Jump to content

Cheap tickets and empty stadiums


Recommended Posts


  • Replies 420
  • Created
  • Last Reply
2 hours ago, meast said:

Because 

1) "it costs too much"

2)"It's Thursday night and I can't possibly venture out of the house because I have to be up for work 12 hours later"

3) "I'm not paying that much"

4) "I pay for SKY so why would I then pay again to watch it in the ground"

5) "It's not free!"

6) "I can't be bothered"

7) "I'm a Fairweather/glory supporter and we haven't been doing very well"

8 ) "It isn't part of my season ticket so I won't attend games I have to actually buy a ticket for, unless it's a final" , see also 7)

9) "it's too cold"

10) " I have to be up the next morning so can't leave the house"

there's plenty of excuses RL fans will use to not support their clubs/games and then bemoan the fact that we are a small time sport who doesn't get the same treatment that football/RU gets etc etc 

Not disagreeing with much of your post. But I'd like to know where you work if you can wake up at 10:30-11am do you start at mid day? haha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 20/09/2019 at 11:03, DoubleD said:

I like this and what Leeds have done for ST for next year. They’ve been criticised in some quarters for their high ticket prices, which I think are justified to cover the cost of the great new facility. So to appease some fans, and those with less disposable income, they’ve offered much cheaper season tickets for those who want in the Western Terrace. I like that strategy - you pay for what you get. 

The 3 or 5 match deal is also a good idea. I was considering it but I’m happy just paying as and when (I probably go to about 8-10 games a year when commitments allow)

It's perfect for me as with my shift work and moving away from North Leeds it's not worth getting a season ticket and if I have buy single game tickets I end up a lot of the time not bothering. But if I have bought them upfront it gives me more motivation to get over for the game. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Oliver Clothesoff said:

Losing 14/29 games is mediocre. 

No it isn't.  And that was not what I was arguing about...  you were suggesting / implying that in say another scenario the 5th counts for nothing even if it loses from 1st on points difference. You are giving 1st a free pass and ignoring 4th and 5th.  What is the point of the league if say 5th is only1 point behind the leader but gets nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chris22 said:

I think you're correct that any non-attending fan will have their own reasons for not attending. In my opinion, the first reason about cost is probably the most applicable. When you compare the costs of attending a few play off games compared to a season ticket of 14 games, it is a relatively big outlay.

Shameless plug alert - I have written a blog about this (link in my signature) and looked at the figures involved in some detail. The problem is, I found it very difficult to come up with too many ways to solve the problem!

But the season ticket saves the fan loads of money that they can use later in the playoffs.   If fans are so miserable then the game deserves to die.

Countless millions of people spend a fortune on all sorts of useless things, not least various expensive theatrical musical and sporting events.  RL fans whinge on about being given more and more free stuff.  

Without a doubt there are too many games and the times and dates are  criminal... but complaining that being successful (getting to the finals) is too expensive is a miserable view if that is what the fans are saying. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mattrhino said:

It's perfect for me as with my shift work and moving away from North Leeds it's not worth getting a season ticket and if I have buy single game tickets I end up a lot of the time not bothering. But if I have bought them upfront it gives me more motivation to get over for the game. 

But if it was a play off game ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mattrhino said:

Not disagreeing with much of your post. But I'd like to know where you work if you can wake up at 10:30-11am do you start at mid day? haha

I just go to bed later on the night of the game and hopefully catch up at some point, it's no big deal to me whether I have 7 or 5 hours sleep

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is absolutely not an excuse but I just don’t like the play off structure where teams get a second chance. More often than not I’ll not bother watching a play off game such as Wigan vs Salford which isn’t a knock out one. 

I’d like to see a return to 14 teams, 27 games, no loop fixtures and top 6 play off as follows: 

week 1:

1st and 2nd - bye weekend 

3rd vs 6th

4th vs 5th

week 2:

1st vs winner of 4th vs 5th

2nd vs winner of 3rd vs 6th

week 3:

Grand Final

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

Mediocrity or a highly competitive league? Surely in a salary capped sport (where 90% of teams spend to that cap), to have a close comp is a sign the cap is working? Saints success is an outlier in what is otherwise a very competitive league.

Its been a dreadful league. How Wigan have been able to climb and finish second shows how much dross the other teams have produced. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Surely that is the salary cap in action?

I wish it was that, but I have to agree more with Bod's interpretation. Certainly from watching all the TV games, Hull, Wire, and Cats just put in some poor performances over the last couple of months of the season, and Wigan and Cas were average. They ended up where they did becasue others fell away badly, not because good teams were beaten by even better ones, and the game quality reflected that sadly. 

