Jump to content
Total Rugby League Fans Forum
Sign in to follow this  
scotchy1

The Challenge Cup, visibility, coverage etc.

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Dave T said:

We do know that when admission was included in season tickets (4th round or something) that crowds were much bigger. Group stages allow for the inclusion of games in the Season Ticket. 

Of course, there are other ways of achieving that goal too.

mmm I go back to another question on another thread... 

Is it because of convenience or cost (additional cost).  If convenience then modern ticketing systems should make this just as convenient as season ticket - that is receive a text, confirm purchase and its added to your season ticket "card"  or ticket comes through post if a "xxxx" season ticket system.  Of course if non season ticket and club has normal contact details then same but paper ticket comes in post. Nice and easy... not as if having to queue at ticket office like years gone by..... Non contact details well has to be phone call and fan has a desire.

If costs... then if budgetary issue then thats a matter of having a system that adds to season ticket but rolls over each year to accommodate different number of games... or something similar...

etc etc... I would have assumed above was default nowadays for any club thus its down to desire to attend... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Oliver Clothesoff said:

Exactly. There isn’t a difference really. Except the current loop fixtures go towards league points. 

The Challenge Cup Group stage is still loop fixtures and fans, from what I have read here, don’t want loop fixtures so I don’t know why we’d dress up loop fixtures as something else, because they’re still loop fixtures. People aren’t going to be anymore enthused by a group stage of the Challenge Cup than they are loop fixtures. 

You’re also sticking a massive two fingers up to the rest of the game by only including four non-SL teams and that’s wrong, IMO. 

There is a difference though in that it is logical fixtures against the same teams. Rather than a bogus loop system designed purely to expand the number of home games.

I don't think its a huge 2 fingers tbf, considering up to now the top 8 of SL come in effectively at the last minute. Imo this system makes the challenge cup more of 'a challenge' to win.

The non-SL teams for the vast majority would be in the CC as long as they had previously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Gerrumonside ref said:

I can see the benefits of this only for the big clubs as it reduces the likelihood of them ever being knocked out by a single shock result.

Even then I think in any group situation you are going to produce some completely meaningless games at the end.

I’d suggest the interest levels for them will be extremely low.

The game of rugby league itself makes shock results less likely. At least in a group style set up some will have the thrill of knock out rugby in qualifying and the ability to host 3 SL teams.

Some will be meaningless of course at the end, but thats the nature of the beast, hopefully games will be scheduled as such that such an occurrence is less likely. Interest levels for the cup can't really get much lower.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, redjonn said:

mmm I go back to another question on another thread... 

Is it because of convenience or cost (additional cost).  If convenience then modern ticketing systems should make this just as convenient as season ticket - that is receive a text, confirm purchase and its added to your season ticket "card"  or ticket comes through post if a "xxxx" season ticket system.  Of course if non season ticket and club has normal contact details then same but paper ticket comes in post. Nice and easy... not as if having to queue at ticket office like years gone by..... Non contact details well has to be phone call and fan has a desire.

If costs... then if budgetary issue then thats a matter of having a system that adds to season ticket but rolls over each year to accommodate different number of games... or something similar...

etc etc... I would have assumed above was default nowadays for any club thus its down to desire to attend... 

Its a diverse answer I guess imo.

1. We've pushed as a sport the season ticket model as opposed to 1 off fixtures. That will have an impact.

2. The games themselves aren't huge draws and getting to the cup semis/final isn't a huge "challenge". Many games are  predictable walkovers.

Combined this has the effect of many giving it a miss until it gets serious. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

I agree with you that there isnt a single solution but many problems needing many different solutions.

As i said in the OP I think the CC doesnt make much of its brand, is largely irrelevant to large swathes of the UK and what we do put out isnt great, especially for a neutral.

Changing the structure can help, not least because it gives clubs more ability to sell and sell in advance where we do much better, but it needs to be one of a raft of solutions to the many problems we have

yep, its about the brand or kudos.  Plus the competition could be used for show casing the game as in playing in other area's (identified by marketing analysis) and as it does being on the BBC.  The combination of being on the BBC or similar main channel plus taking it to area's as it was done with the last world cup here helps sell the sport.  

with regard to selling in advance, well with the rounds being quite a few weeks apart that shouldn't make a major impact. I know that was a reason for getting rid of middle 8's but they were very short notice plus I think an excuse for lack of demand/interest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, redjonn said:

mmm I go back to another question on another thread... 

Is it because of convenience or cost (additional cost).  If convenience then modern ticketing systems should make this just as convenient as season ticket - that is receive a text, confirm purchase and its added to your season ticket "card"  or ticket comes through post if a "xxxx" season ticket system.  Of course if non season ticket and club has normal contact details then same but paper ticket comes in post. Nice and easy... not as if having to queue at ticket office like years gone by..... Non contact details well has to be phone call and fan has a desire.

