Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Scubby

Half The Stadium Not On Sale: GB v Tonga

Recommended Posts

On 19/10/2019 at 15:13, Lowdesert said:

At least the lack of crowd will give Harry a clearer view of which Australian has failed in a GB shirt.

Every single one , even before they’ve started 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, sweaty craiq said:

Leaving Lang Park after the WCF we had Cons saying how the best team lost, how the game was much Higher standard than SOO and they couldn't wait for a tour, nothing like seizing the moment.

Remember, the Aussies were going through a transitional period with the likes of Slater,Cronk,Smith,Thurston, Scott, Parker, Thiaday and Lewis all leaving the National team so the fallow period that followed that at the behest of their players association was a opportune time for them to bring forward a new batch of exciting, young players so there never was a chance that they would be open to playing a test series anywhere. With the alignment of seasons and the cash cow of State of Origin still churning out the dollars and viewing audience a Test series down under is a forlorn hope. It's a business and despite lip service being paid to IRL they don't need us to make money whilst we desperately need them🙃

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who was the wise guy that put these fixtures at the same time as union play offs in New Zealand!? This will be a true test on how many die hard international rugby league fans they are in New Zealand. In 2017 the RLWC had to compete against the once every 12 years British and Irish lions tour.They got respectable crowds. Now some friendlies will have to compete with union world cup finals. Lets hope the travelling support is good. As some people on this forum claim GB Lions is a huge draw card.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Clogiron said:

Remember, the Aussies were going through a transitional period with the likes of Slater,Cronk,Smith,Thurston, Scott, Parker, Thiaday and Lewis all leaving the National team so the fallow period that followed that at the behest of their players association was a opportune time for them to bring forward a new batch of exciting, young players so there never was a chance that they would be open to playing a test series anywhere. With the alignment of seasons and the cash cow of State of Origin still churning out the dollars and viewing audience a Test series down under is a forlorn hope. It's a business and despite lip service being paid to IRL they don't need us to make money whilst we desperately need them🙃

Yep and now they are getting their #### together with a lot of amazing players coming through. They were there for the taking last year and even this. By 2020 and 2021 the likes of Mitchell, Ponga, Tedesco and Murray will be causing havoc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Themusician_2 said:

Who was the wise guy that put these fixtures at the same time as union play offs in New Zealand!? This will be a true test on how many die hard international rugby league fans they are in New Zealand. In 2017 the RLWC had to compete against the once every 12 years British and Irish lions tour.They got respectable crowds. Now some friendlies will have to compete with union world cup finals. Lets hope the travelling support is good. As some people on this forum claim GB Lions is a huge draw card.

The GB Lions used to be something relatively distinct and recognisably RL. It was confused a little by the RU Lions but it had the history and the ashes series. It took quite a long time for England RL to get going in my opinion.

That said, any brand recognition we had has completely gone, especially in a place like NZ. It's nice for nostalgic reasons for some of us but it could actually be counter-productive and appear as a less serious version (e.g almost invitational) than England RL would have been.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Gibbo said:

It goes a bit deeper than that I think.

You are reading one page of a fairly lengthy book in my opinion.

It sure does go deeper.  Australia's multi-year dominance put an end to the rivalry in the Aussies' minds, GB could never manage more than one win in a series for decades now and every time it's looked like maybe the gap is closing they just stepped up a gear and won again.

Share this post


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

Well that doesnt make sense. Our 1995 WC had an average of 15k and was lauded as a great success and starting point. So we had worse results than that and didnt scrap it.

Our average in 95 was actually approx 3k more than the RU WC in 87. Then in 2000 we went for a more ambitious tournament, which was subsequently a washout and it got shelved for 8 years. It also led to the RFL massively scaling back any internationals in the subsequent years, by retreating to the heartlands and the likes of Huddersfield and Wigan for several tournaments. It was 11 years before they built up the courage to take an international game back to Wembley.

Edited by RugbyLeagueGeek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

Our average in 95 was actually approx 3k more than the RU WC in 87. Then in 2000 we went for a more ambitious tournament, which was subsequently a washout and it got shelved for 8 years. It also led to the RFL massively scaling back any internationals in the subsequent years, by retreating to the heartlands and the likes of Huddersfield and Wigan for several tournaments. It was 11 years before they built up the courage to take an international game back to Wembley.

I know all this. It was you who claimed had we got a 20k average wed have been negative and sacked it off.

We didnt.

Share this post


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

I know all this. It was you who claimed had we got a 20k average wed have been negative and sacked it off.

We didnt.

C'mon Dave - you're being obtuse for the sake of it. It was you who claimed that the 95 RL WC had worse results than the 87 RU WC when it didn't.

