Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
superten

expansion

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Eddie said:

I agree they’re not good, but let’s face it a lot of people (probably the majority) would rather have a pint of Carling than something more interesting (sales figures would suggest so) and the same goes for food. So while a lot of us on this forum think food and drink at most sporting events is tripe, a lot of people don’t and I expect the clubs know that. 
 

I once wrote to Delia Smith about this (as the beer at Carrow Road is so awful and ridiculously overpriced, like at all grounds) and her reply basically said that real ale won’t sell in sufficient amounts to make it commercially viable, as it’s more expensive to buy, is more difficult to keep and doesn’t last long in a barrel. 

I think thats fair cop but things are changing. Its not just about craft beer, its more an attitude shift in what you're selling and how. Look at spurs with their "Goal Line Bar", I've already said about Headingley for t20s, even Leeds united have done something with Fosters as a pregame fan area in the corner of the ground - its not just about craft its about catering to a range of fans.

Toronto is obviously a very good Rugby League example and Warrington have started to up their game too. Perhaps the rhinos could do more stuff with the pubs in Headingley directly if they don't want to use the headingley facilities. Make what already exists as matchday experiences (going to the nearby pubs beforehand etc) an intrinsic part of club identity. Advertise it as part of the game. Have player interviews and previews in certain bars for example.

The basic point is it that to attract casual fans the gameday needs to be more than just the game for fun. We can't afford to rely on people who just like the 80 minutes of rugby because frankly there aren't enough of them. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Car parks are for cars to park 

Concourses are generally too small , at least half the clubs have no control over their stadiums , yes Wigan have another facility OUTSIDE and a reasonable distance away from where they play 

 flog the horse all you want , it died years ago 

Robin Park Arena, the facility Wigan bought to use for establishing a fan zone at games (amongst other things not on game days) is directly next to the DW at the south stand end. It isn't a reasonable distance away. It is intended for use before and after the game to provide a reason to gather beforehand and stay afterwards. I think it is reasonable to assume that during the 80 minutes the game itself is the action to be witnessed. The family oriented activities and music etc can be enjoyed either side of the 80 minutes.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it me or are some of these expansionists for real or are they planted by the forum owners etc

I can't believe humans can be so crazy and stupid to believe some of the things some of these expansionists think need to happen

Let expansion happen naturally, the game has tried too many times to force feed the sport to people who don't want it, if it's going to happen then let it happen, stop trying to force it, and stop these ridiculous ideas about how and where the game might be played.

Do you think Bandy, GAA, Aussie rules etc are the same or do they accept their game is an exciting game played by a minority of people in small geographical areas? I can't imagine people in Gothenburg coming up with stupid ideas about planting a bandy team in Las Vegas or a debate in a provincial Irish town about taking Hurling to Tegucigalpa and thinking it would work!

Only in RL it seems!

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


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

Is it me or are some of these expansionists for real or are they planted by the forum owners etc

I can't believe humans can be so crazy and stupid to believe some of the things some of these expansionists think need to happen

Let expansion happen naturally, the game has tried too many times to force feed the sport to people who don't want it, if it's going to happen then let it happen, stop trying to force it, and stop these ridiculous ideas about how and where the game might be played.

Do you think Bandy, GAA, Aussie rules etc are the same or do they accept their game is an exciting game played by a minority of people in small geographical areas? I can't imagine people in Gothenburg coming up with stupid ideas about planting a bandy team in Las Vegas or a debate in a provincial Irish town about taking Hurling to Tegucigalpa and thinking it would work!

Only in RL it seems!

I totally agree, but the argument for the last 5 pages or so has been almost entirely about making what we've got better and more appealing, not fantasy big city leagues or dropping a flat pack team into Dublin. 

In some ways, this turned into quite an encouraging expansion thread by the standards of how it usually goes - the conversation for the last day or so has mainly been about expansion in terms of making a trip to the current clubs more attractive to more people where they are.

I want more people to discover RL like I did and adopt it as their own.

Bluntly, thinking it's great and hoping that the action on the pitch will do the talking is wishful thinking - if it was that straightforward we'd be laughing.

And being happy with what you've got, the protect and hold strategy, is usually a recipe for disaster too. I don't mean we need to go haring off in the opposite direction and blowing all the money in the game on gimmicks, but standing still and hoping that the rest of the world lets you get on with it is just as high risk IMO. When teams do it they normally end up descending through the leagues. When whole sports do it....

