Jump to content

‘The next best thing to football in the North of England’


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, scotchy1 said:

Cultures arent some constant monoliths. They change and arent homogeneous. 

Have you ever lived in Liverpool, out of interest? If not why not listen to the people on this forum who have and understand the place. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


1 hour ago, gingerjon said:

Please do not think there are any lessons for what RL should do from The Hundred. It's an abject failure.

Whether there are (or will be) any lessons for RL is one thing, but to describe the cricket The Hundred as "an abject failure" when it hasn't even taken place yet, is utter nonsense.

Nobody is yet in a position to judge whether it has been a success or failure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, 17 stone giant said:

Whether there are (or will be) any lessons for RL is one thing, but to describe the cricket The Hundred as "an abject failure" when it hasn't even taken place yet, is utter nonsense.

Nobody is yet in a position to judge whether it has been a success or failure.

It's an abject failure. It's cost somewhere in the region of £40m before a ball has been bowled, had sales comfortably under the competition it was meant to replace, and is now, in the fairest ECB assessment, not even meant to make any money for its five seasons.

Utter failure. Total failure. Complete failure.

  • Thanks 2

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, scotchy1 said:

They had immediately sold out the finals and had sold 100k tickets after the first day of the first window and sales had surpassed expectations 

They have got cricket on FTA with broadcast deal worth the same as all RL broadcast deals.

 

No, they hadn't. And 100,000 was for every game played by every team. Comfortably under the number sold (and sold at full price) for the T20 Blast. Sales were well under expectations, most tickets were either free or £5.

Cricket is worth more than rugby league. They got a good deal with Sky and the BBC. Not great, but good. And that was 10 games on FTA. So fewer than rugby league has in an average year,

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

(1) Sales were above expectations, the t20 blast still exists.

(2) and this one competition got as much as SL, the CC and Internationals.

(3) 10 mens and 8nwomens games on FTA.

(4) And that 40m is closer to 7m 

(1) They were not. And they were all discounted tickets.

(2) We agree. Cricket is more valuable than rugby league. This is because it is watched, followed and played by millions more people.

(3) My mistake. 18 games total versus - c. 12 per year(?) rugby league.

(4) Actually, turns out we're both wrong. It's a projected spend of £180m over five years. ("The ECB has certainly put plenty of effort – and a lavish budget of £180m over five years – into the tournament’s creation" - Guardian, October 2019)

  • Like 1

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Because anybody purporting to know the thoughts and opinions of half a million people, and telling you those thoughts and opinions are all the same is lying to you.

What's your alternative here Eddie? That saints are never going to attract people from the wider area? That the game should give up any every growing? That the game cannot attract new people?

Why would a #truefan like yourself be so keen to argue that people cant be attracted to the game?

Why on earth do you put words into people’s mouths so often. Of course I’m not saying the game should give up hope of growing, I’m just saying that if St Helens want to grow our fan base, the best way to do it given the very limited resources available is not to try to get 1000s of fans from Liverpool. (incidentally you still haven’t told me your plan for how they’d do that). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

So if it isnt to get people within a radius of 10-15miles. Who is it? 

It’s to target people from anywhere who are most likely to become fans, rather than people from a particular geographic area that are unlikely to become fans. 
 

Why focus on Saints and Liverpool anyway, where do you think other clubs should be focussing their attentions? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

1. That's not what the ECB have said, and whilst you may not believe them, they were also the ones to set those expectations 

2. And have sold a new competition for the amount SL gets whilst still getting the same for their others. This is good no?

3. But this cricket who had none. So that's good isnt it?

4. But that doesnt take in to account income does it  

I'm not quite sure where you're trying to go with this. If you want to discuss The Hundred in depth then there's a cricket thread. If you want to look at lessons for rugby league, let's go with:

(1) It has sold significantly fewer tickets than the competition it is meant to replace, all at far lower prices than the other competition charges;

(2) It has required projected expenditure of £180m;

(3) There is no indication it has met its stated aim of selling cricket to new fans;

(4) It has required the creation of an entirely new format because the broadcasters would not sign up to it otherwise.

  • Like 1

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, scotchy1 said:

Because anybody purporting to know the thoughts and opinions of half a million people, and telling you those thoughts and opinions are all the same is lying to you.