What did happen when we expanded our tournament in line with the scale of the 87 RU WC was that the average attendance dropped massively, the organisers got cold feet, and the tournament got shelved. So I think it's fair to say my point is relevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one on here has mentioned that the main reason for this thread 's title is the apathy of the wonderful Tongan support base that was so fondly reported and commented on in the '17 World Cup, where are they now all those Mate Ma'a Tonga for ever, Tonga till I die, hymm singing, flag waving Rugby League diehards?

A couple of weeks ago I suggested was it the tide of occasion of being the WC that brought all those fans out, that was treated with stoney silence on these pages, well we shall see, if as is suggested the attendance in Hamilton is bad from the Tongan community and that follows on with their attendance the following week in Auckland when they play Australia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Abicus said:

According to League Unlimited posters, the Eden Park Triple Header has only sold 3,500 tickets.

Would that have anything to do with it clashing directly with the RU World Cup Final, which will likely feature NZ, in a country where RU in the national sport? It is scheduling on an insane nature! But, of course, I am moaning for the sake of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like

A Triple Header in a 50,000 seater stadium moving only 3,500 seats, 2 weeks out is a monumental scary thought. If people thought the Denver Test was going to bankrupt the organisers, what will Auckland do?

Share this post


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

C'mon Dave - you're being obtuse for the sake of it. It was you who claimed that the 95 RL WC had worse results than the 87 RU WC when it didn't.

What did happen when we expanded our tournament in line with the scale of the 87 RU WC was that the average attendance dropped massively, the organisers got cold feet, and the tournament got shelved. So I think it's fair to say my point is relevant.

Well no, you claimed that the RUWC had an average of 20k, and if we had an average like that we would have called it a failure and sacked it off. 

I claimed we had worse than that and didn't sack it off. Our average was actually 17.7k according to Wikipedia so slightly higher than I remembered, but still lower than the 20k that you said 1987 RUWC had. 

I can't help it if you wrongly said that the RUWC had an average of 20k. 

So your point was factually wrong, and in fact a load of negative BS. 

What did in fact happen was 5 years later we became over-ambitious and we managed to halve the average. So your comparison of a solid first tournament leading to us cancelling was literally nonsense, history shows we literally did not do something that you claimed we would do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

No one on here has mentioned that the main reason for this thread 's title is the apathy of the wonderful Tongan support base that was so fondly reported and commented on in the '17 World Cup, where are they now all those Mate Ma'a Tonga for ever, Tonga till I die, hymm singing, flag waving Rugby League diehards?

A couple of weeks ago I suggested was it the tide of occasion of being the WC that brought all those fans out, that was treated with stoney silence on these pages, well we shall see, if as is suggested the attendance in Hamilton is bad from the Tongan community and that follows on with their attendance the following week in Auckland when they play Australia.

They are possibly in the same place as all those England fans that failed to pack out Hull last year (17k crowd) when they had 67k versus the Kiwis just a few years earlier.

I don't understand your first line of your 2nd para - of course the WC attracts bigger crowds, as it should, I'm not sure why it would be met with stoney silence, it was hardly a controversial claim.

I'm not sure what the point is you are making?

Share this post


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

Well no, you claimed that the RUWC had an average of 20k, and if we had an average like that we would have called it a failure and sacked it off. 

I claimed we had worse than that and didn't sack it off. Our average was actually 17.7k according to Wikipedia so slightly higher than I remembered, but still lower than the 20k that you said 1987 RUWC had. 

I can't help it if you wrongly said that the RUWC had an average of 20k. 

In point of fact, my original post quoted an average of 20k, and that stadiums that were 60% full. You simply picked up on the 20k part of it. I would guess (although may be wrong, as I haven't done the stats), that the 95 RL WC had a higher percentage of the stadiums full, as the organisers chose several small club grounds for alot of the group games. Having since found the correct average attendance stats, the fact that the actual 87 RU WC avge attendances were several thousand below those of the 95 RL WC only serves to strengthen my original point.

It isn't negative BS to suggest that the RFL/RLIF have the potential to lose confidence in their international events if they don't reach expectations. The fact that the WC concept was shelved after the 2000 tournament failed to reach expectations is evidence of this.

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

So your point was factually wrong, and in fact a load of negative BS. 

What did in fact happen was 5 years later we became over-ambitious and we managed to halve the average. So your comparison of a solid first tournament leading to us cancelling was literally nonsense, history shows we literally did not do something that you claimed we would do.

Re-read my original post and you will see that is not what I said. You are projecting your own subjective interpretations on what I posted. It was my intention - however well conveyed or not - to postulate that had the 95 RL WC not been as successful, then there is a strong likelihood that the governing bodies would have got nervous and pulled the plug. And they did exactly this in 2000.

Just because it's negative (and/or not clearly articulated) doesn't mean that it's BS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Maximus Decimus said:

The GB Lions used to be something relatively distinct and recognisably RL. It was confused a little by the RU Lions but it had the history and the ashes series. It took quite a long time for England RL to get going in my opinion.

