Super League finals crowds are dire, especially compared to NRL

[boxhead]

Quality over quantity and yet you're suggesting we have an advantage over the Aussies? They have something like 4 times more registered RL players than we do.

Registered Club players?

Is that including Juniors?

Where are those figures from Max.

[TheObserver]

I know it goes against the grain on here but i think the OP is correct and the point is very worthy of discussion....

The play-off games, mean more, are more intense and of a higher standard and yet draw much less than the regular season.., yet the opposite is true in the NRL..surely we should be at least having a look at the possible reasons..., clubs are missing out on literally hundreds of thousands of pounds of income...

Australian RL authorities only instituted regular finals series and Grand Finals since 1954. Australia has had 44 more years than England to build the tradition with fans.

Another factor could be the length of the season. The regular season began in February (late January for two clubs), with no pre-scheduled byes, so fans may decide to take a break. The NRL season only begins in the second week of March, five weeks later than Super League, with two byes built in.

[Blind side johnny]

Interestingly the play-offs in the Championship attracted the same sort crowds as normal league matches, and this will include a fair sprinkling of neutrals.

Maybe the comparisons are based upon too smal a sample to be valid. When we're all down on our uppers next year will be the time to be really concerned.

(btw RU authorities are already expressing concern about the slump in gates for their first few matches this season, which might more accurately reflect the economic crisis (sic).)

[dallymessenger]

stolen from another forum

2010 ESL (6 matches so far)

Total = 67370 (11228/match)

2009 ESL finals (First 6 matches)

Total = 42499 (7'083/match)

If anything.. The matches for the finals have increased.

They have increased by 24'871 Or 58.52%!!!

[Bulliac]

Australian RL authorities only instituted regular finals series and Grand Finals since 1954. Australia has had 44 more years than England to build the tradition with fans.

That's not really true though, since play-offs have been used, with occasional interruptions, to decide the champions in England for most of the game's history and only relatively new fans, from the start of Summer rugby, maybe, would regard play offs as something 'new'.

Various systems have been used over the years, from the top four up to up to the top sixteen teams playing off (there was just the one division of 32 clubs at the time). In the years before the move to Summer, and the SL era, in a two division system, this had become separated from the championship (which, at that point was decided on a top of the league basis) and the play offs were known as the Premiership. This competition had the same problem with attracting crowds though.

[Steve May]

The English equivalent would be to hold Leeds vs Wigan at Elland Road and St Helens vs Huddersfield at Reebok Stadium, Bolton. They would not sell out, but I suspect that they would get a lot more fans than will go to either Knowsley Road's dreadful stadium (how many dozen neutrals would be motivated to go there?) or to Headingley.

You've obviously never been to Elland Road then. It's a cackhole.

Your idea won't work in the UK for lots of reasons.

In any case, I suspect Knowsley Road will be pretty full this weekend and then it will be gone, so your particular point about that doesn't stand.

[Steve May]

Australian RL authorities only instituted regular finals series and Grand Finals since 1954. Australia has had 44 more years than England to build the tradition with fans.

An excellent book to educate yourself on this topic.

For the vast majority of the history of the game in the UK the Champions have been decided by winning a play-off.

[TheObserver]

That's not really true though, since play-offs have been used, with occasional interruptions, to decide the champions in England for most of the game's history and only relatively new fans, from the start of Summer rugby, maybe, would regard play offs as something 'new'.

Various systems have been used over the years, from the top four up to up to the top sixteen teams playing off (there was just the one division of 32 clubs at the time). In the years before the move to Summer, and the SL era, in a two division system, this had become separated from the championship (which, at that point was decided on a top of the league basis) and the play offs were known as the Premiership. This competition had the same problem with attracting crowds though.

Bulliac and Steve, you are both correct. However the league leader system to decide champions was used from 1973-74 to 1997, for 25 consecutive seasons, so perhaps for some supporters of the game, it had become the norm, so it can take time to change people's attitudes. However, 4 posts back, Dallymessenger listed stats that showed a 58% increase in finals crowds from last year.

I posed the question in my earlier post whether the length of the season and finals might lead to fans taking a break from attending in early rounds of finals.

[ParisSurtout]

You've obviously never been to Elland Road then. It's a cackhole.

You're obviously wrong, because I've been to Elland Road twice.

I wouldn't call Elland Road a cackhole because then I wouldn't have a word left to desribe Knowsley Road or Belle Vue, which are much worse places to sit (if you can without soiling your pants) than Elland Road.