What's your alternative here Eddie? That saints are never going to attract people from the wider area? That the game should give up any every growing? That the game cannot attract new people?

Why would a #truefan like yourself be so keen to argue that people cant be attracted to the game?

Stop being so pathetic with the nonsensical #truefan jibes and made up arguments. No one has claimed clubs shouldn't look outside their immediate towns. What people have done though is provide reasonable opinions as to why randomly focussing limited resources on Saints in Liverpool is unlikely to be worthwhile. Most of this has been based on first hand experience and the evidence of previous work in this area. Disagreeing with opinions is fine (although it would be useful to provide some substance occassionally) but stop inventing false arguments to give your own more weight.

Gtf on ignore, troll.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Has anyone said that it should be only liverpool?

Good to see you finally admit that saints can attract fans from liverpool as they can from other areas.

No you are just constantly talking about Liverpool. 
 

As your your second paragraph - bizarre. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

(4) It has required the creation of an entirely new format because the broadcasters would not sign up to it otherwise.

It's actually worse than that - allegedly the BBC thought they were being asked to buy a T20 tournament, and all the 100 stuff has come from the ECB somewhere *after* negotiations started. AIUI the BBC have since been pretty clear (far be it from me to suggest that they don't want to be tied to the fallout) that they certainly never asked for it not to be T20... The ECB have said it was to make it more attractive to broadcasters, the broadcasters appear to have said that they would have been fine with it being T20.... pick who you believe really, but the Hundred is not a happy ship. Neither is cricket ATM as a result.

(Slight tinfoil hat time but it makes sense) IMO the real driver of the 100 was the need to try and drive the game and the money out of the hands of the 18 counties into something that can be controlled by the centre. Hence we've ended up with the nonsense of people in Somerset being told to get behind the mens' Welsh Fire, and the Welsh Fire ladies playing in Somerset. Or the Worcestershire and Warwickshire fans, probably as close as cricket comes to two sides that hate each other, being told that they now have to support "Birmingham" which is basically Warwickshire playing at Warwickshire's ground. Meanwhile the county which does most of it's marketing and social media on the theme of not being Warwickshire or in Birmingham* is now hosting the ladies of, er, Birmingham. 

If it was any more of a dog's breakfast it would be funny. As it is, it's just offensive.

 

*#ratherbeapearthanabear for example

Edited by iffleyox
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Good to see you finally admit that saints can attract fans from liverpool as they can from other areas.

I think the point they're making is that they don't believe it will be possible to attract fans from Liverpool in large numbers. I suppose the logic being that if it was possible to do that, it would have already happened, given that St Helens have existed and have been a very successful club for many years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, 17 stone giant said:

I think the point they're making is that they don't believe it will be possible to attract fans from Liverpool in large numbers. I suppose the logic being that if it was possible to do that, it would have already happened, given that St Helens have existed and have been a very successful club for many years.

I wouldn't bother

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Newcastle Thunder said:

We already are

we have supported the created of 2 brand new community clubs in that area

Yarm Wolves - now will age groups U8,U10,U12,U14,U16,U18 - over 120 players 

Hartlepool Hurricanes - U12,U14 and Open Age - with over 80 players  

We have big plans for this part of our area and have already employed a brand new full time community development officer for the TeesValley area.

Yes I know and have mentioned this region (and Boro  - Darlo corridor) many times.

Yarm is not a big place either and I hope those numbers increase as I feel they need to.  Not dismissing the fantastic work, just from experience those numbers need to grow.

One of the biggest problems faced by new clubs out of the heartlands is travel.  The traffic is lighter in this region (barring Newcastle) which makes a big difference.  Just look at the distances Scarborough (are they still going?) have travelled - and not on good roads either.  Travel, in 2020, is a big deal for amateur clubs.

My genuine best wishes are with you all.  I’ve been down to see Newcastle Academy  play CoH a couple of times and there is certainly promise there for the future.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carter is new to Rugby League, he’s been reluctantly involved at Board level for around 6 years, has never played the game and has only second or third hand knowledge of players, tactics, coaching or even what’s quality and what isn’t. 
 

I say reluctantly because he only took over to protect his initial investment and has zero ambition beyond that. He’s perhaps a bit more emotionally involved today but if it weren’t for the personal platform his ownership brings  he’d have been gone long ago. 
 
