Jump to content

Dave T

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Dave T

  1. This is the big question for me. What do they think had changed in the game of RL that meabt they could up their prices by a huge amount? What exactly was the rationale behind price increases? Since 2013 we haven't done anything special. We've carried on staging a few internationals here and there at cheap prices. Suddenly charging £70 for a top seat at Wire wasn't part of a strategy and hadn't been earned.
  2. It brings us to another example of competitive vs non - in 2013, the 'big quarter final' was the Samoa v Fiji game, that got the same as yesterday. That is clearly the amount you will get at that ground. So we would probably expect 16k+ at Leeds. But we are also in a place where we can't just play everything at Leeds. Clearly Hudds and Hull have demonstrated little appetite for modest games in their big grounds.
  3. Tonga v Samoa - 12.6k. It was good, but not much different to Aus v Scotland and actually lower than NZ v Ireland in Leeds for example. It's right that we try and improve competitiveness, but I'm not sure structure change is the right way to go. It is interesting that RL fans always criticise authorities for focusing on structure changes, but fans jump straight to that mindset too.
  4. Absolutely, we review our targets quarterly based on the current situation, market etc. I've no issues with that. I think I posted about a page or two back, the 750k isn't that important here, it's the lack of growth in attendances. There is no ambiguity in the fact that this was meant to smash all records in terms of crowds and be the biggest WC ever. In reality, we may get around what we did in 2013 if we sell every ticket available now (and hopefully we will). I also made the point that missing the 750k target wouldn't have been such an issue if any form of crowd growth was there. I think 550k would have been a good result, 650k excellent and 750k out of this world. It can be spun by people, but RLWC themselves will be disappointed with these crowds, without question. They hired bigger grounds and opened every area, they didn't expect many games to be played in front of 50% capacity or lower. One of the success criteria they quite from 2013 was that they had 76% occupancy. I think at best we will be 60% this time, and that's mainly due to the bigger events. Whichever target people cherry-pick, the attendances have not been good.
  5. If we do want to be generous and allow for the rewriting of the target to become 'stretch target' - hey we've all lowered our targets haven't we? - then we do at least need to hold them to the claims that they will exceed the last one in the UK and the women's euros. Even in October organisers were still saying they would beat these.
  6. 750k is used in article after article after article yes.
  7. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theroar.com.au/2020/10/23/contingency-plans-set-up-for-the-rugby-league-world-cup/amp/
  8. There are many, many articles which talk about the 750k target. You have found an interview with Dutton that was pretty recent and sales were struggling.
  9. Broadly agree, but I dont think the saturation point can be discounted, I think that's a biggie. Whilst we still had plenty in the North, Rochdale and Halifax for example were real positives and have been replaced by more games in Wire, Saints, Leigh and Doncaster.
  10. I don't think we need to kneejerk and change structure again, Id rather we have a plan to make teams more competitive and focus on events rather than the on-field being so important. But if we were to go down the restcuture route, having three qualify from a group of four isn't great. If anything the 3rd placed teams should have to meet the 2bd place from the lesser groups to get through. The 2008 WC had three qualifying from a group of four and I didn't like it one bit tbh.
  11. Your first sentence isn't necessarily true at all. Higher ticket prices means we will have more revenue than 2013. It doesn't mean we will make money.
  12. Yep, he had a great tournament as a leader, and was clearly frustrated with his team. It's why I don't mind the interviews, sure you are going to get a lot of stock answers at times, but you also do at the start and the end of a game (dare I say it, players are not always that interesting to interview!) - but I do think it gets us closer to players, and we will get the odd one like this, or even the stuff that Jake Mamo came up with in the past. It's all good as far as I'm concerned.
  13. The narrative seems to be changing that getting anywhere near 2013 would be ok. Let's be clear here, that is being used as a benchmark simply because it gives us a comparison point - but it is of no relevance when it comes to paying the bills this year. And let's also be clear on what missing the targets could mean for us. 1. Millions of quid of less income versus on target. 2. A Government partner that has invested millions and hasn't had the reach it was promised. A failure. 3. Sponsors who haven't had the crowds and experience they were promised. 3. Host towns haven't had the footfall and financial benefits they were promised. 4. Host grounds won't have had the ancillary sales they expected. 5. Lower merchandise sales - it goes without saying we sell less at events with 6k instead of 12k attending. These things have an impact, it isn't just a case of saying 'ah well, maybe next time...'. Because next time, it will be harder to get councils and host towns to put their money where their mouth is and bid for RLWC.
