Expansion or Consolidation?

[Eddie]

1 hour ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

Take it further 

Do what union does and put 5 further games on channel 5....Sky would benefit if more people get interested

You’d need to get C5 to do that though, it’s easy to say on an Internet forum. 

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

50 minutes ago, Eddie said:

You’d need to get C5 to do that though, it’s easy to say on an Internet forum. 

Yes of course it's easy to say here and I'm no producer. Surely this is the place to speculate and suggest ideas though? 

Personally I think it may be a fair assumption that C5 ain't paying much to show the Gallagher Prem.... The RFU and BT know it's a winner getting the games on free to air. I happen to think Durden-Smith and Flatman do a good job as well

 

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

11 hours ago, CanadianRugger said:

Here is a proposal to consider, make hosting the Grand Final like the Super Bowl, it needs to be bid on by a club and hosted somewhere else every year.

There needs to be a comprehensive list of requirements that clubs have to meet but ultimately the event should be driven by the clubs and for the clubs.  

Why shouldn't a Grand Final be hosted in Hull, Warrington, Leeds, St Helens, heck Perpignan?  

Smaller crowd yes but the towns themselves would benefit from the event as would the clubs.  It might even encourage other clubs to improve their facilities (looking at you Wakefield and Castleford). 

Ticket prices would be raised obviously given the scope/stature of the event and the town could take on a festival atmosphere for the weekend.  Hotels would be filled, Restaurants packed and the benefit would be actual Rugby League towns and not the City of London or the bureaucracy that is the RFL.

Mate.... Go to Old Trafford for GF and see for yourself.... My team has never made it but its still spine tingling being there with the lights on and 70,000 others.... Even a packed Headingly would not compare

[CanadianRugger]

15 minutes ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

Mate.... Go to Old Trafford for GF and see for yourself.... My team has never made it but its still spine tingling being there with the lights on and 70,000 others.... Even a packed Headingly would not compare

I have no doubt the atmosphere is phenomenal.  I have been to a bunch of NFL, CFL and NCAA Football games with similar crowds and the atmosphere is amazing.

That being said, when I made my suggestions I had no doubt they would be dismissed without any real consideration.  I've learned that the sports culture of England and NA is far different.  

My concern is monetary.  The prize money clubs make from the Grand Final is paltry.  I want clubs to have bigger stadiums, bigger crowds and better salaries for the players.

[Big Picture]

3 hours ago, Eddie said:

You’d need to get C5 to do that though, it’s easy to say on an Internet forum. 

And when most of the pro teams are in small northern towns, why would they?

[superten]

14 hours ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

Huddy, Wakey, Salford and yes Broncos have a very limited shot at a final.....its barely ever happened

Totonto potentially may be favourites to make it to the GF every year

Big difference 

Huddersfield v St Helen 2006 final at Twickenham 65,000 . Huddersfield v Warrington 2009 76,000

[kev p]

19 hours ago, CanadianRugger said:

Old Trafford is iconic to people in Northern England, I'm certain people from Perpignan or elsewhere couldn't give a damn.  

I also don't think Rugby League should be hosting a Grand Final at a roundball stadium as it probably costs a fortune to rent and who benefits from it?  The Manchester United Football Club?

Yes, that is exactly what I'm proposing. Because I'm of the opinion that the crowd size in the stadium isn't that important.  What I'm really wondering is who exactly gets the money for the Grand Final?  Is it the RFL or do the clubs share it amongst themselves?

In my scenario you have less fans attending the actual match; however, the club hosting (who was selected via a competitive bidding process) receives all the profit with perhaps a portion going to the winners and losers of the actual match for an appearance fee.  

I've looked at how much tickets cost for the Grand Final and I was honestly shocked at how cheap they were.

I was also shocked that the match has not been sold out yet.  It indicates an oversupply and lack of demand.  

With less supply, ticket prices could be raised considerably and a hosting club could make a very nice profit.  

Take St Helens for instance.  If they hosted the event at their 18000 seat stadium and charged on average £100 a ticket for the Grand Final and sold to capacity, that is £1.8 million pounds for a single match just in ticket sales.  That's not even including revenue from food, beer, etc.