If costs... then if budgetary issue then thats a matter of having a system that adds to season ticket but rolls over each year to accommodate different number of games... or something similar...

etc etc... I would have assumed above was default nowadays for any club thus its down to desire to attend... 

The evidence is quite clear that it is cost. When they were included people attended. When people had to pay, fewer attend.

Clubs dont use any kind of rollover system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Its a diverse answer I guess imo.

1. We've pushed as a sport the season ticket model as opposed to 1 off fixtures. That will have an impact.

2. The games themselves aren't huge draws and getting to the cup semis/final isn't a huge "challenge". Many games are  predictable walkovers.

Combined this has the effect of many giving it a miss until it gets serious. 

yep its a tricky one...

The final is still a major sporting event. all-be-it less than it was... Key is improving and sustaining the final and then the lower rounds may gain interest.  Will be interesting this year as one would expect Saints plus either Hull or Warrington playing. They should in themselves be bringing large following.

Anyway my point is to focus on rebuilding the kudos/brand of the final through appropriate marketing campaigns and the broadcaster (BBC) and whatever, the lower rounds will take care of themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dave T said:

The evidence is quite clear that it is cost. When they were included people attended. When people had to pay, fewer attend.

Clubs dont use any kind of rollover system.

Yep I know they don't use rollover, but it would lessen that pain if it is a matter of budgeting.

Cost is a difficult one (as distinct from being able to budget) for one off games... as it is probably about pricing.   A lot of people that may object to paying the ticket price would no doubt spend that money elsewhere on other non essential spend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dave T said:

The evidence is quite clear that it is cost. When they were included people attended. When people had to pay, fewer attend.

Clubs dont use any kind of rollover system.

I am still not convinced that some of it is ease/convenience.  Won't know unless they have better systems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

There is a difference though in that it is logical fixtures against the same teams. Rather than a bogus loop system designed purely to expand the number of home games.

I don't think its a huge 2 fingers tbf, considering up to now the top 8 of SL come in effectively at the last minute. Imo this system makes the challenge cup more of 'a challenge' to win.

The non-SL teams for the vast majority would be in the CC as long as they had previously.

There’s not though. It’s still loop fixtures, isn’t it? It’s just League points in a different competition so you’ll still potentially be meeting sides five or six times a year, which is exactly what people moan about now. Just because it’s a different competition, it doesn’t mean there’s an appetite for this and I genuinely don’t think there’s the appetite for group stages overall. Clubs won’t be keen at all and I don’t blame them. 

You’re letting 16% of the non-SL teams into the competition, how can that be construed as anything other than a two fingers to the rest of the game? Why even bother with predominantly part time teams? Just go the whole hog and have 4 groups of three and the winners go through to the semi’s if they don’t really matter? The format now isn’t great but I don’t think this idea is any better personally, I think it’s actually worse for the game. 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, redjonn said:

I am still not convinced that some of it is ease/convenience.  Won't know unless they have better systems.

Sorry I rushed my post and didnt really complete my point.

We have seen before cheap tickets can deliver a decent cup crowd. On a previous discussion on this I highlighted that often these games can cost more for a season ticket holder than a regular game, despite the experience and atmosphere often lacking.

But yes I suspect there is something in convenience, my reasons for believing it to be secondary is due to the fact that often you can just grab a ticket in the day or even pay cash, or simply do it online in 2 mins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

I've said before I'm in favour of a group stage (I would be happy to go bigger and have more groups or more sides) I've also said se should start it on boxing day and build it as an early year comp.

However I still think we would face a few of the same issues around the comp not really being relevant to most people in England, never mind the rest of the country. Halifax v Huddersfield means nothing to people in Nottingham never mind belfast, Glasgow.or Cardiff. 

And Hearts v Hibs or Bristol City v Exeter City means nothing to me and millions of others. Very few match ups in British sport mean much to people outside of the two areas involved. 

  • Like 2

rldfsignature.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, deluded pom? said:

And Hearts v Hibs or Bristol City v Exeter City means nothing to me and millions of others. Very few match ups in British sport mean much to people outside of the two areas involved. 

Which is why we very rarely see those games. 

Where other sports have seen success its in games/rivalries or competitions that transcend that parochialism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Which is why we very rarely see those games. 

Where other sports have seen success its in games/rivalries or competitions that transcend that parochialism.

Taking football out of the equation, which other sports have been able to do that?


rldfsignature.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, deluded pom? said:

Taking football out of the equation, which other sports have been able to do that?

