Jump to content

Hull Kingston Bronco

Coach
  • Posts

    2,310
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    13

Everything posted by Hull Kingston Bronco

  1. Yeah the problem is that needed to be done on the period 12-4 weeks out from the final. The general rule of thumb for major events is that what you’ve sold with 4 weeks to go will be >50% of total sales. So if you’ve not sold 50% of your target before then, you can’t reach it. The marketing volume needs to be much earlier. We rely far too much on sales to the finalists in the 7 days before the match.
  2. Yeah Tier 3 in the North Stand is awful, could safely parachute down to the pitch it's so high, and can't even see the South Stand from the seats so it feels like a restricted view (even though you can see all the pitch). God knows why they made the roof come down so severely in front of it like that... although it does mean you can't see the empty seats on telly!!
  3. It's based on models which project likely sales outcomes based on sales to-date. Alternate rows don't exactly limit choice - being one row back or forward from your "perfect" row is no difference at all. The issue is generating more interest and demand so that you don't need to dress the stadium for TV. Doing the latter doesn't stop you doing the former. It certainly doesn't reduce ticket site visitors propensity to buy if they come to the site and see those graphics. They've got the site visit data on that, and so would stop doing it if it did.
  4. I don't think this is black & white. My comment relates specifically to this match, at this venue. I agree we need to provide the customer with choice, but as a United member trust me there's no advantage to being in East/West Upper versus the back of the lower tier: The top of the lower tier is higher than any back-row seat at the DW. The Upper Tier view isn't great. If I was you I'd be more concerned that Wigan are selling seats by the block then, so you're unable to choose which row you're in (without queuing up at the ticket office)
  5. If there's been a more petty act by the disciplinary committee this season then I must have missed it. I understood the first ban, it's not the committee's fault we have the policy of club bans being served in internationals (that should be changed, but it's not theirs to change), but to double a ban merely in annoyance at your judgement being questioned strikes me as spiteful nonsense.
  6. Got promoted into Yorkshire Regional One last month! https://x.com/hullkrofficial/status/1703389589312766353?s=20
  7. "80 year old fan donates to the sport because RL Commercial can't do their job and sell multiple sponsorship properties to anyone else" There, I've fixed the headline. I think it's great what Fred does for the game, and we should be grateful, but let's not pretend this isn't failure.
  8. Ah cool. Couldn't remember. Wasn't a fan of them either to be honest, but at least they weren't as soul crushingly futile as 7th place and 9th place play off games. I mean, who goes to a World Cup and says... "what I'm really wanting to know is, who comes 9th?"
  9. I was talking about 2008, which didn't have cross-group games. It had the winners of B and C playing off in a "quarter final" to determine which one of them went into the semi final with the top 3 from A. It then had cross-group games to determine who finished 7th versus 8th (B2 vs B2), and 9th versus 10th (C3 vs C3). Those were the meaningless games I was referring to. If this is an 18 match comp, the 2008 model is the only one that fits, so they're planning to do that nonsense again. 2017 had 14 teams, and I think was the comp with cross-group games?
  10. The 4/3/3 format with a doomed 4th team in the "supergroup" and daft 7/8 and 9/10 meaningless play-offs was absolutely awful last time. Who in their right mind would repeat it? I totally get that two groups of 5, with its 7-week duration, isn't realistic in the window we have. Probably isn't even sensible anyway, the current Union WC feels like it's gone on forever. But in the 1995 10-team World Cup's 4/3/3 format worked fine, 15 games over 5 weeks. Yes you get less matches, but you only lose the meaningless ones nobody wants anyway. Why on earth wouldn't you do that? The proposed 'supergroup' model's extra 3 games are of no value, at all. I was at the 2008 Fiji/Ireland "quarter final" in the Gold Coast, there were only about 4,000 rattling around in Robina... and the 7/8 and 9/10 playoffs were watched by two men and a dog too, one of them almost literally having been organised on a park pitch in Rockhampton.
  11. The key difference is this: You didn’t see me on here moaning about being unfairly treated, or whinging about it. Featherstone fans don’t get to have it both ways. Featherstone tried to buy their way into the elite comp, playing the current system as much as they could. Fair enough, give it a go. But they failed. You don’t get to moan about it afterwards. The *current* system is unfair to many other Championship clubs, what Featherstone did is unfair to those clubs. So moaning that some new system is now unfair to you doesn’t carry much weight does it?
