Crowd Watch 27

[delboy]

As before, could we please keep this discussion about the subject matter and not who's system is best.

 

First 4 fixtures of round 4 of the 888'S completed and 8 to go and the lower 8's deliver a drop of 22% against comparative fixtures and 32% against seasons averages.

___________________________________________________________________________

Round 4:

 Leeds v St Helens - (15,921) – 16,142 - 18,514
 Huddersfield v Castleford - (5,873) - 5,350 – 5,257
 Wigan v Catalan - (13,981) – xxxx  - 12,162
 Warrington v Hull - (9,853) - xxxx  - 9,697 
 Halifax v Salford - (1,973) - xxxx – NO CORRESPONDING FIXTURE
 Featherstone v Batley - (2,241) – 1,506 – 2,067
 Dewsbury v London - (1,462) - 805 - 910
 Whitehaven v Hunslet - (931) - 804 - 900
 Workington v Doncaster - (864) - 629  - 741
 HKR v Wakefield - (8.025) - xxxx – 7,378
 Bradford v Widnes - (5,222) - xxxx  - NO CORRESPONDING FIXTURE
 Leigh v Sheffield – (4,454) – xxxx- 3,572                                                                                                             

 

(70,800) – tbc – 61,198 - (tbc) 

tbc% down/up against seasons average

tbc% down/up against comparative fixture where available.

 

______________________________________________________________________________

 

The running totals

 

Round 1:
 Leeds v Warrington - (15,921) - 13,118 - 17,430 141,000 Viewers on SKY
 Wigan v Huddersfield  - (13,981) - 11,448 - 12,488 117,000 Viewers on SKY
 Catalan v St Helens - (8,925) - 7,392 - 8,886
 Castleford v Hull FC - (7,468) - 6,760 - 8,744
 Salford v Wakefield - (4,167) - 3,400** - 2,712
 Bradford v Sheffield - (5,222) - 6,032 - 4,847
 Leigh v HKR - (3,787) - 4,454 -  NO CORRESPONDING FIXTURE 139,000 Viewers on SKY
 Halifax v Widnes - (1,973) - 3,022 -  NO CORRESPONDING FIXTURE
 London v Doncaster - (731) - 350 - 976
 Dewsbury v Hunslet - (1,462) - 901 - 901*
 Featherstone v Whitehaven - (2,241) - 1,107 - 1,305
 Workington v Batley - (805) - 864 - 596

(66,683) - 58,848 - 51,372 - (58,885)

12% down against season’s average

13% down against comparative fixture where available.

____________________________________________________________________________

Round 2:
 Castleford v Wire - (7,468) - 5,212 -  7,239 119,000 Viewers on SKY
 Leeds v Wigan - (15,921) - 15,026 - 18,350 202,000 Viewers on SKY
 St Helens v Hull FC - (11,818) - 10,203 - 11,088
 Huddersfield v Catalans - (5,873) - 4,251 - 4,404
 Wakefield v Bradford - (3,989) - 3,985 - NO CORRESPONDING FIXTURE 82,000 Viewers on SKY
 Whitehaven v London - (931) - 783 - 689
 Hull KR v Halifax - (8,025) - 6,837 - NO CORRESPONDING FIXTURE
 Widnes v Sheffield - (6,234) - 4,567 - NO CORRESPONDING FIXTURE
 Salford v Leigh - (4,167) - 4,547 - NO CORRESPONDING FIXTURE 
 Doncaster v Fev - (1,215) - 886 - 950
 Batley v Dewsbury - (983) - 1,046 - 1,274
 Hunslet v Workington - (872) - 706* -706

(67,496) - 58,049 - 38,113 - (44,700) 

14% down against season’s average

15% down against comparative fixture where available.

 

_____________________________________________________________________________

Round 3:
 St Helens v Huddersfield - (11,818) - 10,926 - 11,164
 Hull FC V Leeds  - (11,343) – 10,649 - 10,887
 Warrington v Wigan - (9,853) -10,095  - 10,504
 Catalans v Castleford  - (8,925) – 7,473 - 6,584
 Leigh v Wakefield - (4,454) – 4,376 - NO CORRESPONDING FIXTURE
 Bradford v Salford - (5,222) – 6,953  - NO CORRESPONDING FIXTURE
 Widnes v HKR - (6,234) – 6,238  - 5,273
 Sheffield v Halifax - (1,146) - 854 - 1,437
 Doncaster v Batley - (1,215) - 745 - 1,277
 Dewsbury v Whitehaven - (1,462) - 709 - 933
 London v Hunslet - (731) - 250 - 751
 Workington v Fev - (864) - 906  - 749

 

(63,267) – 60,174 – 46,096 - (49,559) 

5% down/up against seasons average

8% down/up against comparative fixture where available.