Because hosting this event would no doubt be lucrative for clubs, it would add incentive for them to upgrade their facilities and try and put their best foot forward.  Maybe clubs would also consider building stadiums with flexibility to temporarily expand for certain "special events".  

Take St Helens Stadium for instance, wouldn't it be nice if they could throw an extra 5,000 seats on each end of the stadium for a Grand Final, now you've got almost 30,000 fans there.

Case in point:

 

In other words, create competition in order to foster growth.

If clubs invested in larger grounds to bid for grand final, it would almost bankrupt them just to get the big game every 10 years or so. OT works so don’t change it

[Gerrumonside ref]

6 hours ago, Big Picture said:

And when most of the pro teams are in small northern towns, why would they?

The Challenge Cup is already broadcast live on the BBC and clubs like Wigan do have major national awareness through their historic exploits.

Don’t forget that the predecessor to Super League was broadcast on the main FTA channels in the UK.

I think if the price was right ALL of the major FTA broadcasters in the UK would be interested in taking live Super League matches in an agreement with SKY.

That isn’t the issue.

The biggest hurdle is getting SKY interested in such an agreement - you’d have to convince them that having the lion’s share of the games with bigger publicity (like BT has done with Union) is the way forward to grow their product.

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

30 minutes ago, Gerrumonside ref said:

 

The biggest hurdle is getting SKY interested in such an agreement - you’d have to convince them that having the lion’s share of the games with bigger publicity (like BT has done with Union) is the way forward to grow their product.

Seems a no brainer to me

Maybe Sky might feel there would be subscribers who would cancel if they got 4 games for free a season any way? 

[Tommygilf]

21 hours ago, CanadianRugger said:

Old Trafford is iconic to people in Northern England, I'm certain people from Perpignan or elsewhere couldn't give a damn.  

That is potentially the most idiotic thing I've ever heard on here (and I've read some right twaddle).

Now I am assuming here, but as I take it you are from Canada (and BC iirc?) I can understand that maybe the whole football thing hasn't fully migrated over yet but let me assure you Manchester United (and by extension Old Trafford) is one of the biggest GLOBAL sports brands in the world. Its the second biggest football stadium in the UK. I say this as a Leeds United fan with gritted teeth, it has the best atmosphere out of any of the grounds I've been to to watch rugby at. Far superior to Wembley in fact. It really does deserve its nickname the Theatre of Dreams.

21 hours ago, CanadianRugger said:

I also don't think Rugby League should be hosting a Grand Final at a roundball stadium as it probably costs a fortune to rent and who benefits from it?  The Manchester United Football Club?

Manchester United turned down hosting 3 Rugby Union world cup games (and the much larger revenue with cheapest tickets starting at 40quid iirc - based off of my friend paying 50 quid to sit in the corner at Elland Road to watch Canada v Italy it was probably more) because 1 of them clashed with the Grand Final. They stuck out for our game and didn't leave us in the lurch when they quite easily, and quite reasonably from a financial standpoint, could have done. There is a relationship there that does not need wasting.

[Tommygilf]

20 hours ago, redjonn said:

Iconic... not for me, its an old structure that has been added too, in comparison to some of the more recently built from the "scratch".   Its for sure iconic to many Man Utd fans.

 

Compared to those built from scratch I much prefer it. Its probably why I like the approach my own team, Rhinos, have gone about modernising Stadia facilities.

Etihad is comfortable but really does lack an atmosphere, even my second team, Arsenal, haven't been able to really recapture Highbury at the fantastic purpose built Emirates - a point often made at St Helens after their switch from Knowsley Road. I think its telling that Tottenham have gone for a single big 'Kop End' (with Everton's new stadium appearing to aim to follow a similar model) at expense of keeping the stadia simple to improve atmosphere. West Ham are another team that have suffered the lack of character many all new stadia have.

[Smudger06]

46 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

That is potentially the most idiotic thing I've ever heard on here (and I've read some right twaddle).