  12. You don’t like the IMG model, and instead want promotion based on results on the pitch. That’s resulted in a London or Toulouse option, so I assuming you’ll be very happy with either!
  13. Nothing wrong with pointing out things that could be improved. Good businesses are interested in that stuff. I think ticket sales will go well, and the stadium will look good despite the Cats end probably looking half empty. Wigan will sell their end, and with North top tier being off sale it looks like the rest of the ground will be almost full too. I'd forecast 60k+. Doesn't mean we can't hope our clubs and governing body could be better organised though.
  14. Why on earth would you not sell the lower bowl, which is in the TV arc, first before you sold the upper tier? These are decisions that 14 year old GCSE Business Studies students could make a better job of making within their marketing project this term.
  15. The fact that a club of Wigan's size can't get their act in order to enable to choose your own seats for the Grand Final is a pretty shocking indictment of that club's commercial operation. That's 1999 levels of technology. This is an example of a reason why Super League should consider embracing whole-of-league tech platforms, with all clubs using the same partner. Hull KR run their ticketing system with Ticketmaster's tech, which the RFL use, and that enabled us to choose tickets seat-by-seat for the Challenge Cup Final, whilst other rows in the same section were "unavailable" but instead "available" on the RFL ticket site. That is tech focused on delivering an optimal customer experience. No doubt if Wigan had partnered with Ticketmaster, the same would have been possible. Even without that, Wigan should have a platform able to spin up a replica of the blocks they have, for customers to choose their own seats. Leigh managed that for the Cup Final, not being a Ticketmaster partner. Why would you place unnecessary barriers in front of customers who you want to purchase things? Madness.
  16. Exactly. From this sort of low base, with competent leadership and effective stakeholder management it's more than possible to double Super League TV rights. That's probably why IMG have taken the "slice of upside" commercial model. But whether the complex, counter-productive politics of rugby league will allow anything anywhere near that is the real question eh. Personally I doubt it very much.
  17. This is a good point. There's no point blowing £500k for one season in order to reach Super League, if you haven't got the £3m required to solidify yourself there. It's a bit of a fools errand, and as others on here have said is there much in it for fans to watch their team get battered for 27 weeks the next year? If you can afford to build a more long term plan, you can still move up the pyramid - perhaps even more so in the new model. That's one reason why Toulouse might be a better bet than London next season, I'm not sure Hughes has the resources (or inclination) any more to be able to do what would be needed next season.
  18. I'm happy with Hull KR's plan. But then I'm not the one saying "life isn't fair because I tried to buy my way to promotion and it didn't work"
  19. An expansion teams inability to build long-term plans because of the constant fear of relegation is indeed one of the arguments to remove "basic" P&R, yes. Instead of paying Henry Paul £200k per year, the Broncos could have invested that in youth, or in marketing. That was just one player, in one season... but it happened countless times. With some security of tenure, the club could have stayed in one location for longer by building stronger partnerships. Or even investing in their own ground! David Hughes spent over £20m keeping Broncos in Super League. Imagine how differently that money could have been spent, and what different types of outcomes we might have seen? There's no guarantee the outcome would have been any different, but what we do know is the way we did it before certainly didn't deliver a great one.
  20. This argument basically boils down to "under the old system you could buy your way into the league by paying for a squad that plays at a different level to anyone else in the comp" Well my view is that's an unfair, and irrational, way of deciding which teams get into the top league. It certainly isn't an equal 'sporting' outcome. Nor does it bear any relationship to an assessment of which clubs will make the elite league better, or more valuable. Why are Featherstone better than Halifax, or Bradford, or whoever? "Because a bloke wants to spend money for a couple of years" doesn't strike me as the most compelling answer to that question.
  21. I agree, it's what happens in all sports. But you can't then come on here and say "the world isn't fair" or "the new IMG system is wrong because it hasn't got a level playing field" when the way you want to go about it is just as unfair to other teams. If not more so. It just happens to work for you.
  22. What, in sympathy with Fev? Because those "non fashionable" clubs, as you call them, never had a 'fair' chance at promotion under the old system either. Because teams like yours were always just trying to buy it. Nothings changed for them.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.