Crowds for semis and final

[JonM]

6 minutes ago, Dave T said:

If it is such an issue for the Aussies we could do what RU does and stage it in-season.

The RUWC in Australia was played in November 2003. I think it got pretty decent crowds too. Maybe it's only our games fans who lose interest and switch to cricket?

[Jace]

16 minutes ago, nadera78 said:

Every other sport seems to manage holding a World Cup after the domestic season has finished.

Then again every other sport has their world cup as the pinnacle. Also club rugby union in the northern hemisphere runs concurrently to their world cup. Would the same be possible in rugby league? I doubt it

[Dave T]

Just now, Jace said:

That's because club rugby league is perceived to be more important than a world cup. Sad but true

indeed, and that's the way plenty of people are happy for it to stay.

[Lobbygobbler]

25 minutes ago, Dave T said:

indeed, and that's the way plenty of people are happy for it to stay.

I would say club soccer is also more important than international soccer on the whole

[RabbitRhinoovOZ]

20 minutes ago, Dave T said:

indeed, and that's the way plenty of people are happy for it to stay.

I'm in no way ashamed to say the club game is more important to me but I'd take international RL over SOO any day of the week.

[Spidey]

4 minutes ago, RabbitRhinoovOZ said:

I'm in no way ashamed to say the club game is more important to me but I'd take international RL over SOO any day of the week.

Thing is. It shouldn’t be a binary choice. There isn’t that much rugby league actually played. Why not watch as much as you can?

NRL has, what, a 24 game season? That’s half of what the Premier League teams play in the league before cups

[Danny]

The organisers have made a up of this tournament no doubt, but you can't not blame the fans. That's a semi final there, the opening game against England only had 22k. The fans don't turn up in the NRL let alone a World Cup.

[Exiled Wiganer]

1 minute ago, Danny said:

The organisers have made a up of this tournament no doubt, but you can't not blame the fans. That's a semi final there, the opening game against England only had 22k. The fans don't turn up in the NRL let alone a World Cup.

I agree completely. It lies at the fault of the people responsible for selling the games in NRL stadia.

People who are NOT to blame include:

- Aussie fans;

- whoever sorted out the TV coverage;

- whoever organised the games in PNG;

- whoever organised the games in NZ; and 

- whoever organised the games in Perth,  Cairns(ish) and Darwin. 

[Danny]

5 minutes ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

I agree completely. It lies at the fault of the people responsible for selling the games in NRL stadia.

People who are NOT to blame include:

- Aussie fans;

- whoever sorted out the TV coverage;

- whoever organised the games in PNG;

- whoever organised the games in NZ; and 

- whoever organised the games in Perth,  Cairns(ish) and Darwin. 

You can't leave Aussie fans blameless when they struggle for crowds in the NRL, if you follow a sport you need to support your team. The World Cup has been advertised for months and everyone's had plenty of time to buy tickets, two Rugby League mad states and the crowds have been pretty abysmal. You've only got to look at the shocking crowds at the Roosters Cowboys game in the NRL to see how badly league is supported.

It's been great in Papa New Guinea and probably should have had more games over there if poss.

[hutch]

2 minutes ago, Danny said:

You can't leave Aussie fans blameless when they struggle for crowds in the NRL, if you follow a sport you need to support your team. The World Cup has been advertised for months and everyone's had plenty of time to buy tickets, two Rugby League mad states and the crowds have been pretty abysmal. You've only got to look at the shocking crowds at the Roosters Cowboys game in the NRL to see how badly league is supported.

It's been great in Papa New Guinea and probably should have had more games over there if poss.

The nrl gets bigger crowds than any domestic rugby Comp on earth. Yes, the nrl crowds should be bigger but it doesn’t exactly “struggle” for crowds.

[koli]

If I recall in 2003  RU managed to sell out Townsville for a Japan match.Clearly most were Cowboys fans encouraged/enthused  by the occasion.

It beggars belief the organisers of the RLWC came no where close.It probably helped that that game kicked off sensibly in the evening.

[JonM]

5 minutes ago, koli said:

If I recall in 2003  RU managed to sell out Townsville for a Japan match.Clearly most were Cowboys fans encouraged/enthused  by the occasion.

They managed to fill Adelaide Oval for a Australia/Namibia game where the home team scored 140+.

[Danny]

22 minutes ago, hutch said:

The nrl gets bigger crowds than any domestic rugby Comp on earth. Yes, the nrl crowds should be bigger but it doesn’t exactly “struggle” for crowds.

NRL struggles compared to AFL considering it's the main sport in NSW and QLD.

Out of the countries who have a domestic comp, only New Zealand and Wales treat Union as it's national sport. Secondary sport in England, third sport in Ireland, second sport in Scotland, second sport in France, second sport in Uruguay and Argentina...obviously Australian sporting landscape is different due to the geography of the country and whilst the AFL or Cricket are probably bigger sports, Rugby League completely rules throughout NSW and QLD.

[koli]

very arguable about Wales.

[Scubby]

32 minutes ago, JonM said:

They managed to fill Adelaide Oval for a Australia/Namibia game where the home team scored 140+.