Your idea won't work in the UK for lots of reasons.

In any case, I suspect Knowsley Road will be pretty full this weekend and then it will be gone, so your particular point about that doesn't stand.

I cannot imagine why my point doesn't stand. My point was that Reebok Stadium at Bolton would attract a lot more Huddersfield and neutral fans than Knowsley Road will. Those people would be happier at Bolton.

[TheObserver]

I cannot imagine why my point doesn't stand. My point was that Reebok Stadium at Bolton would attract a lot more Huddersfield and neutral fans than Knowsley Road will. Those people would be happier at Bolton.

The Challenge Cup semi finals are held at neutral venues very year.

[Steve May]

I cannot imagine why my point doesn't stand. My point was that Reebok Stadium at Bolton would attract a lot more Huddersfield and neutral fans than Knowsley Road will. Those people would be happier at Bolton.

It wouldn't.

Other than the quality of the stadium, which won't be an issue after Saints move, why would a neutral prefer to go to the Reebok than Saints home ground. Why would a Huddersfield fan prefer to go to the Reebok rather than Saints?

[Marty Funkhouser]

stolen from another forum

2010 ESL (6 matches so far)

Total = 67370 (11228/match)

2009 ESL finals (First 6 matches)

Total = 42499 (7'083/match)

If anything.. The matches for the finals have increased.

They have increased by 24'871 Or 58.52%!!!

Solely down to the match ups Dally, i.e Hull Fc v Hull Kr, Wigan v Leeds and Sts V Wolves as opposed to Wakefield v Catalans ,Wigan v Cas and Sts V Giants...

The like for like attendances with regards the regular season have decreased however you wish to dress it up..

[ParisSurtout]

It wouldn't.

Other than the quality of the stadium, which won't be an issue after Saints move, why would a neutral prefer to go to the Reebok than Saints home ground. Why would a Huddersfield fan prefer to go to the Reebok rather than Saints?

Because they won't feel they are such outsiders in a nonpartisan stadium.

[Steve May]

Because they won't feel they are such outsiders in a nonpartisan stadium.

I don't really think that anyone in rugby league would feel that way.

[ParisSurtout]

I don't really think that anyone in rugby league would feel that way.

I felt that way when I was attending the London Broncos match at Belle Vue a few years ago.

Edited September 23, 2010 by ParisSurtout

[ParisSurtout]

The Super League crowd for this weekend improved a lot over last weekend, and slightly over the first weekend. However the NRL crowds jumped nesrly two and one half times over the previous weekend. Thus the finals crowd differential betweeen Super League and the NRL just got worse, and I mean really worse!

Finals Week 3:

SL: 13,510 13,693 Total: 27,603 Average: 13,602

NRL: 44,787 71,212 Total:115,999 Average: 58,000

Edited September 25, 2010 by ParisSurtout

[Maximus Decimus]

The finals crowd diferential betweeen Super League and the NRL just got worse, and I mean really worse!

Finals Week 3:

SL: 13,510 13,693 Total: 27,603 Average: 13,602

NRL: 44,787 71,212 Total:115,999 Average: 58,000

Wow, I'm totally shocked and never saw that coming.

You have no point, you are in essence, pointless.

[ParisSurtout]

There is a point, but because it is so sharp you have not been able to grasp it, fearing being cut and bloodied.

The point is that the RFL should be worried about these crowd figures, because a lot of money is involved.

The gap in finals series crowds between SL and NRL is much greater than during the regular season.

The RFL should seriously reconsider some of the reforms of the finals series, such as have been suggested by myself and others on this thread.

Edited September 26, 2010 by ParisSurtout

[Bob8]

There is a point but you have not been able to grasp it.

The point is that the RFL should be worried about these crowd figures, because a lot of money is involved. The gap in finals series crowds between SL and NRL is much greater than during the regular season.

The RFL should seriously recoonsider some of the reforms of the finals series, such as have been suggested by myself and others on this thread.

Worried? Surely they should be pleased that the game is doing well over there. Would RL here really be better is the play-offs in Australia were gathering a few hundred.

The more significant stat is that Arsenal and Man U can each attract almost as many each week as rugby league as a whole in Europe.

[dallymessenger]

Wow, I'm totally shocked and never saw that coming.

