TWP readmitted to challenge cup

[DoubleD]

2 minutes ago, Eddie said:

Every English club, even in the NCL, would take more fans to Wembley than Toulouse. 

Highly unlikely

[Eddie]

2 minutes ago, DoubleD said:

Highly unlikely

How many did Catalans take? You can divide that by 4 for Toulouse. 

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, scotchy1 said:

Yeah but most clubs in the challenge cup cant dream of selling that many tickets direct.

I wouldnt be surprised if say wakefield struggled to well 20k never mind a Leigh, and that's before we even contemplate a newcastle.

Then you your west wales, or even your Toulouse, toronto, les Catalans where a quarter of that would be a great achievement

Yup, I get all that. But even based on the numbers I highlighted, they would need to sell 7.4k at £35 to break even. 

Of course the optimal solution is to get sponsorship and media deals that dwarf these numbers and mean that a 10k variance isn't worth even worrying about. 

[Dave T]

18 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

There are clubs who would need to sell 100 times their usual ticket sales to reach 20k. 

There are places with RL sides that dont even have 20k people in the village. 

If the RFL cant sell it and clubs are expected to make a loss on buying tickets as their reward for reaching the final, the question becomes what is the point of the challenge cup

I would suggest that the only club who has never managed to sell 10k plus for a Challenge Cup Final is Catalans. So there is no expectation that clubs would make a loss. You then have the merchandise and other opportunities for income.

But I'm not sure us just keep folding our arms, and demanding the RFL sell it out but giving clubs who cant sell tickets for it free passes is the way forward.

[TIWIT]

All I can see is this is another of those mysterious conditions forced on TWP for admittance to Super League. Honestly, what's in it for them? More travel (no home games of course). More risk of injury to an already thin squad. Sky will probably want them to pay to televise their games. And the prize is something we here care little about so there's not a chance they'll bring sufficient fans to the final should they by some fluke get there. Way too much risk, far too little reward for me.

[DoubleD]

18 minutes ago, Eddie said:

How many did Catalans take? You can divide that by 4 for Toulouse. 

Why? A lot of French RL fans would also go if Toulouse were there. Catalans attendance was also hindered by the short distance from the semis, leaving little time for people to prepare and it also being in peak holiday season in August where nearly all of France downs tools and goes on holiday. It will be mid July this coming year.

Toulouse got over 6k fans to their flagship game vs Toronto this year, so they have pulling power. And like the Dragons, they would bring a lot of exposure which many small town/village clubs in northern England wouldn't. But I know you've got a bee in your bonnet about Toulouse so i won't take this any further

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, whatmichaelsays said:

It's criminal that the RFL insists on these bonds in the first place.

The RFL can't just keep hoping for a combination of Leeds, Wigan, St Helens, Warrington and Hull FC to sell out the final. It's one of our showpiece events - the RFL still insists that it's a "blue ribboned" event - they should have no difficulty in selling it as long as they are smart and proactive about it.

I definitely agree that the RFL can be doing better, but I personally think it is a miracle that crowds have been so high for the CC Final.

RU has shown in their Euro Cup Final that depending on the mix of teams, particularly overseas teams, the crowds can drop massively. In 2015 they had 23k empty seats for the final, with a far bigger and better funded operation than we have. I'm sure they weren't guilty of just not being smart and pro-active.

[Dave T]

7 minutes ago, TIWIT said:

All I can see is this is another of those mysterious conditions forced on TWP for admittance to Super League. Honestly, what's in it for them? More travel (no home games of course). More risk of injury to an already thin squad. Sky will probably want them to pay to televise their games. And the prize is something we here care little about so there's not a chance they'll bring sufficient fans to the final should they by some fluke get there. Way too much risk, far too little reward for me.

You are a Rugby club who wants to play in the UK structure. This is part of it.

[TIWIT]

Just now, Dave T said:

You are a Rugby club who wants to play in the UK structure. This is part of it.

Under an entirely different set of rules than all the other clubs. It would be in TWP's best interests to show up, lose their first game, and be done with it.

[DoubleD]

12 minutes ago, TIWIT said:

Under an entirely different set of rules than all the other clubs. It would be in TWP's best interests to show up, lose their first game, and be done with it.

You didn't have to enter the cup..............so it would make zero sense why they would enter just to lose the first game

[Dave T]

12 minutes ago, TIWIT said:

Under an entirely different set of rules than all the other clubs. It would be in TWP's best interests to show up, lose their first game, and be done with it.