The only exception to that in my eyes was Salford, who, although not perfect, clawed their way up to third with some quality rugby. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

So if SL is tight other than one team they've ###### ? , whereas if the NRL is tight they're great ? 

 

There is a notable difference in quality between the NRL and Super League most weeks, if not every week, of the season. Games being tight does not equal quality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, GUBRATS said:

So if SL is tight other than one team they've ###### ? , whereas if the NRL is tight they're great ? 

 

It's the depth of quality that's the difference, and you can see the difference visibly just watching both leagues' finals series. 

Any of the top 4 in the NRL would be worthy winners, whereas Wire have been poor for weeks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

I wish it was that, but I have to agree more with Bod's interpretation. Certainly from watching all the TV games, Hull, Wire, and Cats just just put in some poor performances over the last couple of months of the season, and Wigan and Cas were average. They ended up where they did becasue others fell away badly, not because good teams were beaten by even better ones, and the game quality reflected that sadly. 

The only exception to that in my eyes was Salford, who, although not perfect, clawed their way up to third with some quality rugby. 

I think its being overly harsh. Wigan have improved massively through the season. Cas have battled adversity all year. Hull FC and Cats certainly fell away (hence why they didn't make the playoffs) as some teams will inevitably do. Wire have been poor for a couple of months and the challenge cup winners curse struck again.

I've enjoyed how close top and bottom have been. If Saints are as superior as they claim, they should walk it. I have my doubts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DoubleD said:

This is absolutely not an excuse but I just don’t like the play off structure where teams get a second chance. More often than not I’ll not bother watching a play off game such as Wigan vs Salford which isn’t a knock out one. 

I’d like to see a return to 14 teams, 27 games, no loop fixtures and top 6 play off as follows: 

week 1:

1st and 2nd - bye weekend 

3rd vs 6th

4th vs 5th

week 2:

1st vs winner of 4th vs 5th

2nd vs winner of 3rd vs 6th

week 3:

Grand Final

I'd go one further and have 2nd v 7th. Only top should get a week off.

Wells%20Motors%20(Signature)_zps67e534e4.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

I think its being overly harsh. Wigan have improved massively through the season. Cas have battled adversity all year. Hull FC and Cats certainly fell away (hence why they didn't make the playoffs) as some teams will inevitably do. Wire have been poor for a couple of months and the challenge cup winners curse struck again.

I've enjoyed how close top and bottom have been. If Saints are as superior as they claim, they should walk it. I have my doubts.

I've enjoyed it too, not every game can be one for the ages, and I agree Wigan and Cas have shown some positive signs. But it's not been great rugby and in other years I don't think they'd have had enough. But sometimes you have to make the most of what you've got, and they can say they've done that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Chris22 said:

In my view, 7th place should never be in the play offs in a 12 or 14 team league. 

5 is the absolute maximum unless we expand to 14, then perhaps the play offs could expand to 6.

I like the top 5, apart from the duplicate fixtures which isn't ideal.

I do agree with this. If we are to have play offs then we shouldn't be allowing teams that finish mid table to qualify.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 19/09/2019 at 22:08, Smudger06 said:

1. That was the 4th time those sides had met this season!!!! 

2. It's a Thursday Night Game, people have early starts in the morning. 

3. It's on TV. (Let's hope the viewing figures are fantastic!) 

top teams at the pointy end in the 70s and 80s and even into the 90s could meet each other more than that due to the number of competitions, it's a poor excuse when it's the season ending matches.

How many of the fans start early, 5%, 10%, 50%?? how early is too early to make it an excuse to not bother to go to a match of some importance? Basically another feeble excuse

it's on TV, ah, that old pony, we've had that mentioned/discussed in Open Rugby as far back as the late 70s/early 80s, it was a load of pony then and it is now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess we don't really understand our customers.

Personally I think a lot of fans, like me go through habit - season tickets facilitate this. As destint from wanting to watch a must see sporting spectacle, especial one that occurs frequently like playoffs. 

I make more effort to watch internationals. Regular play offs need to excite me more and be as effortless to attend as possible. This includes any travel and facilities. Not just some beige buffet or fast food in the ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Denton Rovers RLFC said:

top teams at the pointy end in the 70s and 80s and even into the 90s could meet each other more than that due to the number of competitions, it's a poor excuse when it's the season ending matches.

How many of the fans start early, 5%, 10%, 50%?? how early is too early to make it an excuse to not bother to go to a match of some importance? Basically another feeble excuse

it's on TV, ah, that old pony, we've had that mentioned/discussed in Open Rugby as far back as the late 70s/early 80s, it was a load of pony then and it is now.

Yes, I see now, Clearly it was none of those reasons or a combination thereof. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...