You have no point, you are in essence, pointless.

yeah its a shame the nrl is being used in this way to denigrate english RL.

most of the aussie nrl fans i know, who tend to be massive RL fans, want RL in england do do as well as it can.

this includes seeing the roos lose to nz, england or whoever

[ParisSurtout]

yeah its a shame the nrl is being used in this way to denigrate english RL.

most of the aussie nrl fans i know, who tend to be massive RL fans, want RL in england do do as well as it can.

this includes seeing the roos lose to nz, england or whoever

Pointing out a problem is not "denigrating" English RL, Walter.

We point out a problem in order to try and have it rectified, and thereby make English RL stronger.

[dallymessenger]

Pointing out a problem is not "denigrating" English RL, Walter.

We point out a problem in order to try and have it rectified, and thereby make English RL stronger.

keep trolling albert

[Bluenwhite]

Just to throw my sixpenny worth into the debate. Australia has a population of around 20 million with land area approaching 3 million square miles, and is the sixth largest country in the world with regard to land area. The United Kingdom on the other hand has a population of 70 million with land area approaching 94 thousand square miles. England having some 50 thousand square miles. Shear mathematics alone says that Australia is sixty times that of England, agreed a fair proportion of Oz is desert or outback.

When the Northern Union was formed in 1895, the United Kingdom was into its Industrial revolution with densely populated terraced housing to facilitate the peoples habitat. So building stadiums was and still is very limited. The very first prestigious Challenge Cup match was between Batley & St Helens with an attendance of 13,492 spectators. The fifty thousand barrier was not achieved until 1936 when Leeds played Warrington, some 39 years into the competition.

I think the Aussies commenced around 1908/09 and had oodles of land to build stadiums. Because one of Australia's popular sports is Aussie Rules, stadiums were built to house 30-60 thousand spectators. As always with the Aussies athleticism they have mastered the sport and the speed of their game is awesome, particularly around the ruck and play the balls. Spectators flock to see the greatest game on the planet and many stadiums are in excess of 20,000 capacity. Here in England, new stadiums being built in recent years (new Saints stadium approximately 18,000 capacity) have been built with limited funding and obviously catering for crowds of less than 20,000.

Primarily Rugby League takes a back seat to Soccer and Rugby Union. I have played Rugby League (at Junior levels) and also Rugby Union (one game). That was way back in the sixties.

I cannot get excited watching football, the game to me is so boring, whereas Rugby League is riveting and is far more athletic than 11 guys feigning injury through tackles. A classic statement for Rugby League was when Andy Farrell broke his nose and played the whole game.

The above is my view.

[boxhead]

Just to throw my sixpenny worth into the debate. Australia has a population of around 20 million with land area approaching 3 million square miles, and is the sixth largest country in the world with regard to land area. The United Kingdom on the other hand has a population of 70 million with land area approaching 94 thousand square miles. England having some 50 thousand square miles. Shear mathematics alone says that Australia is sixty times that of England.

When the Northern Union was formed in 1895, the United Kingdom was into its Industrial revolution with densely populated terraced housing to facilitate the peoples habitat. So building stadiums was and still is very limited. The very first prestigious Challenge Cup match was between Batley & St Helens with an attendance of 13,492 spectators. The fifty thousand barrier was not achieved until 1936 when Leeds played Warrington, some 39 years into the competition.

I think the Aussies commenced around 1908/09 and had oodles of land to build stadiums. Because one of Australia's popular sports is Aussie Rules, stadiums were built to house 30-60 thousand spectators. As always with the Aussies athleticism they have mastered the sport and the speed of their game is awesome, particularly around the ruck and play the balls. Spectators flock to see the greatest game on the planet and many stadiums are in excess of 20,000 capacity. Here in England, new stadiums being built in recent years (new Saints stadium approximately 18,000 capacity) have been built with limited funding and obviously catering for crowds of less than 20,000.

Primarily Rugby League takes a back seat to Soccer and Rugby Union. I have played Rugby League (at Junior levels) and also Rugby Union (one game). That was way back in the sixties.

I cannot get excited watching football, the game to me is so boring, whereas Rugby League is riveting and is far more athletic than 11 guys feigning injury through tackles. A classic statement for Rugby League was when Andy Farrell broke his nose and played the whole game.

The above is my view.

Australia national Sport is Cricket

Of the three big East coast States Australian Rules is only dominant in one State it is an also ran in NSW and QLD

[ParisSurtout]

I still believe, in all honesty, that the RFL could do something to make the finals series attract more fans.

I don't expect 58,000 averages of two games, as happened this weekend in Australia. But I do think 25,000 is not an unreasonable goal for the future. And that would require locating the matches in bigger stadia like Reebok, and doing some serious promotion.

Edited September 26, 2010 by ParisSurtout