Many overseas clubs have had to play away from home in the cup for a while now although Catalans and Toulouse have hosted home games. 

[TIWIT]

2 minutes ago, DoubleD said:

You didn't have to enter the cup..............so it would make zero sense why they would enter just to lose the first game

Maybe TWP did. Reread my original post.

[Eddie]

32 minutes ago, DoubleD said:

Why? A lot of French RL fans would also go if Toulouse were there. Catalans attendance was also hindered by the short distance from the semis, leaving little time for people to prepare and it also being in peak holiday season in August where nearly all of France downs tools and goes on holiday. It will be mid July this coming year.

Toulouse got over 6k fans to their flagship game vs Toronto this year, so they have pulling power. And like the Dragons, they would bring a lot of exposure which many small town/village clubs in northern England wouldn't. But I know you've got a bee in your bonnet about Toulouse so i won't take this any further

Bee in my bonnet is a bit extreme, I just don’t see them as a potential strong SL club as they’re so poorly supported. Would love to be proven wrong mind you. 

[DoubleD]

3 minutes ago, Eddie said:

Bee in my bonnet is a bit extreme, I just don’t see them as a potential strong SL club as they’re so poorly supported. Would love to be proven wrong mind you. 

How many other teams, outside the top flight, got over 6k to a home game this year?

[whatmichaelsays]

40 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I definitely agree that the RFL can be doing better, but I personally think it is a miracle that crowds have been so high for the CC Final.

RU has shown in their Euro Cup Final that depending on the mix of teams, particularly overseas teams, the crowds can drop massively. In 2015 they had 23k empty seats for the final, with a far bigger and better funded operation than we have. I'm sure they weren't guilty of just not being smart and pro-active.

Whilst that maybe the case, this is the modern reality of what the RFL has to work with. The product has developed to a point where at least one overseas team has a credible chance of being involved, and that is what they are tasked with selling. The onus is on them to adapt to that. 

To put the risk burden on only certain clubs is, in my view, an unforgivable dereliction of duty to the event and to the sport. The RFL has seen both the market and the product change around them, and they still persist with using the same tactics, aimed at the same people. Only this time, they're looking at the diminishing returns and deciding somebody else should pay for them. 

The the RFL wants to accept overseas teams into the competition, and to ride the wave of publicity that they bring (as the Catalans did in 2018), they should also accept the risks that come with it.

Above all else, this is an issue of fairness and integrity. If one club is asked to pay, so should every other. 

[Gooleboy]

2 hours ago, Leonard said:

In fact - how is Rimmer still in a job? His salary is probably 50% plus of the bond value.

Did he ever take a pay cut to reflect the fact Elstone now does a large chunk of his old role?

Fair enough regarding Rimmer, but does anybody actually know what Elstone does?

[Dave T]

29 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

Whilst that maybe the case, this is the modern reality of what the RFL has to work with. The product has developed to a point where at least one overseas team has a credible chance of being involved, and that is what they are tasked with selling. The onus is on them to adapt to that. 

To put the risk burden on only certain clubs is, in my view, an unforgivable dereliction of duty to the event and to the sport. The RFL has seen both the market and the product change around them, and they still persist with using the same tactics, aimed at the same people. Only this time, they're looking at the diminishing returns and deciding somebody else should pay for them. 

The the RFL wants to accept overseas teams into the competition, and to ride the wave of publicity that they bring (as the Catalans did in 2018), they should also accept the risks that come with it.

Above all else, this is an issue of fairness and integrity. If one club is asked to pay, so should every other. 

As per my previous posts on this I have acknowledged how you can address your last point.

[whatmichaelsays]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

As per my previous posts on this I have acknowledged how you can address your last point.

I'm not sure it does address the key issue - that this is an RFL event and the onus is on the RFL to sell it.

Simply shrugging our shoulders and saying "well the RFL is rubbish at marketing anyway" or trying to put the burden on the clubs is really letting them off the hook. 

The product has changed, the market has changed and there are people at Red Hall who are paid (some very handsomely) to solve this very issue. To suggest that it is the clubs' issue to fix, be it through bonds or through minimum ticket purchase requirements, really is passing the buck. 

Yes, bring the clubs with you and encourage integrated thinking, but the risk has to be borne by the entity that is reaping the reward. 

[Dave T]

15 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

The clubs have weeks to sell it, the RFL years. 

