Jump to content

Adelaide Tiger

Coach
  • Posts

    1,591
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

5,670 profile views

Adelaide Tiger's Achievements

1.8k

Reputation

  1. The wife and I finally got round to watching the 3 episodes of ‘Time’. Cracking tv for me. First time that the wife had ever gone 3 hours without speaking. I have just emailed Jimmy McGovern to write another series ….. preferably one 24 episodes long next time!
  2. I am terrified of heights. Around the year 2000 I was completing a Post Grad course on day release and we had a field trip to London. Nobody said that part of the visit was to go to the top of Canary Wharf. I clung on to the rail in the lift for dear life whilst thinking of the drop if the cable snapped. On the observation deck I sat on the seating near the lifts pretending to act bored whilst bl00dy idiots put their foreheads against the window so they could see the street below. Then I cra@pped myself as we descended in the lift. It was only when we reached ground floor and exited the lift that the guide said ‘these lifts are fitted with six independent cables so if five snap the lift is still safe’. I thought why the hell didn’t he mention that half an hour ago.
  3. Now I understand how your experience shaped your reasoning. For myself I worked as part of a ‘Special Project Team’ within a Local Authority. The team was tasked with scoping out ideas from the community, developing a strategy/action plan and find the funding and manage the project. We had a budget of zero as the Council was strapped for cash so we had to be creative … which is unusual for a Council team. We took on whatever that was thrown at us ranging from Town Centre regeneration projects costing millions down to Christmas Light switch ons. We could only deliver by developing partnerships with organisations such as Regional Development Agencies, Funding bodies, individual Council Depts, external orgs etc. that had the skills, physical resources, contacts and funding that we lacked/needed. By using this process we delivered many physical projects. If we just waited for the Council to find the funding then hardly any project would have succeeded. And I see the RFL as being in the same position as the Council that I worked for.
  4. 1st para - you are not giving money away if it is money that the RFL is unable to generate. Show me any evidence that shows the RFL in their present guise can sell up to 90k in tickets as you suggest. Para 2 - just because the RFL cannot, or as DaveT alludes to, may choose not to put money in to sell those last 30k tickets does not mean they are impossible to sell. I have not said that you should just have a one-off campaign it should be a planned approach that is tweaked every year to keep the message fresh. Para 3 - I agree that ‘promotion’ is not the only answer and I agreed with you that a review and plan is required but ‘promotion’ is most certainly part of the answer Para 4 - totally agree. But anyone can develop a plan but then not have the skills to make it resonate with their intended audience. So to create your long term view - that I support - in the first few years you do need slick, exciting promotion and publicity that is light years beyond what the RFL have delivered so far. Once you get full houses then the ‘promotion’ can be less expensive. So that is where my suggestion about linking up with an organisation that specialises in this work is crucial. Para 5 - unless I have misunderstood this paragraph can you please point out where have I said that the Hearns, or any other such organisation, should be left to undertake, research and create a plan of action? That is the responsibility of the RFL - assisted by an independent company - to undertake. But whatever the RFL produces it certainly needs to be hyped by someone who understands how to do this. Para 6 - same response as para 5. Para 7 - I have the same opinion as you
  5. I am assuming that your use of the word cheap means that most of the ‘cheaper seats’ are sold well in advance of the Final. If those seats are sold at a proper price reflective of a premier event then what is the issue. It certainly is a challenge to sell the additional 30-35k to fill Wembley. I have no idea if it is feasible for an external organisation to take this up I am only offering ideas. But what you appear to be saying in your second paragraph - and apologies if I am wrong - is that it might cost the RFL an extra million to sell those 30-35k seats so that might be why we do not see a different approach. If that is anywhere near the reason then it speaks volumes of the leadership in the game who would rather see a one third empty stadium rather than try to fill it out. Look I do not have any agenda against the RFL. I am just trying to suggest that by linking up with external organisations that have strengths that the RFL may not have should be explored.
  6. I agree that there are more fundamental issues with the CC and that the RFL should lead the process and speak to its stakeholders but IMHO they also have to look outside of their organisation and engage with organisations who’s raison d’être is in presenting, promoting and publicity. As I stated in my previous post such organisations can assist the RFL but not lead the process. And the same process and engagement should be undertaken by SL clubs for the MW. I disagree with your comment that the RFL can do all the ‘short term tactical aspects’ because if they had those skills, expertise, strategy and funding then they would be doing that already. I also do not agree with your comment about giving up margin let only any equity. If an external partner can sell out Wembley, which the RFL currently cannot, then let the external partner have 100% of the income for all tickets sold over 60,000. 34k times £30 a ticket seems a good return. The RFL struggle to get over 60k so they lose nothing. In return full houses may change the perception of SKY and other investors to our game so the whole of the game may benefit financially. I believe that an organisation that has an excellent track record in promoting, publicising and creating profitable events should be part of the answer. Your last sentence just reaffirms what I said 2 posts ago. Yes, the people associated with the 2021 WC RFL have done extremely well but they have had 3 or 4 years to thoroughly work through all elements and had funding to assist them. But I will repeat myself by saying that the RFL apparently does not have the financial and Human Resources to address what we are discussing. Therefore my solution would be to work with new partners to lessen the cost to the RFL. Anyway it’s bed time now so enjoy your day.
