ruled out further redevelopment in the future.
lower costs- maybe we can negotiate them down on cost for this injection of money but its not going to be massive, and is it really worth it??Neither of us are really in a position to say. It's all part of negotiating a good deal, our plans for the number of events there, projections, etc. But I think we'd have far more success with our events there than we would if we kept moving them to different places, paying individual rent costs, different marketing strategies used each time, etc. We would also have an asset that we could sell if needed.
they make a profit yes but it isnt a massive profit, the injection will neeed to be 10s of millions.. we dont make that sort of profit and i dont see the return being any better here than in other projects.The profit we make is spent on other areas straight away. We could earmark money if needed, as well as get potential investors on board for the project. I think Leeds City Council would be very happy to have the national Rugby League stadium in their city, with the amount of extra income it would bring to the economy from these extra events. I'm sure they would be very supportive. I would mention Carnegie, but I think we've almost bled them dry now!
they may not be the RFLs job at the moment becuase they are not doing it but it doesnt mean they shouldnt be their job. development of the game in London if taken on by the RFL instead of an interested party could be run better potentially with a huge amount more effect on junior developemtn etc.. if done right this could open up a huge new supporting base, the same with wales.. thus actually haveing a much larger retunr on their money by a whole new set of supporteres who may fill any number of other stadiums we may wish to rent..But the people that will be benefiting directly from these investments aren't the RFL, it will be the clubs in them areas. Only if the RFL own these clubs would they be directly benefiting. And with past examples, it's hardly a money making exercise for them. This is why they are trying to get investors in, rather than pay for it themselves. It also leads to ethical problems with their governance of a sport if they own certain clubs.
Junior development in new areas turn out better players making us more competative leaing to more specators leading to "oh sh*t our national stadium is no longer big enough" and then we have invested in a stadium we cannot use.. and are renting out old trafford again..Again, you're mistaking a bigger crowd in a larger stadium for meaning more money. Why pay more for a bigger stadium and cheaper tickets when you can pay less for a smaller stadium and dearer tickets? In some cases, even tickets of the same price would see us get more in the smaller ground if the larger ground costs too much.
-
Looks to me a case of different administration, but making the same mistakes......
Similar, not the same.
But this is Rugby League so it is expected!
-
you cannot say the semi involve england gets wembley though as the venues and timetable has to be nailed down before the tournament kicks off
Depends how the format is.
If the format is 4 groups, with the top of each group going into the semi-finals, then you could guarantee England would be in a certain semi-final venue.
This is why I wouldn't suggest using certain stadia at certain points until the format is announced (other than the final being a must at Wembley).
Stadia we should use for the 2013 World Cup
in The General Rugby League Forum
Posted
No, that's a realistic target so you're not dreaming.