 

____________________________________________________________________________

Seasons running totals to ROUND 3

 (197,446) – 177,071 – 135,581 - (153,144) 

 

10% down against season’s average

13% down against comparative fixture where available.

____________________________________________________________________________

(regular season average) - 888 attendance - regular season comparative - (comparative 888attendance)

*where there is no reported attendance available I have given the crowd as the attendance in the regular season fixture where applicable.
** suspicious 000 attendances will be taken in good faith.

[Krytensmate]

The Salford v Leigh game wasn't on TV ( only on the red button )

The Wakefield v Bradford game was , but no figure given

[Exiled Wiganer]

These are not the same as reglar season games. As these are more akin to play off games, those are the relevant comparisons. Though a hybrid of regular season and play off games would be interesting.

[Saintslass]

I don't see how figures for this season's Super 8s can be compared to any previous year because we haven't had this format before and indeed next year it could be different as different teams could be competing, meaning comparisons even then could be fairly pointless.

 

I'm not sure what the benefit is of comparing anything other than regular season matches.

[delboy]

 

The Salford v Leigh game wasn't on TV ( only on the red button )

The Wakefield v Bradford game was , but no figure given

I've put the BARB figure against the Wakey game. It's either that game of the Salford game.....

 

 

I'm not sure what the benefit is of comparing anything other than regular season matches.

 

The purpose is to examine if the fans are re-engaged. To date the figures show that they are not, especially once you slip into the realm of the bottom 8 sides where like for like the attendances are awful.

Bradford and Leigh delivered 50%...that HALF the entire attendances for the Championship in the 42 regular season H&A games......outside of these games, championship attendances were well down on previous seasons. Even if you count the Leigh games the attendances were down as they were in SL over the regular season. 

[Exiled Wiganer]

I've put the BARB figure against the Wakey game. It's either that game of the Salford game.....

The purpose is to examine if the fans are re-engaged. To date the figures show that they are not, especially once you slip into the realm of the bottom 8 sides where like for like the attendances are awful.

Bradford and Leigh delivered 50%...that HALF the entire attendances for the Championship in the 42 regular season H&A games......outside of these games, championship attendances were well down on previous seasons. Even if you count the Leigh games the attendances were down as they were in SL over the regular season.

As that is your take and it is at least 100% certain that the rest of the games will attract lower attendances than games organised in advance and less than previous play off games, is there any point even starting a thread.

Doesn't it become like watching Columbo on an infinite loop - "he did it! He did it!" We know who did it and how this story ends.

[Padge]

I don't see how figures for this season's Super 8s can be compared to any previous year because we haven't had this format before and indeed next year it could be different as different teams could be competing, meaning comparisons even then could be fairly pointless.

 

I'm not sure what the benefit is of comparing anything other than regular season matches.

 

I don't see how figures for this season's Super 8s can be compared to any previous year because we haven't had this format before and indeed next year it could be different as different teams could be competing, meaning comparisons even then could be fairly pointless.

 

I'm not sure what the benefit is of comparing anything other than regular season matches.

 

They can be compared easily. This argument has gone for every weekly post on the subject.

[delboy]

As that is your take and it is at least 100% certain that the rest of the games will attract lower attendances than games organised in advance and less than previous play off games, is there any point even starting a thread.

Doesn't it become like watching Columbo on an infinite loop - "he did it! He did it!" We know who did it and how this story ends.

 

Ah.....so sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "nah nah nah" loudly in the hope that the unfortunate truth goes away is better is it? I've heard more excuses for the failings of the new system to deliver than you'd get from a 13yr old for not handing in their homework.....I'm stunned that you've not rolled out "the dog ate my seasons pass" to go with the lack of forward notice regarding fixtures (5 weeks out for this weeks games BTW) and the Algarve being awash with RL fans at this time of year. No doubt "everyone" will be skint after the CC final weekend and HKR fans being too ashamed of their team will make an appearance after this weekends fixtures......

...why is it some RL fans have a talent for blaming everything and everyone for their own inability to travel more than 30 miles to a game unless they've had 3 months notice? 