Edited by iffleyox
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, RL does what Sky says said:

Not in any more of a precarious position than others at various times. Would Hudersfield be in the position they are now if it wasn't for someone deciding to pump in a lot of money and the club being able to leave Fartown for a new venue ?

Yes, it isn't the RFL's duty to protect a club but surely it's also not their duty to make things worse for them too.

I haven't read through all the dirge, apologies if it's been mentioned already, but Ken Davy had nothing to do with the club moving out of Fartown and into the new stadium, he didn't come on board until 1996, 2 years after me moved into the stadium and 4 years leaving Fartown.

Just want to point that out, but while I'm here, without leaving Fartown, without passionate fans and local business people putting their money in to keep us going, without Ken Davy becoming involved, Huddersfield would have ceased to exist, it wasn't the RFL's fault that we were on the brink every year, and it wasn't due to RFL that we managed to pull ourselves up and build back up, yes the merger saga was a shambles, but without Sheffield failing there wouldn't have been a need for it.

What I'm trying to say is, you can't blame the RFL for Oldham's failings and standing as a club now, yes they maybe were dealt a rough deal in the past but who hasn't? Keighley certainly have a case for bemoaning the RFL, but most clubs fail because they were badly run or unable to compete not because of the actions of the governing body.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, meast said:

Is it me or are some of these expansionists for real or are they planted by the forum owners etc

I can't believe humans can be so crazy and stupid to believe some of the things some of these expansionists think need to happen

Let expansion happen naturally, the game has tried too many times to force feed the sport to people who don't want it, if it's going to happen then let it happen, stop trying to force it, and stop these ridiculous ideas about how and where the game might be played.

Do you think Bandy, GAA, Aussie rules etc are the same or do they accept their game is an exciting game played by a minority of people in small geographical areas? I can't imagine people in Gothenburg coming up with stupid ideas about planting a bandy team in Las Vegas or a debate in a provincial Irish town about taking Hurling to Tegucigalpa and thinking it would work!

Only in RL it seems!

Agree entirely other than with your Aussie Rules example, they have had a very aggressive strategy to expand out of Victoria for years, and it’s working. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

I think it doesnt matter. That Oldham had a fixture change is hardly the crime of the century

But it DOES matter ... it shows how much the RFL wanted to back certain teams and not others.

And that particular fixture change was just one aspect of it. As I have said before, the next season they allowed Paris to play a reserve team for a midweek game at Bradford (where they lost 68-0 and while Oldham put out their full team against Wigan), all because the two sides were to face each other at the weekend in Paris and which decided who would avoid being bottom of the table.

Oldham lost, yet 2 weeks later Paris folded so it was thought Oldham would then stay in the top flight and Paris be replaced by the Second Division Champions Hull. Yet the RFL only then decided to promotw two clubs and allowed Oldham to be replaced by Huddersfield because they thought it was good publicity for the game as that town was the birthplace of Rugby League.

Because of that Oldham Council then renaged on their promise to build a new ground having already bought Watersheddings for housing and that ultimately led to the original club folding.

Yet I assume you still think it is nobody else's fault apart from the club themselves.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I think thats fair cop but things are changing. Its not just about craft beer, its more an attitude shift in what you're selling and how. Look at spurs with their "Goal Line Bar", I've already said about Headingley for t20s, even Leeds united have done something with Fosters as a pregame fan area in the corner of the ground - its not just about craft its about catering to a range of fans.

Toronto is obviously a very good Rugby League example and Warrington have started to up their game too. Perhaps the rhinos could do more stuff with the pubs in Headingley directly if they don't want to use the headingley facilities. Make what already exists as matchday experiences (going to the nearby pubs beforehand etc) an intrinsic part of club identity. Advertise it as part of the game. Have player interviews and previews in certain bars for example.

The basic point is it that to attract casual fans the gameday needs to be more than just the game for fun. We can't afford to rely on people who just like the 80 minutes of rugby because frankly there aren't enough of them. 

I think there is another aspect to it which is that it gives RL another USP. 

Not to labour the craft beer point here, because it's hardly the only option available, but you can buy a pint of nitrokeg urine anywhere. In the majority of those places, you can probably also watch the rugby. It's not as easy to go somewhere that has a range of decent craft ales (because most locals are tied houses and the pubs that do have that sort of range are in the city centre, full of hipsters and charge a fortune).

