Exiled Wiganer
-
Posts
10,080 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by Exiled Wiganer
-
-
I appreciate that I am spending too much of my lunch break on this thread, but I would also credit the performances of the England team over the last couple of years - beating NRL star stacked teams gives us all hope that we can travel in hope. I am certainly finding it easier to convince myself that this time it could be different.
-
1
-
-
In 94 the aggregate attendance for the series was 140k, which is the highest in this country. Australia got 155k ish for a series way back when. I think we will certainly beat the 94 figure and get close to the Aussies.
-
42 minutes ago, Jack GB said:
just tried to get extras for Headingly - no seating or standing left
Crouching?
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, NRLandSL said:
Phenomenal Game by Nicholson, 80 metres, 6 tackle breaks, 46 tackles with 0 missed.
And a terrific try aswell, he’s having one hell of a season so far. Probably one of the most in form back rowers in the comp right now.
Nicholson is a real talent. I know Sutton and Smithies are having/have had respectable NRL careers, but Nicholson is a level above. His ceiling is extraordinarily high.
I do wonder who advises our players as to their NRL destination, though. While Sydney is heaven on earth and Brisbane and Melbourne are nice, give me Wigan over Canberra any day of the week.
-
This could not have been done better. Perfect choice of stadia, clearly realistic pricing and a ticketing system that works.
I shudder to think how much money was lost because of the hopeless ticketing system for 21 tickets.
If I understand it correctly, Moran has been responsible for marketing this series (with substantial support from the RFL). He has done so much for our game in transforming Warrington into such a great club, and you could make a case for this saving the RFL if the ticket trajectory continues along this path.
-
I am buzzzing about this. If I understand the process correctly, there will be thousands of people who have pre registered who clearly mean to buy tickets who know that they are flying out the door. People like JB - stirred into a frenzy of ticket buying by the ultimate FOMO.
-
35 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:
How many bought tickets not realising they couldn’t use the code again so will buy when on general sale, quite a few I reckon.
Its a great figure in less than 12 hours though, I think Wembley will be a harder sell but they have plenty of time to market it
I am not sure I would call Wembley a hard sell! We southerners (and day trippers) will make sure it’s the biggest crowd of the 3, don’t you fret.
-
2
-
-
https://x.com/TheRFL/status/1907130847825670366
I hope this works. Sorry it’s a twitter link. I know he’s evil. They have already sold over 60k tickets.
On Wembley the strategy is to sell out the tiers below the top tier, as there is a cost associated with fully opening it. I think we will end up with sell outs at Goodison and Headingley and 75k at Wembley. The south will set us on the right course and the north will bring the boys home!
-
2
-
-
IMG have negotiated an extended Super League TV deal with Foxtel. I haven’t seen any details of the figures involved, but it reminds us of how important they can be. It is well timed to ensure they are left in place.
-
1
-
-
Just now, Chrispmartha said:
I’ve got a feeling sales will be good, I’ve never known my group of friends (non rugby fans in general) set up whattsapp groups sorting out tickets/hotels for any rugby matches, let alone all 3 tests.
This has been the easiest sell that I can ever remember among my “we go to big events” friends.
-
1 hour ago, Just Browny said:
RFL saying 50,000 signed up for pre-sales codes. Promising.
JB - perhaps I am being slow here, but does that mean that 50k have gone to the trouble of applying for the right to buy multiple tickets??? I hope so, but that sounds like extraordinarily good news.
-
I got invited by email, I assume because I bought World Cup tickets, as did my brother who did the hard graft for our family. He tells me it was an absolute doddle compared with RLWC21.
-
20 hours ago, PREPOSTEROUS said:
20 years ago mate, you might as well have gone back to the 1930s when 37k were crammed in (god knows where).
Re Salford, they nearly lost their licence because they were/are a financial basket case. Had Toulouse won tge GF rather than Trinity, Salford would likely be defunct right now rather than hanging on.