IMO he loves to be front and centre way too much, likes to see his own image on a video or the sound of his own voice on the radio, despite knowing the square root of F All about the game. 
 

He hasn’t got a history in the game to draw ideas from and he doesn’t understand the nature of Rugby League community’s. His views on the larger picture of the game are therefore very often poorly conceived & virtually worthless unless of course he’s parroting someone else’s idea. 

I take his view on expansion, or anything else for that matter, with a lorry load of salt. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, OMEGA said:

Carter is new to Rugby League, he’s been reluctantly involved at Board level for around 6 years, has never played the game and has only second or third hand knowledge of players, tactics, coaching or even what’s quality and what isn’t. 
 

I say reluctantly because he only took over to protect his initial investment and has zero ambition beyond that. He’s perhaps a bit more emotionally involved today but if it weren’t for the personal platform his ownership brings  he’d have been gone long ago. 
 
IMO he loves to be front and centre way too much, likes to see his own image on a video or the sound of his own voice on the radio, despite knowing the square root of F All about the game. 
 

He hasn’t got a history in the game to draw ideas from and he doesn’t understand the nature of Rugby League community’s. His views on the larger picture of the game are therefore very often poorly conceived & virtually worthless unless of course he’s parroting someone else’s idea. 

I take his view on expansion, or anything else for that matter, with a lorry load of salt. 

I though he was born in Hull.  If that’s not a RL community, where is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, OMEGA said:

Carter is new to Rugby League, he’s been reluctantly involved at Board level for around 6 years, has never played the game and has only second or third hand knowledge of players, tactics, coaching or even what’s quality and what isn’t. 
 

I say reluctantly because he only took over to protect his initial investment and has zero ambition beyond that. He’s perhaps a bit more emotionally involved today but if it weren’t for the personal platform his ownership brings  he’d have been gone long ago. 
 
IMO he loves to be front and centre way too much, likes to see his own image on a video or the sound of his own voice on the radio, despite knowing the square root of F All about the game. 
 

He hasn’t got a history in the game to draw ideas from and he doesn’t understand the nature of Rugby League community’s. His views on the larger picture of the game are therefore very often poorly conceived & virtually worthless unless of course he’s parroting someone else’s idea. 

I take his view on expansion, or anything else for that matter, with a lorry load of salt. 

Easy to dismiss him but he’s CO of one of the twelve SL clubs and as far as I’m aware you’re not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, OMEGA said:

Carter is new to Rugby League, he’s been reluctantly involved at Board level for around 6 years, has never played the game and has only second or third hand knowledge of players, tactics, coaching or even what’s quality and what isn’t. 
 

I say reluctantly because he only took over to protect his initial investment and has zero ambition beyond that. He’s perhaps a bit more emotionally involved today but if it weren’t for the personal platform his ownership brings  he’d have been gone long ago. 
 
IMO he loves to be front and centre way too much, likes to see his own image on a video or the sound of his own voice on the radio, despite knowing the square root of F All about the game. 
 

He hasn’t got a history in the game to draw ideas from and he doesn’t understand the nature of Rugby League community’s. His views on the larger picture of the game are therefore very often poorly conceived & virtually worthless unless of course he’s parroting someone else’s idea. 

I take his view on expansion, or anything else for that matter, with a lorry load of salt. 

Agree up to a point, but at the same time the world (or certainly the M62 corridor) after however many years still seems to be lacking in a queue of people with the money and the "right" background wanting to replace the current owners. Which means that to a greater or lesser extent the game will continue to be dependent on the wallets of people who've never played the game or have "only second or third hand knowledge of players, tactics, coaching or even what’s quality and what isn’t." 

To be honest, that's not even an RL problem. Look at the Glazers, or any RU club that's ever been owned by investors rather than true fans. Not cricket, funnily enough, because all but two of the 18 counties are still members clubs - any guesses on the two? The difference in RL is that it's much lower stakes because the sums of money are smaller - but instead of being put in by immensely wealthy people, they tend to be being put in by people with commensurately smaller bank accounts! So ironically the stakes are maybe a bit higher because the investment is lower?