[Exiled Wiganer]

You misunderstand me - I am not attempting to "excuse" anything, I am just suggesting that the results of this crowd watch and the next 3 will be exactly the same as all the others since the end of the regular season - better than last year's play offs and worse than the regular season.

You could pin the "analysis" and your conclusions for the next month, as they will not change.

[delboy]

You misunderstand me - I am not attempting to "excuse" anything, I am just suggesting that the results of this crowd watch and the next 3 will be exactly the same as all the others since the end of the regular season - better than last year's play offs and worse than the regular season.

You could pin the "analysis" and your conclusions for the next month, as they will not change.

This is essentially round 27......like for like SL sides have had games v Bradford and london replaced by other SL sides and like for like crowds are down. The new system when doing a straight comparison has failed.

[Saintslass]

This is essentially round 27......like for like SL sides have had games v Bradford and london replaced by other SL sides and like for like crowds are down. The new system when doing a straight comparison has failed.

Whilst I do appreciate the hard work you put in to your OP, I am not understanding how this round can be considered as the equivalent of round 27 as the combination of teams is entirely different from this time last season.  Sheffield, for example, attract fewer fans on a regular basis than any of the Superleague sides, yet your argument suggests a match with Sheffield in it should be compared to a match from last season in which Sheffield was not involved, nor was their very small fanbase.  I'm just not getting how at this point this comparison is useful?  Next year it will be more useful but even then we may be talking about a different tranche of teams involved at this stage of the season with either more or fewer regular fans than Sheffield/Leigh/Bradford/Halifax. 

[Exiled Wiganer]

This is essentially round 27......like for like SL sides have had games v Bradford and london replaced by other SL sides and like for like crowds are down. The new system when doing a straight comparison has failed.

It isn't "essentially" round 27 at all. It's a different competition for mine, but each to their own.

You can freely assert that the super 8 crowds are lower than regular season games, or higher than previous top 8 play offs. And feel free to conclude that the system has failed on that basis.

[delboy]

It isn't "essentially" round 27 at all. It's a different competition for mine, but each to their own.

You can freely assert that the super 8 crowds are lower than regular season games, or higher than previous top 8 play offs. And feel free to conclude that the system has failed on that basis.

Same number of games in 2014 v 2015 and 2014 is higher......this is purely for the games featuring this years top 24. Championship without Bradford DOWN....superleague without Bradford DOWN....maybe the answer is Bradford?

[Exiled Wiganer]

Same number of games in 2014 v 2015 and 2014 is higher......this is purely for the games featuring this years top 24. Championship without Bradford DOWN....superleague without Bradford DOWN....maybe the answer is Bradford?

We had a regular season in which all the SL teams played each other home and away, with a well attended Magic Week End. On a like for like basis there was a very small difference. On that basis, and stopping there, one could reasonably conclude that in a true comparison the same numbers watched the same games.

Now, we have third matches, arranged on short notice, with, for instance, in Wigan's case a match in London, and, in Catalans' case, no prospect of the same numbers of travelling supporters. Which are what they are - somewhere between the old play offs (v like them to my mind but happy to accept not like for like) and the regular season. And the crowds reflect that.

[scotchy]

but that is a part of the system. 

 

If the fact that this system sets us up for a group of games arranged at short notice, the 3rd meeting of those clubs, and with little prospect for away fans at the further away clubs, and this causes attendances to go down.

 

Then the new system has caused a fall. 

 

Your repeated argument is that because these games are arranged at short notice, are the 3rd meeting of the clubs and with little prospect for away fans at further away clubs, and this causes attendances to go down, ergo crowds havent fallen because the reasons they have fallen means it cant be compared. As an argument it fails at the very first hurdle of being logical in itself. However eruditely or passionately you want to defend that position, it is a demonstrably wrong argument.

 

The effect the changes have had are not reasons we cannot compare to measure that effect. That is the principle you are arguing.  it is a demonstrably wrong argument. 

[delboy]

We had a regular season in which all the SL teams played each other home and away, with a well attended Magic Week End. On a like for like basis there was a very small difference. On that basis, and stopping there, one could reasonably conclude that in a true comparison the same numbers watched the same games.

Nope. The numbers in the like for like season were down.....no Bradford, no london and no magic weekend.

As for the next stage.....I travel 1500 kms and sometimes 5000kms to games at 3 or 4 days notice.......give up with the short notice ######. These are games ON the season ticket......,...