Not only does having something different broaden the appeal of the sport (ie, attracting the person who likes a pint that has some flavour), it also provides a point of difference vs watching it in the pub or at home with a crate from the supermarket. Will it, on it's own, get thousands of extra people through the door? Probably not. But little incremental changes add up. It's that Kano theory I mentioned earlier - unexpected delights have a much bigger impact, both short and long term, on customer satisfaction than simply delivering the basics well. 

You don't have to get rid of Carling for the bloke who likes Carling, but you can offer something that the bloke who doesn't like it wants as well. Going back to my point about Huddersfield's pricing strategy; if the experience that they're offering their 58-year-old supporter is the same as what they're offering the 28-year-old supporter, then they've gone about trying to attract the 28-year-old in the single most expensive way possible - by cutting the price. It would be much cheaper, and much more effective, to offer the 28-year-old something that they want alongside what the 58-year-old wants. 

Edited by whatmichaelsays
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Honestly? I don't know, because I haven't really thought about it (although I have been to Leigh and the DW, haven't been to the Halliwell). Have the people there, or has it gone straight in the too difficult file? 

What I do know is that Worcester play in a stadium the same size as the LSV (and average higher gates) and Exeter's ground and gate are larger, and both teams play in modern purpose built stadia. They seem to manage something like it.

The answer's going to look different for every club but I'd say it's a tiny minority where the genuine answer is "we can't do anything at all"

It would be possible to do it, if clubs really wanted to do it, at Warrington for example, the Kings head does a roaring trade before and after the game, they have a DJ on, admittedly playing the same tacky stuff, an outside bar and patio area as well as a large marquee type structure, no reason that couldn't be done in the ground somewhere?

I used to enjoy my visits to the stoop for this reason, you could get there early, enjoy a drink, relax, then go to see a band afterwards under the stand.

I will though suggest that the average RU fan differs from the average RL fan, in that the RU fan sees the occasion, the drinking, the social side of it more important than the game, whereas RL fans tend to put more importance on the game and less on the social aspect, I could be way off but that's my opinion.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

It's just one stand with a fence round it , a glorified community stadium , explain how you put on what you're describing at a modern 4 stander stadium like the LSV or countless others ?

There's plenty of scope to do something similar at LSV, use a section of the car park or the area between the stands, or in front of the empty/unused East stand, to erect a marquee etc, they do it at Salford and it works pretty well IMO, same at Warrington, same at most grounds if they wanted to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, meast said:

I haven't read through all the dirge, apologies if it's been mentioned already, but Ken Davy had nothing to do with the club moving out of Fartown and into the new stadium, he didn't come on board until 1996, 2 years after me moved into the stadium and 4 years leaving Fartown.

Just want to point that out, but while I'm here, without leaving Fartown, without passionate fans and local business people putting their money in to keep us going, without Ken Davy becoming involved, Huddersfield would have ceased to exist, it wasn't the RFL's fault that we were on the brink every year, and it wasn't due to RFL that we managed to pull ourselves up and build back up, yes the merger saga was a shambles, but without Sheffield failing there wouldn't have been a need for it.

What I'm trying to say is, you can't blame the RFL for Oldham's failings and standing as a club now, yes they maybe were dealt a rough deal in the past but who hasn't? Keighley certainly have a case for bemoaning the RFL, but most clubs fail because they were badly run or unable to compete not because of the actions of the governing body.

Yes, I did know that they had left Fartown before Ken Davey's involvment ... it's the way I wrote it that was misleading. The RFL can be partly blamed for the Oldham club's current plight as they wouldn't have been in such a position if the original club had continued. Not that we can blame Huddersfield for taking their opportunity but throughout the 1997 season it was known that the promotion/relegation issue would be decided by one-up, one-down. Paris then folded leaving one place in Super League yet the RFL only then changed their rules to allow two-up, two-down and there was publicity at the time that second-placed Huddersfield would be ideal as the birthplace of Rugby League.

I only mention Oldham obviously because I know the situation but, as you say, other clubs have also been in the same position. For example when the RFL allowed London an automatic place in Super League even though only finishing fourth in the old Second Division and when Keighlkey, Batley and indeed Huddersfield were above them.  Where might Keighley now be if they had ben allowed promotion instead ... and what good has it really done for bringing in the crowds since then at London ?