But as it is, RL is being kept afloat by true believers, local people made good, and a leavening of people who (delusional or not) would just really like to get their money back one day. FWIW I actually rather like Mr C and don't see him as much of the latter now however he started out. But one way or the other that's the mix, and unfortunately the ones writing the cheques are always going to have more clout than the ones that don't but guard the history.

Arguably it's the job of those that guard the history to persuade those that write the cheques...

I suspect you know that but I'm just musing.

Edited by iffleyox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Lowdesert said:

I though he was born in Hull.  If that’s not a RL community, where is?

I’ve known him for around 30 years, played football against him when he thought of himself as a footballer. He may have been from Hull but he hadn’t a clue about or any interest in RL. 

Son of a millionaire so never really hailed from the working class backgrounds of those who largely populate Rugby League. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, iffleyox said:

Agree up to a point, but at the same time the world (or certainly the M62 corridor) after however many years still seems to be lacking in a queue of people with the money and the "right" background wanting to replace the current owners. Which means that to a greater or lesser extent the game will continue to be dependent on the wallets of people who've never played the game or have "only second or third hand knowledge of players, tactics, coaching or even what’s quality and what isn’t." 

I suspect you know that but I'm just musing.

 

And likewise I agree with much of what your entire post says. 
 

As for the above, yes unfortunately our game is available to those with relatively meagre sums of money (far more than I’ll ever see mind). Equally unfortunate is the fact that with a small sum of money you can create yourself a platform when you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. 


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

Yeah but New England isnt a draw, it's sparse, largely rural vague area that holds little cultural cachet. 

A liverpudlian probably couldnt point new england out on a map, most liverpudlians could point out everton on a map. 

I'd bet you a pound to a penny most people couldnt point out Aston or West Bromwich on a map bar a vague somewhere in the Midlands, 

I bet you very few have any clue where Green Bay is. 

Big sports teams exist in big cities not because of the cultural cache of the name but because that's where the people are.

Having lived in the New England area for 2 years of my life being a "New Englander" is a thing. They see them selves apart from the rest of the US. 

Although the US sporting landscape is funny, where I lived for a while in New London, CT it was a proud New England Town was a 50-50 split of Patriots and Giants fans and also Yankees and Red Sox. So much so the bars usually stocked both club colours of bottled beer when Budwieser and the like do promotional bottles with club crests on. 

Where as when I lived in Mass. You would have probably got thrown out of a bar if you turned up in Yankee colours. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

1. That's your statement which is in opposition to the statements from those involved

2.what does the expenditure matter? If they spend 6billion pounds or doesnt matter as long as they are bringing in more than that.

3. It hasnt been played yet. 

4. Which is in its favour.

1/ No, that's not about expectations. That's comparing The Hundred with the Blast. For reference, the Blast in 2019 had 950,000 tickets sold.

2/ Expenditure matters quite a bit. Not least because they aren't bringing in more than that. The Hundred isn't scheduled to be profitable for five years.

3/ This would be a valid point if it hadn't been promoted extensively for months with the onus on recruiting new fans

4/ In what way is it?

  • Like 2

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I live in Liverpool and have done for many years

the locals love their sport but football is the be all and all here. There are a few local rugby teams but union and league a very much minority sports. That has always been the case going back to the days of Liverpool City, Huyton and in Union Waterloo.  Liverpool St Helens RU was a merger with the Liverpool club moving out   Some of the schools play rugby but usually Union

You might get odd fans to odd games but not week in week out.  Football rules here and no marketing budget in the world changes that

saints have tried playing at Anfield.  Crowds were about the same so no extra revenue and the extra costs of renting the stadium  

marketing budgets will be heavily squeezed post covid  so return on any spend will need to be good   Gambling on trying to convert die hard football fans will probably not be high on the agenda 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

It isnt randomly focussing limited resources on liverpool is it. 

Saints is within the Liverpool conurbation. It's the major population centre near St Helen's. 

But here we are again. RL fans making arguments that certain people arent going to watch RL and we shouldn't bother trying to get them to do so.

It’s within the Merseyside conurbation, St Helens is no more in Liverpool than Liverpool is in St Helens; they are distinct towns with completely different accents and cultures. Whereas people from Stockport or Salford might (and do) tell people they’re from Manchester for ease, I doubt many people from St Helens would ever say they’re from Liverpool. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...