Dave T

It does look more like colouring issues with the maps rather than a repricing necessarily. The only ones that look weird to me are the Club Wembley ones, but I havent kept an eye on them. If they've never had blocks on sale that's fine, I expect they havent increased prices in blocks theyve sold. They have history with recategorising prices, they did it at the World Cup if you recall, usually downwards.

I think they've got a new pack of markers and sorted the colouring out in reality. See also the £30 blocks that were coloured at £45 levels previously.

Maybe they have learnt something from Moran?

When comparing to the ticket map that was released a while ago, certain blocks are absolutely different. Sideline Club Wembley seats were previously advertised as £65 and are now £80 for example, and these as you mention were £80 and are now £150. Thay have fixed the incorrect lower tier colouring now tho.

I havent watched it all, but for parts of the first half we had plenty of possession and territory, but once again looked toothless. We just dont put teams under pressure by scoring points when we really should be. Its costing us in game after game after game. Burgess being a little obsessed with forwards, as Bennet was when he coached England always worried me and it is playing out.

Reported

I'm not sure on what grounds waving your arms would be a penalty. Sometimes fans just need to chill out a bit.

I get what youre saying, but I'm ok with the reduction in scarcity, as the South Stand could be pretty unpleasant when full. The addition of concourse and corner areas has made it a far better facility imo.

I.wouldmy describe it as the worst thing Wire ever did. Whilst the capacity is rarely tested, it has significantly.proved the quality of the ground and added capacity to certain areas. Wire have a far better ground now and is a good size.

The controversy is that the definition of grounding the ball includes your body above the waist. So you can ground the ball with your stomach. There is a further point that to ground it and force a drop out it needs to be an intentional grounding, which will then always add subjectivity to the decision. I'm OK with the decision applied here, but there is a generous interpretation to the Wire player that by getting his body in that position it allows for grounding with the body as a backup. Missing with your hands doesn't then negate anything after that. In other decisions we would rule that getting your body in a certain place signifies intent i.e. shepherding the ball in touch and it accidentally bounces into you. But as I say, im OK with the refs decision. What I do get frustrated by is the laws of the game being a bit of a mess. We ignore a grounding based on intent, but then ignore intentional knock ons as a penalty. There are probably a dozen or so things that you could go through in the laws that just aren't applied as written, and I dont see why we aren't trying harder to help people to understand the game and rules. Personally, im for grounding to be with the hands and keep it simple. We complicate things unnecessarily imo.

Yeah, I think that's why I like it, and a corner view of the pitch is quite nice if you have decent enough eye sight.

It was around the 20/30m area under the cameras, I assume that is for the athletics capability as you say. Either way, it felt a little cheap for a £115 seat!!!

Actually, I dont think that stacks up. At Everton both ends were £30/£35 and only towards the central blocks at the sides do they become £45/£60. In the Wembley lower tiers, out of 96 blocks, only 12 of them were priced below £45. The 50k capacity of lower Wembley was actually the most expensive of the three tests.

I was really surprised when I sat in the premium priced seats in the lower tier for the FA Cup Final a few years ago and the sections were retractable, meaning it had that temporary structure scaffolding feel. I must admit, I find the pricing at grounds like Wembley all over the place, and not just for RL events. I think a lot of it is down to preference, but look at the £65 tickets, you can sit two blocks away for only £30. I like a corner seat, its aesthetically pleasing and offers brilliant value for lower tier seats.

I'm not sure of your question. You'll see me saying I hope it is for that reason.

I do worry about some of the more expensive blocks tbh. They seem a bit sluggish so far. I'd be going all out to sell these ones. It's interesting to look at the pricing map for the England v Wales football friendly that month too. Most of the top tier is £25-35 a ticket, and there are a lot of reasonable prices in other areas.

I hope you're right. I just get the gut feeling that if ticket sales were so strong, and we have marketing budget to play with because we don't need to market 2 of the 3 matches, that we would have maintained our previously advertised prices. I'd have thought we use cheaper tickets as part of targeted campaigns. I hope I am being overly cynical here and this is purely a reflection of having a huge capacity to play with.

Quoting my reply again. This isn't the same thing at all. It is literally a completely different thing. Opening a new stand with the same prices as other stands is not controversial in the slightest. That's what they do at Old Trafford. And it's what they did with the £30. I'll say again - nobody has presented a single example of this strategy.

This is a niche chat in an RL forum. But still, nobody has presented a single example of any other event doing this. That is why its worthy of discussion imo. Its unusual tactics, and tbh, absolutely falls into mis-selling territory. Now it ain't a big issue here as there is no material harm to anyone. But irrespective of that technical discussion, the bigger thing at play here is that the tactic to push sales here is cheap tickets - which almost everyone who is discussing this has been critical of the RFL relying on over the years. The response to record breaking sales is to release cheap tickets. That doesn't stack up.

Indeed. There is nothing in the rulebook about attacker versus defender, this is always about intention. Its a poorly written rule.

Absolutely agree on the last paragraph. I've always had the approach that Ill pay what I can afford and care little if others are let in free or cheap. My use of the word dishonest is relevant, in that if they always planned this, which is what people are claiming, then they have been dishonest. I have more sympathy if its a change in pricing approach. I think it was always likely they would have to open the top tier as they always claimed they were looking to get a great crowd.

Thank you for making me look at an RU site, but this was in the ticket launch press release: "Once the pre-sale window ends at 9am on Monday, the general sale will begin at 10am, with ticket prices starting from €20."

Just to bring this back into proportion.... Your question really is: "But who are you annoyed on behalf of to the extent that you would discuss it on an RL chat forum?" Let's not make out that discussing something on TotalRL.com is any kind of over-reaction.

The issue is probably less prominent in a situation like this where it is such a major and extraordinary event, a lot of normal practices are not used. However we do see negative customer sentiment when prices are undercut, we don't need to pretend it isn't something that frustrates people. And let's be honest here, the practice is pretty dishonest. We announced prices for this event started at £30 and sold over 30k from then, and then 2 months later actually tell people that the prices start at £20, a 50% reduction. I can't think of another example of this, certainly not in major RL events. It isn't normal practice, and nobody has come up with an example of this. Tickets often become more expensive, not cheaper.

I think its an error too. They aren't good at attention to detail.