  14. Yesterday was probably excellent evidence against your idea. We saw that at £40 the South Stand has been empty all tournament, yet at £25 it was full (accepting that like-for-like is difficult). If your idea was to charge the lowest price around the stadium, it would maybe work in getting bums on seats, but not financially. If your idea is to charge £40 everywhere (the number you quoted the other day) - then the evidence is that the South and West would have been far emptier. Let's not risk this getting locked by discussing your club - but I am genuinely interested to see how it works there. Hey, if it's a roaring success, maybe it will become something we use. My personal view is it won't, but let's see.
  15. To address @GeordieSaint's point too, it all ultimately depends on financials. There are a lot of assumptions in the below, but to look at it from a fag packet point of view.... We have paid the IRL £xm. It all depends on what the commercial arrangement was for the rest of the tournament. For me, an RLWC should be a not-for-profit, with all funds going into IRL coffers, so we could work on the assumption that the £xm is just a guarantee, and any further profit made goes into the IRL pocket. The challenge then is what the break even number actually is. I'd be surprised if 750k is the break even, as that really is a bold target. But I'd also be stunned if break even was set at 458k, as we have never contemplated only getting such a low number (until the tournament started and reality kicked in). So we can probably assume that break even is somewhere between those two numbers. And we should also remember that there are other income streams - but they are locked down well in advance of kick off. I do think we are probably struggling to 'break-even' bearing in mind that that is after we have paid IRL - I can't believe that a business plan would have been signed off based on achieving 440k fans when the public targets were 750k - I can't think of any board that would accept that. Whilst people console themselves that the final may make more than 2013, that means nowt, it is versus the current budget that is important. For every 100k fans missed, that will probably have an impact of maybe £3m on the P&L. That is huge - when you consider that had we hit the 750k, we may have had an additional £9m in revenue. Whether that was going to be additional income for the IRL, or whether that was to balance the books - I suppose we will find out. But we do know how quickly these things turn sour. It is a numbers game - the biggest income stream is probably ticket income. Missing the targets by a substantial amount has a huge impact. Spin doesn't pay the bills. It didn't in 2000.
  16. Who is completely ignoring it? I'll tell you who - the organisers who are charging £70 for some seats at games. And we haven't lost between 15-20% of attendees, this isn't 2013 - the target for this is 750k, not 458k.
  17. If every other tournament went with seeding, England would have played Aus or NZ in the semi final. As well as literally always playing Oz and/or NZ in the group stages too. Literally every time. I'm a big fan of trying to shake things up and create some different fixtures and world cup memories. The biggest example of handpicking fixtures and rigging it has been 2008 where England qualified for the semis from 3rd in the group after getting beat by Oz and NZ in the group stage. We decided on the format a while back and have been transparent that the draw has two sides with no crossover.
  18. It was a relatively quick interview, but it does show that not everyone just goes with the stock answers. I like them tbh.
  19. He was basically raging, he had a right rant about how they'd played. I enjoyed seeing his raw rage/passion.
  20. Things we do know. Dutton claims the tournament is running to breakeven. Dutton said the target for crowds was 750k. That is quite a big clue that breakeven is at risk.
  21. It wouldn't be 38k. The 458k isn't any kind of real target, it's simply the number that we got 9 years ago, so people are using it as a benchmark. If we get 420k, the shortfall is 330k sales. Of course none of us know what they have in their financial model, so the breakeven could be 500k, or 600k, or 750k - but there is no indication that breakeven is the 458k. In fact it is very unlikely, as it would be weird that breakeven just so happened to be that 458k number. It's why @Leonard's point that we make more money doesn't give any comfort. The budget won't be against something that happened 9 years ago, the budget was set a couple of years ago, and we are missing one KPI by an absolute mile. We may have made £5m more in gate receipts this tournament, but it is still a disaster if we have had to pay IRL £4m more and costs are £3m higher.
  22. I enjoyed Ash Golding's interview at half time of the Jamaica v Lebanon game at Leigh
  23. Just caught up with it, very good turnout, treated to what looked likt a great afternoon's entertainment!
  24. Thanks. It's possibly the worst piece of refereeing I've ever seen. Thankfully it wasn't crucial.
  25. What actually happened there? I only saw it at the ground, but what did Moore actually think had happened?
  • Create New...