Yes many clubs might be badly run but some do appear to get more backing from the RFL than others just because of their location ... and it is the locations of clubs which is what this thread is about.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, iffleyox said:

I don't want this to go cross code, and also I've got work to do, so that's me done on that tangent - sorry for dragging it in that direction.

I think that there are opportunities to do *something* more going begging, and too many people defaulting to "we can't do anything and I'm only bothered about the 80 mins on the pitch anyway" - which is a totally legitimate opinion obviously but they've got you in the bag. It's other people that are the target here.

I had also thought, in an expansion thread, that Moseley was relevant given that their days of getting 14,000 through the gates are long gone, and what they do with 1,000 people every week *and which has got them to the stage where they could build everything they have built debt free without a benefactor* might be useful. They lost their old ground and nearly went out of existence at the turn of the millennium. They saved over £5 million to build that one stand from donations and income from sweating the ground. Admittedly I didn't make it clear why I thought it was a useful case study. My broader point was that if you're an expansion club in League 1 and the Championship then there might be something to learn from them. Hell, even if you're a normal club in League 1 or the Championship.

But where I was actually going with it too was the line that there's nothing to learn from Toronto, cricket, or anyone who provides a match day experience which is more than the game, and relies on taking more money than from the game itself. I just don't buy it, whatever the level. 

People that want to come and watch rugby for 80 minutes are catered for at the moment, and literally nothing anyone's suggesting changes that. But at the moment nothing is done for anyone else, and there's too much feeling across 11 pages that nothing *should* be done for them either. It's a comfort zone. But it's a comfort zone that relies on the current crowds continuing to replace themselves. Unless the situation is worse than I thought and it's actually like the CofE where the dyed in the wool are happy that "it will probably last long enough to see me out but after that it's lights out and it won't affect me". Which is a terminal comfort zone.

 

Don't forget, a lot of clubs don't provide programmes these days, that's something else for the "keep it as it was in the 70's" brigade to bemoan!

You're right though, Batley are a fine example of what you're talking about, they have a decent little ground now and have a hardcore average fan base of around 300-400, but usually attract a lot more than that because it's not just about Batley v Whoever for 80 minutes on a Sunday with a pie, pint programme and 20 bensons anymore.

They have an old HGV trailer at the back of the stand where they put bands on and have beer stalls and barbecues etc, this attracts a lot of fans of other clubs ,especially SL clubs who usually play Friday's they can enjoy an afternoon out watch a game of rugby, listen to a band, have a drink and food and have a nice relaxing entertaining Sunday afternoon out.

They don't seem to have any money problems and seem to be a well run club by comparison to most, it should be the model lots of other clubs, including SL clubs should look to.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, scotchy1 said:

I think you are describing a confluence of circumstances which in hindsight might explain why Oldham are where they are now.

I dont think that it does really mean that should the RFL/SL make the same decisions in the same circumstances it would result in the same outcome.

It's not the RFLs fault Oldham were reliant on the council for the stadium issues. It's not the RFLs fault that oldham councils support for those changes were dependent on Oldham being in SL. It's not their fault Oldham finished in the relegation spot. It's not their fault Oldham dont have a Davy character.

The RFL didnt force Oldham tonlose against wigan or paris. 

It may very well be that Oldham are kept up by Paris going bust and the fall away anyway. It may be that in those circumstances the Oldham club disappear completely. 

Just a slight point .. I didn't say it was all the RFL's fault; I said it wasn't ONLY Oldham's fault. As you have just stated, the Oldham Council also let them down. However, another slight difference to your above comment .. when Watersheddings was sold, a new ground for them wasn't only dependant on being in Super League (indeed the ground was to be shared betwen Oldham RL and Oldham Athletic) but Council then used the club's relegation as a "get out of jail" card to save having to build a new stadium.

No, the RFL didn't force Oldham to lose against Wigan or Paris but on the other hand they did help Paris avoid bottom spot by allowing them to play a reserve team at Bradford midweek so their best players were in better shape for the Oldham game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

Car parks are for cars to park 

Concourses are generally too small , at least half the clubs have no control over their stadiums , yes Wigan have another facility OUTSIDE and a reasonable distance away from where they play 

 flog the horse all you want , it died years ago 

Then encourage people to use public transport or walk to the games then there is no need for large car parks?