Now I am assuming here, but as I take it you are from Canada (and BC iirc?) I can understand that maybe the whole football thing hasn't fully migrated over yet but let me assure you Manchester United (and by extension Old Trafford) is one of the biggest GLOBAL sports brands in the world. Its the second biggest football stadium in the UK. I say this as a Leeds United fan with gritted teeth, it has the best atmosphere out of any of the grounds I've been to to watch rugby at. Far superior to Wembley in fact. It really does deserve its nickname the Theatre of Dreams.

Manchester United turned down hosting 3 Rugby Union world cup games (and the much larger revenue with cheapest tickets starting at 40quid iirc) because 1 of them clashed with the Grand Final. They stuck out for our game and didn't leave us in the lurch when they quite easily, and quite reasonably from a financial standpoint, could have done. There is a relationship there that does not need wasting.

A good friend of the sport. The 1st Rugby League game held @ OT was 1924-25 season NZ v Lancashire and Manchester United took a 20% share of the gate. 

[Manxmanc]

20 minutes ago, Smudger06 said:

A good friend of the sport. The 1st Rugby League game held @ OT was 1924-25 season NZ v Lancashire and Manchester United took a 20% share of the gate. 

Wow. That's a long relationship.

[redjonn]

1 hour ago, Tommygilf said:

Compared to those built from scratch I much prefer it. Its probably why I like the approach my own team, Rhinos, have gone about modernising Stadia facilities.

Etihad is comfortable but really does lack an atmosphere, even my second team, Arsenal, haven't been able to really recapture Highbury at the fantastic purpose built Emirates - a point often made at St Helens after their switch from Knowsley Road. I think its telling that Tottenham have gone for a single big 'Kop End' (with Everton's new stadium appearing to aim to follow a similar model) at expense of keeping the stadia simple to improve atmosphere. West Ham are another team that have suffered the lack of character many all new stadia have.

You may prefer it, but I was just pointing my view that I didn't think the stadium was iconic.

With the likes of Spurs and in a few years Everton's and other stadium we in my opinion should be looking to whats available rather than being tied to one location for X number of years. Thus giving flexibility even if decide to stay with existing.

Too be honest given the use of finals as show casing our sport from a marketing aspect the TV audience is important and the atmosphere for at ground for the TV is less of an importance.

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, redjonn said:

You may prefer it, but I was just pointing my view that I didn't think the stadium was iconic.

With the likes of Spurs and in a few years Everton's and other stadium we in my opinion should be looking to whats available rather than being tied to one location for X number of years. Thus giving flexibility even if decide to stay with existing.

Too be honest given the use of finals as show casing our sport from a marketing aspect the TV audience is important and the atmosphere for at ground for the TV is less of an importance.

That's fair enough I can agree to disagree. 

I personally like the idea of keeping the Grand Final at a single location as it allows a narrative to be built around reaching that venue (similar to Wembley). Also having it on a Saturday evening I think realistically restricts it to the heartlands and I don't think we have a better stadium with a better relationship than OT. 

IMO we have Magic as that moveable event that can be taken to a number of stadiums plus internationals of course. 

Due to the GF being only on Sky atm, the marketing is almost entirely off that initial TV broadcast, ie on Social Media. There needs to be a sense of occasion and OT has never let us down for that.

[redjonn]

1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

That's fair enough I can agree to disagree. 

I personally like the idea of keeping the Grand Final at a single location as it allows a narrative to be built around reaching that venue (similar to Wembley). Also having it on a Saturday evening I think realistically restricts it to the heartlands and I don't think we have a better stadium with a better relationship than OT. 

IMO we have Magic as that moveable event that can be taken to a number of stadiums plus internationals of course. 

Due to the GF being only on Sky atm, the marketing is almost entirely off that initial TV broadcast, ie on Social Media. There needs to be a sense of occasion and OT has never let us down for that.

yep, I've always enjoyed the day at Old Trafford... but I would no doubt elsewhere in a suitable stadium. I guess I am not so much into nostalgia as many.... probably comes from working for a long time for a large american company... 