Not true. Australians will not turn out for a no contest.

[Sports Prophet]

http://pulse-static-files.s3.amazonaws.com/test/worldrugby/document/2015/09/01/8b0f45a6-9d06-4b56-ba88-4a4fba5ace36/World_Rugby_Investment_Programmes_brochure.pdf

The attached document demonstrates the financial might of World Rugby.

The global audience is partly self fuelling but predominantly drawn by a well funded organisation which primary duty is to grow the game internationally and the RUWC is its most profitable asset.

Responsibility for poor attendances definitely lies at the door of he NRL. They campaigned to host this World Cup and have done a terrible job in getting people through the turnstiles. Sure there are difficulties like hosting it outside the season and the sports peak media following or the Kangaroos dominance of the international game or competing with the Ashes for attention etc, but when you successfully run to host the WC, these are the battles that are neither unforeseen or to be easy to overcome, but must be overcome.

The flaw in the model of international RL as we know it today however is that it is not necessarily the responsibility of a national body to ensure that the international game is healthy. 

In saying all that, I think the total crowd number for the two semi finals will stack up well against 2013 and the tournament will make an increased profit on 2013. The problem is, those profits are not fully distributed back into the international game.

Most on here are not happy about it, but the strength of our sport is in the club game. The club game is similarly to World Rugby, funded on an almighty scale and I am more and more convinced that the club game is the vehicle that the sport should be using to gain increased national and international exposure. I am not saying that the World Cup should be forgotten but perhaps less internationals is more for the next 20 years, with distribution of profits from the international game more evenly spread amongst the nation's and participants than what we see at the moment.

With absence of annual fixtures/tournaments between the big nations, this may just help increase the profile of the international game when fixtures do take place. It would be a revolutionary call, but in my opinion one definitely worth considering.

[Scubby]

2 hours ago, Spidey said:

Thing is. It shouldn’t be a binary choice. There isn’t that much rugby league actually played. Why not watch as much as you can?

They do. Slouched on the sofa with a schooner and a Large Chips and Gravy from the Colonel. 

[jannerboyuk]

so the actual crowd was?

[JonM]

Crowd was 22 073, which to be fair is about 50% more than was achieved for the Australia v Fiji SF in Sydney in 2008.

The sell out at Mt. Smart tomorrow is exciting news, should be a cracking atmosphere for that one.

 

[Scubby]

4 minutes ago, jannerboyuk said:

so the actual crowd was?

22,073

[Scubby]

Just now, JonM said:

Crowd was 22 073, which to be fair is about 50% more than was achieved for the Australia v Fiji SF in Sydney in 2008.

The sell out at Mt. Smart tomorrow is exciting news, should be a cracking atmosphere for that one.

 

Sorry no. It should have sold 30k before a ball was kicked. How can you not flog a RLWC SF in a city like Brisbane with 2 years lead in. Two years FFS. 

[JonM]

3 minutes ago, Scubby said:

Sorry no. It should have sold 30k before a ball was kicked. How can you not flog a RLWC SF in a city like Brisbane with 2 years lead in. Two years FFS. 

No, I agree. But the 2008 semi final featuring the Aussies got 15k in that supposed heartland of the game, Sydney.

[Jace]

1 hour ago, hutch said:

The nrl gets bigger crowds than any domestic rugby Comp on earth. Yes, the nrl crowds should be bigger but it doesn’t exactly “struggle” for crowds.

Just had its lowest average attendance since 2004

[Scubby]

Just now, JonM said:

No, I agree. But the 2008 semi final featuring the Aussies got 15k in that supposed heartland of the game, Sydney.

Yep but the 2008 WC was literally thrown together at the last minute - also we had to wait 8 years because of the 2000 disaster. This is a WC that was awarded 3 years in advance with a legacy of the 2013 RLWC behind it. The bid winners (Australia & NZ) promised a A$10m+ profit for the RLIF and sold out stadiums. 

[Exiled Wiganer]

The World Cup was bid for when Smith was in charge of the NRL. He guaranteed the profit to the RLIF. This was one of the things Greenberg inherited. When the previous, independent, CEO of the RLWC had to step down, NRL people were put in place. So, assuming that Greenberg sees the NRL as first, second and third in his order of priority, and that the income was guaranteed through the TV deal, then he has no incentive to get his team to spend money or make any effort on game day anywhere there is an NRL club. Every cent saved in marketing these games went to his bottom line. He had no interest or incentive in making a profit for the RLIF. Plus, any success for 7 might not be viewed favourably by Fox...

Succeeding in PNG was fine, as it helps build the brand (and they couldn't fail). In NZ, Tonga effectively took the marketing work out of their hands for them, which was fine, as the Pacific Islands bring players, glamour and eyes on screens for the NRL. 

It is patently obvious, from having seen what has passed as marketing in the NRL venues, that the organisers could not care less how many attended in person. Indeed, I would argue that the 3rd level event quote from Kear was exactly what Greenberg wanted to hear. A closed market for the NRL is perfect marketing. 

We have ended up with an organiser with pretty much diametrically opposed incentives from the rest of the league world when it comes to selling games.