Put on events that may mean people want to leave the car at home so they can have a drink etc and you don't need car parks.

Railway lines and stations were once there for trains and passengers etc!

Edited by meast
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

A lot of it is culture (London Broncos is good for pre match nice lunch and good bar with a nice selection of drinks) when I am back in Spain working during school holidays I drive up to watch Toulouse 4/5/6 times a year its a wonderful day out pre match reception (2 hours) match then after match reception (2 hours) Its not unusual for 4/500 to attend this players mixing after match coaches directors everyone totally fab day out:)

 

Paul

This year when we (Huddersfield) played in Perpignan, 4 of us got the train up to Salses-Le-Chateau to watch the local team Salses XIII, I contacted them via facebook prior to us going to check that the game was on etc and ended up chatting to the president of the club, he invited us to a bar for pre match drinks and basically said we would be his guest of honour

On arrival at Salses, there was a local festival ongoing in the village square with an outside bar, the president welcomed us all, offered us free drinks and food and introduced us to the local mayor and other club officials, then they all sat down and had a meal, after an hour or so we made our way to the ground, they wouldn't accept any payment for entry, after the game most people hung around the ground, drinking, chatting etc and we were invited back to the bar for drinks and food, we were made very welcome by all the players and coaches and had drinks brought to us, we didn't spend a penny.

Most of the players, officials, fans and seemingly half the village were packed into the bar and the square, i presume long after we'd got the train back to Perpignan, that day wasn't just about the 80 minutes on the pitch, it was an event for the whole village to enjoy, and of course 4 visitors from Huddersfield ( and Mirfield!)

It's the same at Catalans, it's not just the game, it's the entertainment surrounding that throughout the day that more clubs should be looking to bring about.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

I think there is another aspect to it which is that it gives RL another USP. 

Not to labour the craft beer point here, because it's hardly the only option available, but you can buy a pint of nitrokeg urine anywhere. In the majority of those places, you can probably also watch the rugby. It's not as easy to go somewhere that has a range of decent craft ales (because most locals are tied houses and the pubs that do have that sort of range are in the city centre, full of hipsters and charge a fortune).

Not only does having something different broaden the appeal of the sport (ie, attracting the person who likes a pint that has some flavour), it also provides a point of difference vs watching it in the pub or at home with a crate from the supermarket. Will it, on it's own, get thousands of extra people through the door? Probably not. But little incremental changes add up. It's that Kano theory I mentioned earlier - unexpected delights have a much bigger impact, both short and long term, on customer satisfaction than simply delivering the basics well. 

You don't have to get rid of Carling for the bloke who likes Carling, but you can offer something that the bloke who doesn't like it wants as well. Going back to my point about Huddersfield's pricing strategy; if the experience that they're offering their 58-year-old supporter is the same as what they're offering the 28-year-old supporter, then they've gone about trying to attract the 28-year-old in the single most expensive way possible - by cutting the price. It would be much cheaper, and much more effective, to offer the 28-year-old something that they want alongside what the 58-year-old wants. 

Agree 100%. 

If you just want to go to the rugby for the rugby that's fine, you're obviously catered for at a rugby club. As I said in a previous post there are differentiations to what the club can put on ranging from just under corporate to fosters fan corners. All cater to different fan expectations and they should leave fans who have drastically different expectations of going to match all leaving fairly satisfied. 

Unless you have a socially homogenous fanbase ie for lower league sports, then diversity is key.

Share this post


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

This year when we (Huddersfield) played in Perpignan, 4 of us got the train up to Salses-Le-Chateau to watch the local team Salses XIII, I contacted them via facebook prior to us going to check that the game was on etc and ended up chatting to the president of the club, he invited us to a bar for pre match drinks and basically said we would be his guest of honour

On arrival at Salses, there was a local festival ongoing in the village square with an outside bar, the president welcomed us all, offered us free drinks and food and introduced us to the local mayor and other club officials, then they all sat down and had a meal, after an hour or so we made our way to the ground, they wouldn't accept any payment for entry, after the game most people hung around the ground, drinking, chatting etc and we were invited back to the bar for drinks and food, we were made very welcome by all the players and coaches and had drinks brought to us, we didn't spend a penny.

Most of the players, officials, fans and seemingly half the village were packed into the bar and the square, i presume long after we'd got the train back to Perpignan, that day wasn't just about the 80 minutes on the pitch, it was an event for the whole village to enjoy, and of course 4 visitors from Huddersfield ( and Mirfield!)

