Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Dunbar

  1. 3 hours ago, gingerjon said:

    So the issue is more that Harry's grandson is subscribing to the wrong channel?

    Let's not be too harsh on Harry's grandson here, it is easier to do than you think. 

    I was halfway through the  game this morning when I noticed that Kim Kardashian was playing for the Panthers against the Eels... turns out I was watching the E! Channel by mistake.

  2. 16 minutes ago, Damien said:

    Football is immensely popular as we all know. I don't think Belgian Football not being shown is a reflection of a lack of popularity. Its just not very good compared to the Football we have here.

    That's a funny example to back up your point.  Bundesliga, Major League Soccer, Serie A, Primeira Liga and Ligue 1 are all shown on subscription tv here.  This is an example of the popularity of football in this country, not a refection of the relative quality of these leagues or popularity of these leagues in their home countries.

  3. What I find interesting about the original post is that a New Zealand sports subscription channel ceasing to broadcast Rugby League from another country is perceived to be a problem with the source country when the reality is that it is a reflection on the popularity of Rugby League in New Zealand. 

    If Sky stopped broadcasting the NRL over here, it wouldn't be because of how well or poorly the NRL was performing in Australasia but how popular it was in the UK and the volume of people consuming it.

    This is a worrying update for Rugby League.  But in New Zealand, not the UK.

    • Like 16
  4. 1 hour ago, gingerjon said:

    Almost certainly and I doubt it's even close with any of the alternatives we might come up with.

    I think this is right. Most of the alternative suggestions took place before the poll was made or subsequently occurred behind a firewall so didn't penetrate the national consciousness.

    Maybe the NZ World Cup semi would have traction but I doubt it.  After that I can only think of the Ben Flower send off that may be infamous enough to be included.

    • Like 1
  5. 19 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

    This is the pricing for Bristol RU - a club with a traditionally working class support base - for one game.

    So much relevance in this one sentence. 

    Bristol may have had a working class support base but now they will be selling themselves as the Rugby Union experience in the city and with that will come an assumption that they will attract a different (or should I say complementary) demographic who don't see price as a barrier... in fact they would see price as some indicator of quality or prestige.

    This is where Rugby League has its eternal dilemma around our identity.  We are rightly proud of our heritage and our connections to the communities in the North of England but at the same time we see this as a demographic that won't spend big on tickets and broadcast partners and sponsors see this as a demographic that doesn't have that disposable income to sell into.

    You can see from the World Cup partnersand sponsors attracted that we can break out of this but that is for the biggest event we offer and not the regular club games.

    I say it is a dilemma because even of we could break out of this fixed demographic, would we want to, is it not the heart and soul of the game?

    • Like 4
  6. 25 minutes ago, Damien said:

    This got me thinking does any club do anything like a best of both worlds option? For example something like a season ticket/membership whereby you pay £80, for example, then pay a small amount for tickets thereafter, say £5. The club still gets upfront money and fans can spread the cost, still get a discount overall and only pay for the matches they go to. It also gets away from the season ticket culture, that has made it difficult to sell matches that aren't covered by a season ticket, without making individual matches ridiculously expensive.

    In order for that to work I think you would look at a club membership approach where a membership fee (up front) would get you discounts on game tickets, merchandise etc.

    • Like 1
  7. The commercial model for season tickets is interesting.  Firstly, they are very good for clubs because they provide guaranteed income for the year which is good for financial planning and also they are a 'pre-payment' which is very good for cash flow and so welcome in that regard.  A high number of season ticket sales would also be a powerful tool in negotiation with or attracting new sponsors or partners as you can use the 'reach' that you have to these people to sell the story.  All things being equal, high season ticket sales for any club is a good thing.

    From a commercial planning perspective, purely for income (taking away the less tangible benefits described above) then there is always a balance between the price of the season ticket and how many games a fan would attend with or without the season ticket and you would expect clubs to model this with a lot of sensitivity as it is a key commercial decision.

    A back of a fag packet calculation:

    If you sell 5,000 season tickets at £125 each then that is £625k cash in the bank.

    If you were trying to attract those same 5,000 fans on a game by game basis then attendance at 4 games a year paying £30 for a ticket would be £600k and so the season ticket provides better cash flow and more revenue.

    But as soon as you get to 7 games attended then you are at £1.05M and for 10 games attended it is £1.5M.

    So the question is, can a club commit to the efforts required to sell those tickets on a game by game basis - or indeed raise the price of the season ticket - to see that extra revenue.  I would say yes as the differences we are talking about here are significant - an extra £875k for fans attending 10 games a year at 'normal' ticket prices.  You could buy some decent talent into a business to 'sell' the game day experience for that.  And then you would be managing a growing business with all of the benefits that brings.

    (p.s. this is reply just on the commercial model of season tickets, not a critique of the Giants)

    • Like 3
  8. 48 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

    To those who go along to Leigh games, agree or disagree with the comments he made, it definatley had some effect.

    Is that for the last win?  I don't think that is a very sustainable model for performance management - lambasting the player group in the programme every game and hoping for a reaction.

    48 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

    As for your last sentance, do you honestly really believe that, are you saying that in any buisness when some employees require chastising or even dismissal it is down to the leadership of the company? If so you must believe that everyone has the same work ethic, the same loyalty, the same skill set, the same attitude, nobody ever throws a sickie, or does not give their all to the company, welfare all different from each other Dunbar, it is not always the fault of the man at the top.

    Again, as I have said previously on this thread, there is a significant difference between leadership and management.

    Management (in any organization) should be responsible for identification and management of underperformance or poor attitude.  In this sense, this will be the coaching staff.

    But leadership is all about setting tone and culture to ensure that those who perform thrive and ensure that teams recognize that individual contributions matter.  If a business has a high sickness rate then some of this will absolutely be down to the leadership as the culture of the business has either facilitated that or allowed it to happen. 

    Leaders set standards and demand performance but they do this with the right people (management) at the right time in the right place (behind closed doors).  What they do in public is different - they enthuse and motivate and set a vision that people want to follow. 

    At least the best leaders do.  The worst leaders blame and harangue and instill a toxic culture that I guarantee will permeate across the whole organization.

    • Like 3
  9. 7 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

    So very very true, but it is when that last sentance comes into question that comments are made.

    I think this goes to the heart of the conversation Harry.

    Some will say that Beaumont's comments in the programme were warranted as he has every right to question the efforts of his players.

    Others (and I am in this camp) say that the efforts of the players reflect the culture of the overall organization and how the players are valued and supported.

    When Beaumont criticizes the players he is essentially criticizing his own leadership.

    • Like 2
  10. 2 minutes ago, Tabby said:

    I close my case as obviously none of you have any answers that carry merit.

    The sole reasons RL is in the place it is, is down to the fact you ridicule others to keep the dream alive. Clubs tow the line to keep their heads in the trough.

    You are willing to sit back and watch it! Where as others are willing to challenge it.

    If you want perfection then bin SL.





    This was the final paragraph in the programme but had to be cut for space.

    • Haha 3
  • Create New...