I think realistically the clubs who are going to get to the final would be ok, but creating that risk for the other clubs (which is pretty much all of them) goes against the reason the challenge cup exists. Let's not forget theoretically an amateur club could reach the final. 

I dont think the clubs should be separate but it needs to be spread and shared and early.

We would be far better charging clubs an entrance fee.for being in the CC, say 2k challenge cup final tickets, 2k international tickets for British SL clubs, 500 for championship,250 L1, 50 amateur.. That's the CC entry fee.

That would be what 35k tickets sold for the CC final and internationals before a ball is kicked. Get amateurnclubs in the habit of sending organised groups, let pro clubs sell 'super season tickets'with everything included etc. Then the RFL have 55k tickets to get of their asses and sell 

Forget the ticket sales for overseas clubs, it's just not really an efficient use of anyone's time. Instead insist that they cover the cost of broadcasting all their games through our league or something and push trying to get their games televised in their country 

 

I'm on board with all those suggestions too. But your last suggestion is just another thing for people to get hysterical about as they would be 'playing by different rules'.

My preferred option is just profit-share really, so that the risk is shared. I prefer the idea of sharing the risk and sharing the successes in everything we do really. I think this allows us to be bolder in some of the things we can do if the worst case sees small losses across the board instead of large losses for one or two organisations (RFL or clubs).

[Dave T]

4 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

I'm not sure it does address the key issue - that this is an RFL event and the onus is on the RFL to sell it.

Simply shrugging our shoulders and saying "well the RFL is rubbish at marketing anyway" or trying to put the burden on the clubs is really letting them off the hook. 

The product has changed, the market has changed and there are people at Red Hall who are paid (some very handsomely) to solve this very issue. To suggest that it is the clubs' issue to fix, be it through bonds or through minimum ticket purchase requirements, really is passing the buck. 

Yes, bring the clubs with you and encourage integrated thinking, but the risk has to be borne by the entity that is reaping the reward. 

I said it addressed your last issue, which was around fairness and integrity and that 'if one club is asked to pay, so should every other'.

We need to be honest here though. Let's assume in a normal year the central sales (RFL) would be around 35-45k. Then the 2 clubs would see another 30k between them. If that last channel becomes 18-20k, the RFL don't just have an under-utilised channel they can tap into and just switch on the marketing.

Wire v Catalans will get a lower crowd than Wigan v Hull - and that equivalent fixture across other sports would do the same thing, as I have illutsrated with RU>

[Eddie]

1 hour ago, DoubleD said:

How many other teams, outside the top flight, got over 6k to a home game this year?

It’s just a one off game that you’re referring to, their average is far lower than Bradford, Widnes, Leigh, York etc, and all of them would take 10x the number to a challenge cup final. 

[whatmichaelsays]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

I said it addressed your last issue, which was around fairness and integrity and that 'if one club is asked to pay, so should every other'.

We need to be honest here though. Let's assume in a normal year the central sales (RFL) would be around 35-45k. Then the 2 clubs would see another 30k between them. If that last channel becomes 18-20k, the RFL don't just have an under-utilised channel they can tap into and just switch on the marketing.

Wire v Catalans will get a lower crowd than Wigan v Hull - and that equivalent fixture across other sports would do the same thing, as I have illutsrated with RU>

This isn't an issue of just turning on a channel to find new fans - it's about the entire positioning of the Challenge Cup. The rot didn't start with Catalans in 2018 - the RFL has mismanaged that positioning for years and instead of fixing it, it's putting the risk burden onto the clubs. Yes, some clubs will always be a bigger draw but at the same time, the onus is on the RFL to mitigate the risk of smaller / overseas teams being involved by making it something people want to buy. 

The cup needs an entire rebrand. New and casual fans don't care about the history or tradition. Regular fans know that Groupon deals are never far away. The whole match day experience is dated and tired. In the age of Instagram, the event lacks FOMO. 

This is simple 4Ps stuff but if you focus on that, you will start the long process to return the event to its former glory. Keep putting the burden on the clubs, and you just keep adding sticking plasters to a gushing wound. 

[Dave T]

13 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

This isn't an issue of just turning on a channel to find new fans - it's about the entire positioning of the Challenge Cup. The rot didn't start with Catalans in 2018 - the RFL has mismanaged that positioning for years and instead of fixing it, it's putting the risk burden onto the clubs. Yes, some clubs will always be a bigger draw but at the same time, the onus is on the RFL to mitigate the risk of smaller / overseas teams being involved by making it something people want to buy. 