[Dave T]

Okay, we can spin things how we want to support our view, so here's an alternative view of this section:

 

Super 8's (1)

The first phase of these games are for the 12 SL clubs to have the 2 home games that replace the London and Bradford games from last year. Looking at the averages, they are pretty much identical to those games they have replaced:

24 games this year 189,480

24 games last year 191,733

so a very slight drop of 2k - now some may dismiss this as failure, but don't forget, these include games against some lower division clubs.

 

Super 8's (2)

The next 18 Super 8 games replace the 6 qualifying playoff games from last year:

18 games this year 142,127 (assuming the current average for these games)

6 games last year 43,660

so an increase of almost 100k fans, although this is due to staging more games.

 

Semis and Final

Would expect these games to be the same, attracting around 125k fans.

No change year on year.

 

So, post-rd23 we will probably see an additional 100k customers get off their backside and attend a Rugby League game at the 12 Super League clubs.

 

How many fans did the 12 SL clubs lose during the first 22 rounds? Even if it was 5% wouldn't this be around 60k fans over the year?

 

So by my reckoning we are probably 40k up for the current 12 SL clubs over the year.

 

How many did Bradford lose? About 25k? London? 12k?

 

So we are probably in a place where the crowds are similar to last year? People could rightly point out that we have added 12 more games to get the same crowds, and that is a valid point, however we should not forget that c40 of the games included above are between last year's SL clubs and lower division clubs - so the averages would obviously drop.

 

For a system that is disastrous, that hasn't been explained and sold well, that nobody has bought into, that has completely failed, the crowds don't seem too bad to me.

 

Can it be better? Absolutely! Are there other potential issues regarding things like quotas, short-termism and financial constraints? Sure.

 

Have crowds shown this to be a disaster? Not in my opinion, but then it depends what you are looking for.

[Ackroman]

Okay, we can spin things how we want to support our view, so here's an alternative view of this section:

 

Super 8's (1)

The first phase of these games are for the 12 SL clubs to have the 2 home games that replace the London and Bradford games from last year. Looking at the averages, they are pretty much identical to those games they have replaced:

24 games this year 189,480

24 games last year 191,733

so a very slight drop of 2k - now some may dismiss this as failure, but don't forget, these include games against some lower division clubs.

 

Super 8's (2)

The next 18 Super 8 games replace the 6 qualifying playoff games from last year:

18 games this year 142,127 (assuming the current average for these games)

6 games last year 43,660

so an increase of almost 100k fans, although this is due to staging more games.

 

Semis and Final

Would expect these games to be the same, attracting around 125k fans.

No change year on year.

 

So, post-rd23 we will probably see an additional 100k customers get off their backside and attend a Rugby League game at the 12 Super League clubs.

 

How many fans did the 12 SL clubs lose during the first 22 rounds? Even if it was 5% wouldn't this be around 60k fans over the year?

 

So by my reckoning we are probably 40k up for the current 12 SL clubs over the year.

 

How many did Bradford lose? About 25k? London? 12k?

 

So we are probably in a place where the crowds are similar to last year? People could rightly point out that we have added 12 more games to get the same crowds, and that is a valid point, however we should not forget that c40 of the games included above are between last year's SL clubs and lower division clubs - so the averages would obviously drop.

 

For a system that is disastrous, that hasn't been explained and sold well, that nobody has bought into, that has completely failed, the crowds don't seem too bad to me.

 

Can it be better? Absolutely! Are there other potential issues regarding things like quotas, short-termism and financial constraints? Sure.

 

Have crowds shown this to be a disaster? Not in my opinion, but then it depends what you are looking for.

 

Sorry but this post is a disgrace. Where's the outrage?

[scotchy]

We can't pick and choose when to include games and when not to. Your methodology is biased because it includes extra games under this system and removes the additional games under the last one.

You have said that there were 24 games in rounds 24-27 last year and compared that figure to the 24 in this one including a teams crowds against London and bradford. You then state there were 6 games from this round onwards and 18 in this one. This gives totals of 30 games and 42 games.

But this is wrong. There weren't 30 games from rounds 24-30 last year. There were 34. And for the previous 23 rounds there were 23 extra. All of which we are removing from the calculation. But including the extra games of the new system.

In total there are 21 additional games this year that those 14 clubs will play. 210 vs 189. As a total that's an 11% increase in games played.

So besides all the arguments about how we should compare everything, by your methodology and using your figured we increased the amount of games by 11% and gained 2.4% in total.