It's the same at Catalans, it's not just the game, it's the entertainment surrounding that throughout the day that more clubs should be looking to bring about.

It does seem that for some people going to a game and having the cheek to enjoying yourself is heresy! 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, RL does what Sky says said:

Yes, I did know that they had left Fartown before Ken Davey's involvment ... it's the way I wrote it that was misleading. The RFL can be partly blamed for the Oldham club's current plight as they wouldn't have been in such a position if the original club had continued. Not that we can blame Huddersfield for taking their opportunity but throughout the 1997 season it was known that the promotion/relegation issue would be decided by one-up, one-down. Paris then folded leaving one place in Super League yet the RFL only then changed their rules to allow two-up, two-down and there was publicity at the time that second-placed Huddersfield would be ideal as the birthplace of Rugby League.

I only mention Oldham obviously because I know the situation but, as you say, other clubs have also been in the same position. For example when the RFL allowed London an automatic place in Super League even though only finishing fourth in the old Second Division and when Keighlkey, Batley and indeed Huddersfield were above them.  Where might Keighley now be if they had ben allowed promotion instead ... and what good has it really done for bringing in the crowds since then at London ?

Yes many clubs might be badly run but some do appear to get more backing from the RFL than others just because of their location ... and it is the locations of clubs which is what this thread is about.

Huddersfield were offered the chance to replace the failing Paris club on the premise that we finished 2nd to Hull in the 2nd division table, but also to the fact that we then beat Hull 18-0 in the premiership final.

I'm not sure Oldham had anything to do with Huddersfield's admission into SL, although granted, you may be more knowledgable.

What i do know though is the decision by Huddersfield to accept the RFL's offer was a poor one, we simply weren't ready, we had the stadium and facilities, it could be argued we had the players, well some of the players were probably good enough, others not so, but we didn't have the infrastructure or probably the fan base, we were in administration and on the brink of extinction - again, less than 2 years previously

Given that we were bottom for 3 years before the merger and lost a lot of fans and potential fans, that we have struggled to attract crowds, could it also be questioned that Huddersfield were also treated badly?

I'm not sure you could correlate Huddersfield's inclusion into SL with Oldham's demise really.

Every club has it's future in it's own hands to the most extent.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, RL does what Sky says said:

Just a slight point .. I didn't say it was all the RFL's fault; I said it wasn't ONLY Oldham's fault. As you have just stated, the Oldham Council also let them down. However, another slight difference to your above comment .. when Watersheddings was sold, a new ground for them wasn't only dependant on being in Super League (indeed the ground was to be shared betwen Oldham RL and Oldham Athletic) but Council then used the club's relegation as a "get out of jail" card to save having to build a new stadium.

No, the RFL didn't force Oldham to lose against Wigan or Paris but on the other hand they did help Paris avoid bottom spot by allowing them to play a reserve team at Bradford midweek so their best players were in better shape for the Oldham game.

Just touching on that, you say the RFL allowed Paris to play a weakened team, but if they were in a relegation decider, why would they play a weakened team and how did that help them and hinder Oldham?

As has been said, most fans, me included have no axe to grind with yourself or Oldham, but it's hard to see how the RFL can be blamed directly or indirectly for Oldham's demise, which seemingly, came about because of a number of factors all added up.

Surely the RFL had no part to play in Oldham's league position nor about the promise made by Oldham council?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

It does seem that for some people going to a game and having the cheek to enjoying yourself is heresy! 

We had a superb day,in reality the rugby didn't really matter,  I can't remember who Salses' opponents were or the score, it was a pretty one sided uneventful game, but the welcome and hospitality we received was fantastic and we will always look to go back there if we have the chance, it could be there could be hundreds of thousands of people like this within the RL heartlands who are just waiting to be attracted?

Try something different, like Toronto, Catalans, Salses etc and not just throw it away in favour of some ridiculous plan to plant a franchise team in Brasilia!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, meast said:

Just touching on that, you say the RFL allowed Paris to play a weakened team, but if they were in a relegation decider, why would they play a weakened team and how did that help them and hinder Oldham?

As has been said, most fans, me included have no axe to grind with yourself or Oldham, but it's hard to see how the RFL can be blamed directly or indirectly for Oldham's demise, which seemingly, came about because of a number of factors all added up.