  7. Thanks for you response but a strange thing just happened. In preparing a response to your guesstimate about CC crowds I put a search into Google to find a FOI request that someone had put to Brent Council that I found a few years ago where the FOI response stated that the attendance for the 2017 CC Final between Hull and Wigan was actually 54,000 and not 68,000 that included the Club Wembley seats. I found the FOI link BUT to my surprise one of the top listings was a link to the Totalrl.com site and that link took me to a topic titled ‘Is Wembley the only venue for the CC Final’ that I started on 11 December 2018 based in the fact that possibly the 2 biggest teams in the game could only fill just over half the capacity. You were the 5th person to respond giving a passionate ‘No’ to my question stating that it would be a ‘pretty damning and symbolic decision’. You also stated that the ‘RFL, Super League and clubs need to come up with new ideas …. to make this sport relevant and to connect with new audiences’. Obviously you still believe that it is a RFL problem. So in all honesty do you see any progress because quite frankly I don’t. How long are you prepared to wait before a hoped for response from the RFL? because it is my fear is that it will not eventuate without external assistance and meanwhile the non-committed RL viewer - and remember that SKY want more eyes watching our game - might be left with the perception that the vast banks of empty seats demonstrates that few people care about attending our premier events.
  8. In responding to the opening post I stated that I would not be adverse in involving - not giving - the Hearn’s the opportunity to try to increase interest in the MW and CC Final as both of these events present a poor image to viewers in terms of large banks of unused seating. And I would offer them a large cut of the extra income generated for attendances above a certain level. Then you raised a pertinent point - which I agree with - that the 2013 WC and 2021 WC had been/will be well managed because the lead organising team had both money and time. But you also hit the nail on the head. Having money and time, along with an appropriate level of skilled staff involved in the day to day running at RFL HQ is something that IMHO the RFL lack. So does one just wait and hope that the RFL are able, at some point in time, to somehow increase their resources to enable them to increase attendances at some of our premier events, or, does the RFL offer financial incentives as I stated in my opening paragraph to encourage organisations - that may or may not include Matchroom - to be involved and shorten the timescale with little financial risk to the RFL by offering financial incentives rather than making a large payment up front? Which do you think is the most logical approach? Or do you have an alternative P.S. In respect of your final point. If the RFL worked with an external organisation and managed to shift 50% of all the CC Final tickets before the Finalists are known then you greatly limit the impact if for example Catalans reach another final. Or we can just moan about the attendance if nothing is done.
  9. IMHO the Hearns are very good at promoting one-off events I.e. Premier League Darts is a series of one-off events staged around the UK and Europe as the Hearns do not expect people to attend every Thursday night. The boxing events are also one-off events. So I would have no issue if the Hearns were asked to promote the Magic Weekend and the Challenge Cup Final. Both events, as proved over the last few years, are around 70% of capacity. So if supporters of clubs competing cannot fill the grounds then the only option is to attract people, especially those living in the region where the events are staged, to the event. I would say to the Hearns ‘The Magic Weekend attracts around 68,000 - full capacity over both days gives a total of 104,000. So you can have 80% of the income from any figure above that attendance’. If they succeed the game gains a very positive outcome for little risk.
  10. I am assuming/hoping it’s a 3pm kick off as it is listed as starting at 11.25pm on Foxtel tonight and we are eight and a half hours ahead of the UK.
  11. I hope nobody has a go at me because I will be watching/recording the games on the box.
  12. Thanks POR for posting that. It looked like two well matched teams. The first Cardiff try would have graced any game. Also the couple of kicks resulting in tries was light years ahead of what the Cas half-backs served up on the weekend.
  13. Really good news as it seems to be a natural progression in their evolvement. So cue existing SL clubs who will see them and Toulouse as a threat to pull up the drawbridge.
  14. In the sentence that you highlighted I did state that it benefits supporters at the game by giving them a break to discuss what has happened. Also if someone has taken a newbie to a game it also gives an opportunity to explain to the newbie what has occurred. And if you are at a televised game you will have the opportunity to view an incident during a natural break instead of having to glimpse up at the screen to see a brief reply whilst the game continues. I acknowledge that those attending games are the lifeblood of the game but just as important is the need to attract the floating TV viewer and encourage them to keep watching. Therefore part of that TV experience is to offer an insight into an exciting play, awarding of a penalty or a controversial incident and explain clearly what has occurred. On many occasions at the moment we have a summariser trying to chip in with a quick comment which sometimes the commentator talks over because the game is continuing or the comment is incorrect because they have only seen the incident from one angle. All I am saying is that IMHO the game does not need to reach warp speed to be more attractive.
  15. I hope that this makes sense. IMHO the administrators are so wrapped up with increasing the speed of the game I.e. no scrums, reducing stoppages with the 6 again rule so that bits of brilliance can get lost in 10 minutes of continuous play. In every game of football if something special happens the fans at the ground know that they will have the opportunity to show their appreciation a few seconds later when a natural stoppage occurs and viewers can see a TV replay. Unlike in RL where they try to cram in a reply during a play the ball and the commentator is trying to describe what happened whilst also trying to commentate on the live action. What I am suggesting is that a more continuous, speeded up game does not mean it is a better spectacle. So in RL, more natural breaks gives time for replays with a better explanation of what happened, especially for floating and new viewers, and also give supporters at the game time to digest, discuss and appreciate what happened. So to balance the speed of the game I would introduce scrums for knock ons but keep the 6 again rule for the minor technical infringements as at present. Also any infringement on the first play the ball, which is creeping into the game, should result in a penalty and a five minute sin bin. Finally I would have 4 substitutions per game. Once a player is subbed then that’s it. The only exception is that a player can return for a blood bin or HIA replacements. This will bring in a fatigue element to open up the game for the backs.
×
×
  • Create New...