For a new system with novelty value and an increase in amount of games that's not a great figure and as an average that fall is higher than the failing terrible crisis year of last year.

With an increase of 11% of games. An 11% increase in crowds would be standing still. We should at the least be looking for being around that.

[Dave T]

We can't pick and choose when to include games and when not to. Your methodology is biased because it includes extra games under this system and removes the additional games under the last one.

You have said that there were 24 games in rounds 24-27 last year and compared that figure to the 24 in this one including a teams crowds against London and bradford. You then state there were 6 games from this round onwards and 18 in this one. This gives totals of 30 games and 42 games.

But this is wrong. There weren't 30 games from rounds 24-30 last year. There were 34. And for the previous 23 rounds there were 23 extra. All of which we are removing from the calculation. But including the extra games of the new system.

In total there are 21 additional games this year that those 14 clubs will play. 210 vs 189. As a total that's an 11% increase in games played.

So besides all the arguments about how we should compare everything, by your methodology and using your figured we increased the amount of games by 11% and gained 2.4% in total.

For a new system with novelty value and an increase in amount of games that's not a great figure and as an average that fall is higher than the failing terrible crisis year of last year.

 

The 12 teams in SL will see a similar number of people through their gates this year, despite this being an apparently disastrous system. Hardly reads like a disaster.

 

I was clear what games I was including.

[scotchy]

The 12 teams in SL will see a similar number of people through their gates this year, despite this being an apparently disastrous system. Hardly reads like a disaster.

I was clear what games I was including.

I'm not saying you weren't clear about which games you were including I'm just saying we shouldn't pick and choose which ones we do include.

According to your figures the drop in average we are supposed to treat as negligible is bigger than the crisis one of last year.

All things being equal. We have increased matchday costs by 11%, increased the number of games on a season ticket by 11% lost nearly 40k of pay tickets, and only seen an uptick of 2.4% as a total. That is pretty bad.

[Dave T]

I'm not saying you weren't clear about which games you were including I'm just saying we shouldn't pick and choose which ones we do include.

According to your figures the drop in average we are supposed to treat as negligible is bigger than the crisis one of last year.

All things being equal. We have increased matchday costs by 11%, increased the number of games on a season ticket by 11% lost nearly 40k of pay tickets, and only seen an uptick of 2.4% as a total. That is pretty bad.

Where have we lost 40k of pay tickets?

[Exiled Wiganer]

They can be compared easily. This argument has gone for every weekly post on the subject.

 

 

They can be compared easily in lots of different ways. Of course they can. What cannot be done easily is say that this apple is the same as this orange.

[Exiled Wiganer]

but that is a part of the system. 

 

If the fact that this system sets us up for a group of games arranged at short notice, the 3rd meeting of those clubs, and with little prospect for away fans at the further away clubs, and this causes attendances to go down.

 

Then the new system has caused a fall. 

 

Your repeated argument is that because these games are arranged at short notice, are the 3rd meeting of the clubs and with little prospect for away fans at further away clubs, and this causes attendances to go down, ergo crowds havent fallen because the reasons they have fallen means it cant be compared. As an argument it fails at the very first hurdle of being logical in itself. However eruditely or passionately you want to defend that position, it is a demonstrably wrong argument.

 

The effect the changes have had are not reasons we cannot compare to measure that effect. That is the principle you are arguing.  it is a demonstrably wrong argument. 

 

No, the argument you make on my behalf (or think I am making may be demonstrably wrong), but my many arguments have many merits.

The games are different, they just are.

You can run an argument that says that, by reducing the regular season fixtures, and getting about the same number of punters, that has failed. To my mind it was close enough not to be a cause for despair or elation.

So then we are left with the Super 8s and semis in 2015 as against the games against Bradford and London, and the top 8 play offs. There will be a point at which we will know what the aggregate crowds were as between these 2 amounts, and a later date when we will know how revenue and expenses compare. At that point we will be able properly to compare aggregates and p and l. Until then, on a weekly basis "analysing" why games which are bound to attract lower crowds than regular games but higher crowds than previous top 8 play off games is either an exercise in futility. Or, if the person making the comparison is looking to "prove" the failure of the different system, it deserves to be challenged. Which I am more than happy to do.

[Exiled Wiganer]

Oh and by the way, I was amused by your suggestion that I would argue that a fall wasn't a fall if it was explicable. I like it when you slip a joke in to lighten the mood.