[DC77]

13 hours ago, CanadianRugger said:

I have no doubt the atmosphere is phenomenal.  I have been to a bunch of NFL, CFL and NCAA Football games with similar crowds and the atmosphere is amazing.

That being said, when I made my suggestions I had no doubt they would be dismissed without any real consideration.  I've learned that the sports culture of England and NA is far different.  

My concern is monetary.  The prize money clubs make from the Grand Final is paltry.  I want clubs to have bigger stadiums, bigger crowds and better salaries for the players.

Your suggestions are dismissed as they are unrealistic and show an ignorance of rugby league in England.

First off, “sports culture in England” doesn’t exist. There is football culture, rugby league culture,  rugby union culture, they don’t overlap into one big “sports culture” tag. They all operate on different levels. Football a game of the masses (with the Premier League the most watched sports league in the world), rugby league a game of the working class former coal mining towns along the M62 motorway in the north of England, and rugby union a game rooted in middle class public schools with its own heartland being in the leafy suburbs of the Home Counties (outside London). Each have their own distinct culture and following...and monetary wise one is a multi billion pound industry, one in the hundreds of millions, and the other considerably less than that.

”Throwing an extra 5,000 seats on each end of the stadium”...it’s not viable for a rugby league club, and not just from an affordability standpoint. Super league clubs average just over 8k attendance (8.3k in 2014 to be precise). These clubs rely on their own towns for support as rugby league has next to no presence outside of them. Go a few miles outside each town and people would barely know the sport exists. They are rooted in their own communities (as opposed to football clubs which generally represent large cities and have fans from all corners of the world). A club like St Helens already has a stadium with more than a big enough capacity, in fact all rugby league clubs in England do. A large percentage of each town’s population already goes to games, they don’t have a bigger fanbase to call upon. The club with by far the largest fanbase and wealth, Leeds, spent 20million in adding two new stands with the primary focus on upgrading their corporate facilities as opposed to adding a big increase in capacity (it stayed at around the same capacity). 

A one off game in a large football stadium works. A 50k minimum capacity stadium is needed for a stand alone event, and only football stadiums can accommodate that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_football_stadiums_in_England

The largest rugby league stadium (25k capacity) simply isn’t big enough for a showpiece event.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Rugby_League_stadiums_in_England

Should add, the three biggest rugby league stadiums are shared with football clubs (Hull, Wigan and Huddersfield), so you have to go to the 22k capacity Odsal stadium of Bradford for the largest stadium solely belonging to rugby league (and nevermind the limited capacity it’s a run down stadium not befitting of a venue for a showpiece event). 

[Eddie]

It’s incomprehensible that Wakefield Trinity aren’t currently planning a 100,000 capacity stadium, ready to bid for future grand finals when tens of thousands of North Americans are flying over for it. 

[Big Picture]

3 hours ago, Gerrumonside ref said:

The Challenge Cup is already broadcast live on the BBC and clubs like Wigan do have major national awareness through their historic exploits.

Don’t forget that the predecessor to Super League was broadcast on the main FTA channels in the UK.

I think if the price was right ALL of the major FTA broadcasters in the UK would be interested in taking live Super League matches in an agreement with SKY.

That isn’t the issue.

The biggest hurdle is getting SKY interested in such an agreement - you’d have to convince them that having the lion’s share of the games with bigger publicity (like BT has done with Union) is the way forward to grow their product.

The BBC pays very little for the Challenge Cup and always has done.  Wigan's national awareness for their exploits is problematic because a only a small time sport could ever be dominated for long periods by a team from a small place like Wigan.

The predecessor to SL was shown on ITV channels, but unless I'm mistaken only regionally on Granada and Yorkshire Television which didn't pay much either.  Even Sky didn't pay much at first.

In the SL era Sky has been the only broadcaster interested and they've always wanted exclusive rights.