Of course it could be improved and financial projections should feature heavily, but while other factors can mask such matters, in the short term anyway, it wouldn't make a difference here. Besides Salford could've said we have a billion pound advertising screen and a consortium lined up to take over so all things are tickety-boo.
You had a bigger ground in the SL era. You now have a smaller one and are doing cartwheels for filling it. Even if you fill it every week - which you can’t even manage to do - you are still a drag on the average SL crowd figures. If that is success, the game is stuck in reverse.
-
Our Goodison group has tickets, so we will go to the ball. We are still trying to work out numbers for Wembley, but are less anxious about missing out on those. We have some for Headingley to watch the Aussies trying to salvage some pride.
Such a professional system. Take a bow Mr Moran.
-
1
-
-
On 29/03/2025 at 19:47, PREPOSTEROUS said:
You said Trinity were shrinking their stadium, you were wrong.
You had 11000 in your stadium in 2006. It is now smaller. It has shrunk.
My point here is this - the reasons IMG/this initiative are essential to our game are twofold:
- we need every club to lift its game all day every day so that the overall product is more valuable. It is attention to detail and requiring professionalism which is long overdue; and
- no one is better placed to take advantage of the increase in value than they are.
They are what matters. They are utterly compelling arguments, and it would be madness of the new review to turn their back on a hugely positive development in its infancy. We don’t need any more than that.
In particular, trying to assert that the game has been transformed for the better by IMG in 25 is to my mind unnecessary, absurd and therefore counterproductive. The crowds are a mix. Some clubs are thriving, some are struggling. None of that goes away from the need for long term improvements.
Finally, Taking Salford’s example - and this is what this thread is about. They were awarded a licence and they had no money to field a team.
I do not accept any argument which starts with the assumption that the assessment process cannot be improved. I believe it has to be revisited to make sure this doesn’t happen again. And I would ask a financial expert to do the work to do so.
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, Tommygilf said:
The clubs were given a framework which they accepted on principle that they needed, they chose to adapt it and how to manage it. They also made it very clear that on field matters (essentially the basis of Salford's position in SL) would have to take the largest proportion of the overall grade otherwise the system would not be accepted.
They then chose to not make the financials not a critical failing that ultimately would see Salford out of Super League - reducing the overall punishment for administration or liquidation.
The RFL's implementation of special measures over the past 18 months has not worked. Salford themselves have buried their heads in the sand and been allowed to do so by the administration (which includes the other clubs!).
None of this is IMG's doing, despite what you keep insisting at every opportunity.
The advisors should have highlighted what could happen so a proper risk assessment could be undertaken. The clubs made a decision which in retrospect had been shown to be a catastrophic failure. They were poorly advised - someone somewhere could have looked at Salford’s position and raised a red flag.
I made these points just now because somebody made a point which was critical of IMG, only to be greeted with a selection of everything good in the world has come from them. I offered a substantiated counter balance. I have repeatedly highlighted the vital role I think IMG can play in the future direction of the game, and will continue to do so.
I have read and heard nothing that persuades me that the assessment process wasn’t a catastrophic failure in Salford’s case.
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, PREPOSTEROUS said:
But that's obviously nothing to do with the standards that IMG criteria is driving!
Yes the new stand was in planning, but all the other bits Matt Ellis has paid to do wasn't, and it's that's what's put the cherry on top of what's been done so far.
Is your capacity greater or less than the average crowd that SL has regularly achieved? Is it greater or less than the minimum framing the future target that you were promising to get round to meeting decades ago?
By all means be happy with your club’s position. That’s your prerogative. If reducing your capacity so you can fill it is the level of ambition that the game now has in this “reimagined” world, then it is arguably not a step forward in the scheme of things.
The idea that it is somehow a ringing endorsement of how brilliantly things are going then I admire your Pollyanna view of life. It reminds me of the Brilliant character on the Fast Show.“8000 people! Brilliant!”
-
As Jonathan Davies would say about that try: “just simple basic rugby league”.