That said, any brand recognition we had has completely gone, especially in a place like NZ. It's nice for nostalgic reasons for some of us but it could actually be counter-productive and appear as a less serious version (e.g almost invitational) than England RL would have been.

Well said this is truly one for the diehards

Share this post


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

Would that have anything to do with it clashing directly with the RU World Cup Final, which will likely feature NZ, in a country where RU in the national sport? It is scheduling on an insane nature! But, of course, I am moaning for the sake of it.

Lets have a International league double header going up against the union finals in New Zealand what could possibly go wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

In point of fact, my original post quoted an average of 20k, and that stadiums that were 60% full. You simply picked up on the 20k part of it. I would guess (although may be wrong, as I haven't done the stats), that the 95 RL WC had a higher percentage of the stadiums full, as the organisers chose several small club grounds for alot of the group games. Having since found the correct average attendance stats, the fact that the actual 87 RU WC avge attendances were several thousand below those of the 95 RL WC only serves to strengthen my original point.

It isn't negative BS to suggest that the RFL/RLIF have the potential to lose confidence in their international events if they don't reach expectations. The fact that the WC concept was shelved after the 2000 tournament failed to reach expectations is evidence of this.

Re-read my original post and you will see that is not what I said. You are projecting your own subjective interpretations on what I posted. It was my intention - however well conveyed or not - to postulate that had the 95 RL WC not been as successful, then there is a strong likelihood that the governing bodies would have got nervous and pulled the plug. And they did exactly this in 2000.

Just because it's negative (and/or not clearly articulated) doesn't mean that it's BS.

That's all great but  didn't claim that if we got an average of 20k we'd be calling it a disaster and abandon it. 

Here we are 24 years after averaging 17.7k, being impressed by the planning for the 2021 World Cup which has already secured record levels of funding and has now become an established tournament in the RL calendar. 

This is despite delivering a disastrous tournament in 2000 which nearly broke the RFL and delivered an 8.8k average. Sure they took a bit of time out to regroup on that before the next edition, but if anything, the Rugby League World Cup pretty much proves the exact opposite of what you are claiming, that we give up if we don't get instant success.

There is plenty to bash the RL authorities over, but the RLWC is a decent example of us sticking by a concept and doing the right thing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not against the GB Lions, or them touring. I don't think it makes much difference tbh. What I am against is the fact that our national team no longer will be playing in the kind of tour that has never been a thing for us, and when you are trying to rekindle something and play on history and nostalgia, that is bizarre.

I think plenty of us could have got behind a long tour with midweek games etc. 

But this is ultimately worse than a 4N tour, minus the Aussies. This is neither a nostalgia tour, nor is it a modern new-world tour.

We have played 22 times since that 2013 World Cup semi final, 9 of them versus the Kiwis. 

Share this post


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

There is plenty to bash the RL authorities over, but the RLWC is a decent example of us sticking by a concept and doing the right thing. 

Fortunately, the World Cup in 2013 was successful, and hopefully in 2021 it will be even more successful. I'm not convinced that the Aussies are as enthusiastic about it as us, and their luke warm support of the tournament in 08 and 17 doesn't convince me that it isn't still a fragile concept for the RL authorities. Moreover, it is only one tournament out of a four year cycle, and the other 3 years of that cycle are a shambles.

I appreciate that you don't enjoy people bashing the RL authorities for the sake of being negative, but from my perspective, the international game, or lack there of - with the exception of the WC - is a complete dog's breakfast and a major reason why commercial and spectator growth has fallen way behind that of RU and other sports over the last 20 years. RL will never penetrate the national consciousness without a thriving international game, and I have seen precious little evidence over the last 20 years of the RL authorities having courage and conviction in delivering any regular and meaningful international competition formats (WC excepted) that haven't been mothballed or abandoned completely. It absolutely is a legitimate reason to bash them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

Fortunately, the World Cup in 2013 was successful, and hopefully in 2021 it will be even more successful. I'm not convinced that the Aussies are as enthusiastic about it as us, and their luke warm support of the tournament in 08 and 17 doesn't convince me that it isn't still a fragile concept for the RL authorities. Moreover, it is only one tournament out of a four year cycle, and the other 3 years of that cycle are a shambles.

I appreciate that you don't enjoy people bashing the RL authorities for the sake of being negative, but from my perspective, the international game, or lack there of - with the exception of the WC - is a complete dog's breakfast and a major reason why commercial and spectator growth has fallen way behind that of RU and other sports over the last 20 years. RL will never penetrate the national consciousness without a thriving international game, and I have seen precious little evidence over the last 20 years of the RL authorities having courage and conviction in delivering any regular and meaningful international competition formats (WC excepted) that haven't been mothballed or abandoned completely. It absolutely is a legitimate reason to bash them.

 

We probably agree more than this exchange seems, so happy to leave it there. I have no issues criticising the RL authorities and the international game is one of my biggest frustrations, but tbh the RLWC is possibly the one area they have persevered with.

 

  • Like 1

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...