The cup needs an entire rebrand. New and casual fans don't care about the history or tradition. Regular fans know that Groupon deals are never far away. The whole match day experience is dated and tired. In the age of Instagram, the event lacks FOMO. 

This is simple 4Ps stuff but if you focus on that, you will start the long process to return the event to its former glory. Keep putting the burden on the clubs, and you just keep adding sticking plasters to a gushing wound. 

Maybe, and it's hard to disagree with much of what you say, however I'm not 100% sure we actually can bring the Cup at Wembley back to being a major success. 

There are so many big Rugby Union events in major grounds in London that cater for the local market, that I'm not sure there is a genuinely large market to watch two Northern Teams each year, and I think the existing customer base now has more events than ever to get their RL Day Out - that could be Wembley, Old Trafford, Perpignan, Toronto, Internationals, Magic Weekend.

I think we will get the odd good crowd here and there when the right fixtures come along, and it is clear that the RFL can do much better, but I'm not sure we will ever be getting regular 78k crowds that we used to, certainly not 90k sellouts. 

I hope I'm wrong, but I dont think the final is that attractive an event. That makes me sad.

[whatmichaelsays]

17 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Maybe, and it's hard to disagree with much of what you say, however I'm not 100% sure we actually can bring the Cup at Wembley back to being a major success. 

There are so many big Rugby Union events in major grounds in London that cater for the local market, that I'm not sure there is a genuinely large market to watch two Northern Teams each year, and I think the existing customer base now has more events than ever to get their RL Day Out - that could be Wembley, Old Trafford, Perpignan, Toronto, Internationals, Magic Weekend.

I think we will get the odd good crowd here and there when the right fixtures come along, and it is clear that the RFL can do much better, but I'm not sure we will ever be getting regular 78k crowds that we used to, certainly not 90k sellouts. 

I hope I'm wrong, but I dont think the final is that attractive an event. That makes me sad.

I certainly think / hope that it can be restored. if not to its former glories, new glories. So many of the problems facing the CC are entirely of the game's own making and they are, in my view, fixable. 

It starts by making sure that the final isn't just seen as a game between "two northern teams". I hate the whole "rugby league's big day out" strapline, as if a trip to London is some sort of special one-off treat every year. I realise that isn't necessarily an RFL strapline, but they don't exactly challenge it. 

Your point about the traditional fans having enough choices to spend their money on is a fair one, but that is another example of needing to adapt to new market realities. The traditional fan base isn't enough to grow the game anyway - why not make the CC Final something that breaks the mould and does something daring to attract new sets of eyeballs?

RL is, first and foremost, an entertainment product and the CC Final is an entertainment event - if it entertains people, they'll buy it. But what's our idea of pre-match entertainment? That boorish oik from Rugby AM MC'ing a fan park, 20 minutes of an X Factor quarter finalist and Abide with Me. By all means respect tradition, but modernise and move with the times. 

You can make the CC Final something exciting. You can make it something that entertains people and something that people want to buy. You don't do it by putting barriers to entry on teams - particuarly ones that offer you one of the world's biggest stars. 

[Dave T]

10 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

I certainly think / hope that it can be restored. if not to its former glories, new glories. So many of the problems facing the CC are entirely of the game's own making and they are, in my view, fixable. 

It starts by making sure that the final isn't just seen as a game between "two northern teams". I hate the whole "rugby league's big day out" strapline, as if a trip to London is some sort of special one-off treat every year. I realise that isn't necessarily an RFL strapline, but they don't exactly challenge it. 

Your point about the traditional fans having enough choices to spend their money on is a fair one, but that is another example of needing to adapt to new market realities. The traditional fan base isn't enough to grow the game anyway - why not make the CC Final something that breaks the mould and does something daring to attract new sets of eyeballs?

RL is, first and foremost, an entertainment product and the CC Final is an entertainment event - if it entertains people, they'll buy it. But what's our idea of pre-match entertainment? That boorish oik from Rugby AM MC'ing a fan park, 20 minutes of an X Factor quarter finalist and Abide with Me. By all means respect tradition, but modernise and move with the times. 

You can make the CC Final something exciting. You can make it something that entertains people and something that people want to buy. You don't do it by putting barriers to entry on teams - particuarly ones that offer you one of the world's biggest stars. 

You are preaching to the converted here mate. I made many of these points after attending the final this year. I loved it as my team won against the odds, but as an event it was nowhere near World Class.