24 minutes ago, DC77 said:

First off, “sports culture in England” doesn’t exist. There is football culture, rugby league culture,  rugby union culture, they don’t overlap into one big “sports culture” tag. They all operate on different levels. Football a game of the masses (with the Premier League the most watched sports league in the world), rugby league a game of the working class former coal mining towns along the M62 motorway in the north of England, and rugby union a game rooted in middle class public schools with its own heartland being in the leafy suburbs of the Home Counties (outside London). Each have their own distinct culture and following...and monetary wise one is a multi billion pound industry, one in the hundreds of millions, and the other considerably less than that.

"Middle class public schools"?  Those schools cater to the rich, so don't you mean upper class?

[DC77]

3 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

That is potentially the most idiotic thing I've ever heard on here (and I've read some right twaddle).

Now I am assuming here, but as I take it you are from Canada (and BC iirc?) I can understand that maybe the whole football thing hasn't fully migrated over yet but let me assure you Manchester United (and by extension Old Trafford) is one of the biggest GLOBAL sports brands in the world. Its the second biggest football stadium in the UK. I say this as a Leeds United fan with gritted teeth, it has the best atmosphere out of any of the grounds I've been to to watch rugby at. Far superior to Wembley in fact. It really does deserve its nickname the Theatre of Dreams.

I actually think he unwittingly has a point when it comes to “iconic” and Old Trafford. 

Ive never heard football fans speak of it as “iconic”. The club is iconic yes (in global sport you’d only put Barcelona and Real Madrid ahead of them), but the stadium has never really earned that tag.

The one club ground above all in England that has that label is Anfield. You hear players from all over the world saying they’d love to play there (I read foreign language press and it’s also held in an esteem unlike many others).

[DC77]

14 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

"Middle class public schools"?  Those schools cater to the rich, so don't you mean upper class?

Probably should have said upper-middle class (the term ‘middle class public school boy’ has been used).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_class_in_the_United_Kingdom#Upper_middle_class

[Gerrumonside ref]

1 hour ago, Big Picture said:

The BBC pays very little for the Challenge Cup and always has done.  Wigan's national awareness for their exploits is problematic because a only a small time sport could ever be dominated for long periods by a team from a small place like Wigan.

The predecessor to SL was shown on ITV channels, but unless I'm mistaken only regionally on Granada and Yorkshire Television which didn't pay much either.  Even Sky didn't pay much at first.

In the SL era Sky has been the only broadcaster interested and they've always wanted exclusive rights.

Yes, sports rights were minimal in the past as they were even for top flight English football among UK broadcasters.

You said that Channel 5 wouldn’t show live Super League games if given the chance because in your opinion it’s played in small northern towns - that’s a complete nonsense in a UK context.

I will excuse you though as I’ve noticed that you’re from Canada and maybe aren’t best placed to comment.

Edit:  Hope you don’t feel patronised by that last sentence as you are entitled to an opinion 

[Themusician_2]

If a heartland club isn't viable fold or relocate. IT's that simple.

[Big Picture]

25 minutes ago, Gerrumonside ref said:

Yes, sports rights were minimal in the past as they were even for top flight English football among UK broadcasters.

You said that Channel 5 wouldn’t show live Super League games if given the chance because in your opinion it’s played in small northern towns - that’s a complete nonsense in a UK context.

I will excuse you though as I’ve noticed that you’re from Canada and maybe aren’t best placed to comment.

Edit:  Hope you don’t feel patronised by that last sentence as you are entitled to an opinion 

Of course I don't feel that way, don't worry.

Other posters have remarked a number of times how the game is commonly viewed by outsiders as a small regional sport for northerners, that perception would undoubtedly limit the interest from broadcasters as compared with their interest in showing other sports.  Add to that the way the events of the past couple of years have exposed its small time ways and I stand by my view.

[Gerrumonside ref]

Just now, Big Picture said:

Of course I don't feel that way, don't worry.

Other posters have remarked a number of times how the game is commonly viewed by outsiders as a small regional sport for northerners, that perception would undoubtedly limit the interest from broadcasters as compared with their interest in showing other sports.  Add to that the way the events of the past couple of years have exposed its small time ways and I stand by my view.

Fair enough