-
Just now, gingerjon said:
Difficult tightrope this. On the one hand, you have to find a way to blame IMG for what the clubs have done, on the other, you have to praise the clubs for their spirit of radical independence in calling out IMG.
You have no idea what I am trying to do, and why, and so make a baseless personal assertion. I have no idea what your problem is, but if you feel the need to project it on me, then I think you should talk it through with someone professional.
I was pointing out 2 things - there are those who never under any circumstances criticise IMG, and who instead ascribe anything that is “good” to them. You may be one of them, you may not be, I couldn’t care less.
As to what we have seen this year, the crowds overall are neither excellent nor hopeless. The idea that it is a triumph to sell all of 8000 tickets in a competition which has averaged around 10k per game deserves to be called out. It’s delusional.
The big stories this year so far have been Vegas and the brilliant organisation of the lions series: both club lead initiatives, and the never ending car crash at Salford, a catastrophic systematic failure, within weeks after they awarded a licence under the new arrangements.
I believe in the idea of hard work to drive up standards, I believe that IMG are an excellent choice to increase the saleability and value of the game. I believe that this process will take a long time, and that going away from it will be a catastrophic failure.
I believe that lessons have to be learnt from Salford’s demise under this system, and I believe that the clubs themselves do some excellent things, which are entirely unconnected with IMG.
-
9 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:
The clubs literally chose to change the criteria last year to make it so that an administration or liquidation (the only actual financial event that can be planned for) wasn't an automatic demotion from A to B or B to C. They knew exactly what they were doing and have adapted it subsequently to their needs.
You hold to the line that the if the clubs had known Salford was in this state they would have said yes, knock yourselves out? Because I have read nothing that is consistent with that. If you are arguing that the clubs made an ill advised decision without thinking through the consequences then that is something else. The thing about ill advised decisions is that it is on the adviser to give them stronger and better advice.
-
10 hours ago, dboy said:
What a weird take!
It's always subjective about what the standards of play are (I don't think you'll find many people saying it's not better already this year), but to suggest "there's no jeopardy" is bonkers.
Jeopardy - you'll lose your place in the team/the league is the fundamental argument used day in, day out!
No jeopardy, no stress, no progression.
How is it a weird take? There is no jeopardy on the pitch if you can score enough points elsewhere and we were subjected to the travesty of a sporting competition last year with a quarter of the teams basically not bothering with their teams’ performance.
-
2
-
-
10 hours ago, DEANO said:
Not sure about the playing standards. Hull last year. Cas Salford and Huddersfield this year. No jeopardy nowt to play for
There are some who think that the sun coming up is down to IMG. Trinity have shrunk their ground so it’s now small enough only to accommodate at most crowds below the average SL crowds for many years pre IMG. Which is apparently both a triumph and a sign of IMG genius.
-
10 hours ago, Tommygilf said:
They're consultants, they were consulted.
Do you think that they:
- held themselves out as people who knew what they were doing when devising the criteria/process and
- spotted and/or pointed out that their system would not flag up someone having no money in the account
I suspect that 1) they held themselves as having come up with a fit for purpose test, and 2) that the clubs reasonably did not anticipate that the system would not be designed to pick up the reality that a club unable to pay its players could get a licence because it is so bleeding obviously a catastrophic event which should prevent someone getting a licence.
This is clearly not how the system was understood by the clubs to work. Forget the stuff around they signed off on it. They relied on the people who put the test together to design and implement one that worked. This fiasco is on whoever designed or implemented the test, or Salford if they lied. Because the clubs were not advised to approve Salford’s place with full knowledge of what was coming next.
-
Looks like we have a game - they have named 16. We have included O’Neill and Field.
England v Australia 2025 - coming to the UK!
in The General Rugby League Forum
Posted
I agree. Plus, they simply didn’t know what the appetite would be for tickets of course. Sitting here and seeing the tickets flying out the door we can assert they should have had even bidder stadia and maybe more expensive tickets, but there was some guesswork and risk management at stake. Against that background, a blinder has been played.