Surely the RFL had no part to play in Oldham's league position nor about the promise made by Oldham council?

The reason Paris played a weakened team was that they were away to Bradord who were at that moment top of the table (and finished there as Champions) and so it was a reasonable assumption that they would lose anyway whereas Oldham were at home to Wigan and therefore might have had a chance of winning (they actually only lost 26-32 which shows the effort they put in). The best option for Paris was to beat Oldham rather than even attempt to defeat Bradford.

As I have said in another post, I don't say it was just the fault of the RFL (although they did contribute to it) but that is was not ONLY Oldham's fault; the Council also had a part to play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, meast said:

Huddersfield were offered the chance to replace the failing Paris club on the premise that we finished 2nd to Hull in the 2nd division table, but also to the fact that we then beat Hull 18-0 in the premiership final.

That is the question .... Why offer that place to a team in a lower division, especially when throughout the season the ruling had been that it was to be a one-up, one-down promotion/relegation issue ?  If Paris had not dropped out then, yes, Hull would have replaced Oldham while Huddersfield would also have remained in the second division. However, when Paris did fold then surely the "one down" was them to be replaced by Hull. Yet it was only when that happened that a ruling was made to promote two teams instead of one. That wouldn't have happened if Paris were still in existance as it would have meant 13 teams in the top flight.

Edited by RL does what Sky says

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

Not the ' only ' measure no , but the main one , it's easy when like most of the Premier League matches are sold out to then look at other less valuable income streams , but until you get to that point , it is THE primary aim 

At the moment you're right - that is how the value of a supporter is measured, but it's completely flawed because in many respects, it measures the value of a supporter / customer on the assumption that they are all, in the main, the same. It assumes that there is an "average fan"  - that there is an "average fan" that the game can cater to and that anyone falls below that average isn't worth our time. It ignores the fact that there is no "average fan" - just a very wide group of people that might share certain commonalities but are in fact all individuals with individual wants. 

If your background is as a CFO, an accountant or any kind of 'numbers' person, you'll think that one person buying ten things is the same as ten people buying one thing. You believe that because the spreadsheets say that they are pretty much the same - that logic says that 1x10 is the same as 10x1. 

If your background is in behavioural sciences or behavioural economics, you'll know that 10x1 does not equal 1x10. The relationship you have with one person who buys ten this is completely different to the ten people who each buy one thing. The context is different, what those people want is different and the opportunity is different. 

This is the problem with the ownership of many RL clubs. For as good an accountant that someone like Michael Carter is or as good a legal mind that Neil Hudgell might be, they know nothing about consumer behaviour and behavioural economics; they're numbers people - you wouldn't expect them to. Conversely, the one person in RL who probably does understand that is someone like Simon Moran, and it's reflected in Warrington's social media marketing. 

As a result, all our clubs seem to focus disproportionately on is that small cohort of people who each buy ten things, and hardly any time focusing on the much bigger clusters of ten people who could each be encouraged to buy one thing - because to them 10x1 is the same as 1x10, and its logical, cheaper and easier (particuarly in sport) to focus on the people who buy in bulk. But it's one of the reasons why cup and play-off attendances are as poor as they are - clubs really don't know how to sell to the people who buy less frequently because a disproportionate amount of effort is going to the people who are, to be frank, already sold to. 

But it's an inflexible approach that makes it really difficult, particuarly in an environment where consumer choice and social mobility is much greater, to capture new supporters as that cohort of bulk buyers starts to dwindle. The appraisal of how valuable a fan is is, in my view, completely flawed. 

Edited by whatmichaelsays
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

 The appraisal of how valuable a fan is is, in my view, completely flawed. 

I am absolutely sold, on your argument.

I agree that our clubs are poor at increasing their turnover and supporter base, not only to the extent that they're missing their full potential but to the point where the future of the whole game is in jeopardy.

Now, I don't know anyone currently involved in the operation of a professional club and don't have the expertise you speak of, so I wondered, have you approached any one/club and offered to help/advise them in these areas?

I don't mean as an amateur/volunteer if you are disinclined to do that, but on a professional basis. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Lowdesert said:

Catalans have live music, kids games, kids activities just through the main entrance.  That and whatever is arranged on the pitch, pre match.  Always a good atmosphere.

The set up of the stadium allows it, as does Toulouse , as does Albi , not suitable for the KC or the DW 

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...