Well the American sports when they have come over here, I'd argue the Champions Cup. and in RU the big games they hold at Wembley, T20's have created an event around them, its clearly what the ECB are trying to do with the 100 (especially as they are basically inventing teams), the Rugby 7s is an event with loads of different teams playing at once so it could be argued it transcends the participants but id accept it was a bit different. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/07/2019 at 21:39, gingerjon said:

The actual English domestic RU knockout cup has completely gone,

Last season the Welsh RU pulled out of the Anglo-Welsh Cup. English RU relaunched the competition, for Premiership Clubs, put into groups, top two in group qualify for next round, 1st place has home advantage and hosts the next game. Competition used extensively to introduce and test new talent from the academies, with a few established players to steady the ship. Turned out to be a riveting, lively competition which gave entertainment on a budget and a showcase for young talented players many of which broke through to their first teams as a consequence. Maybe something in this model for RU, especially with the introduction of mandatory reserve teams?

Edited by Hemel Stag
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, deluded pom? said:

Taking football out of the equation, which other sports have been able to do that?

Rugby Union - London Derby - played at Olympic Stadium 66,000 and Twickenham Stadium 82,000 (although this was in the Christmas holidays). Contrast to capacities of home grounds, Harlequins 15,000 and Saracens 10,500. They did something astonishing by putting on a game, an occasion, where the turnout eclipsed their regular gates combined. The matches were shown on TV too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Hemel Stag said:

Last season the Welsh RU pulled out of the Anglo-Welsh Cup. English RU relaunched the competition, for Premiership Clubs, put into groups, top two in group qualify for next round, 1st place has home advantage and hosts the next game. Competition used extensively to introduce and test new talent from the academies, with a few established players to steady the ship. Turned out to be a riveting, lively competition which gave entertainment on a budget and a showcase for young talented players many of which broke through to their first teams as a consequence. Maybe something in this model for RU, especially with the introduction of mandatory reserve teams?

For the Premiership clubs ? , Only them ? , So you are suggesting turning the Challenge cup into a SL Reserve league/cup ? , Fine do it , let the rest play for the Challenge Cup 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Maybe something in this model for RU, especially with the introduction of mandatory reserve teams?

 

2 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

For the Premiership clubs ? , Only them ? , So you are suggesting turning the Challenge cup into a SL Reserve league/cup ? , Fine do it , let the rest play for the Challenge Cup 

Not at all. I believe in the Challenge Cup as a great thing. I wouldn't have got into RL if I hadn't seen a Cup Final on BBC.

I may have wandered off the main topic a little, but this was in response to a slightly erroneous suggestion that RU doesn't have any type of domestic cup competition. But with the mandatory introduction of reserve sides, there has to be something for them to play for (As Well As, what the first teams are doing). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Hemel Stag said:

 

Not at all. I believe in the Challenge Cup as a great thing. I wouldn't have got into RL if I hadn't seen a Cup Final on BBC.

I may have wandered off the main topic a little, but this was in response to a slightly erroneous suggestion that RU doesn't have any type of domestic cup competition. But with the mandatory introduction of reserve sides, there has to be something for them to play for (As Well As, what the first teams are doing). 

Is this Union comp just the Premiership clubs ?

So are you suggesting just the equivalent in RL ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Hemel Stag said:

Rugby Union - London Derby - played at Olympic Stadium 66,000 and Twickenham Stadium 82,000 (although this was in the Christmas holidays). Contrast to capacities of home grounds, Harlequins 15,000 and Saracens 10,500. They did something astonishing by putting on a game, an occasion, where the turnout eclipsed their regular gates combined. The matches were shown on TV too.

The operative word here is 'London'.  Firstly it was a derby between 2 local clubs but they happened to be in a big city which could attract other likely fans. Given a popular date it would attract the locals for the hell of it.

The CC for example is usually between teams from Lancs or Yorks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rupert Prince said:

The operative word here is 'London'.  Firstly it was a derby between 2 local clubs but they happened to be in a big city which could attract other likely fans. Given a popular date it would attract the locals for the hell of it.

The CC for example is usually between teams from Lancs or Yorks. 

Similarly how some ' starry eyed ' people will watch any old dross from America , just to be ' trendy ' 

Edited by GUBRATS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Hemel Stag said:

Rugby Union - London Derby - played at Olympic Stadium 66,000 and Twickenham Stadium 82,000 (although this was in the Christmas holidays). Contrast to capacities of home grounds, Harlequins 15,000 and Saracens 10,500. They did something astonishing by putting on a game, an occasion, where the turnout eclipsed their regular gates combined. The matches were shown on TV too.

But outside of the people attending who cares? The argument isn’t about the attendance it’s about how this game connects with the rest of the country. Nobody else cares about it. 

  • Like 1

rldfsignature.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, deluded pom? said:

But outside of the people attending who cares? The argument isn’t about the attendance it’s about how this game connects with the rest of the country. Nobody else cares about it. 

Clearly it connects with something if all those people attended and people like us, hundreds of miles away and not fans of the sport are talking about it

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Clearly it connects with something if all those people attended and people like us, hundreds of miles away and not fans of the sport are talking about it

I certainly aren’t talking about it because it is totally irrelevant to me. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

rldfsignature.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...