The Away fans argument

[gingerjon]

2 hours ago, Niels said:

Supporters who attend games will always be listened to most as they are backing their opions by spending money.

Super League isn't playing games on Thursday evenings because it's listening to people who attend games. It's playing on Thursday evenings because the real money that keeps the sport going requires that they do.

[Scotchy1]

17 minutes ago, Damien said:

I don't think the importance of TV viewers can be forgotten either. They are what drive a £40 million a year TV deal that funds much of Rugby League as we know it and are of huge importance to sponsors and advertisers. Yes people that don't, or in many instances can't for a variety of reasons, go to games might get scoffed at, and indeed some on here seem to look down their noses at them, but they are every bit as important. Sky care greatly about viewers that may be paying £80 a month to them or more to them, primarily for Rugby League.

There is a purity test outlook that we really need to get away from. 

The best league game will get maybe 15-20k attendance. It will get 150-200k tv viewers. 

 

[Jill Halfpenny fan]

39 minutes ago, Damien said:

 Yes people that don't, or in many instances can't for a variety of reasons, go to games might get scoffed at, and indeed some on here seem to look down their noses at them, but they are every bit as important. 

Lets face it,  you've been following a club home and away for god knows how many years, then someone comes along and wants to consign your club to history when you suspect said person probably attends a couple of games a year at most then I reckon they've every reason to get annoyed.

We all know that some people would attend if their health, finances etc were better.

But for plenty it comes down to priorities, and rugby league is nowhere near the top of them.

I'd actually go as far as saying you've got it the other way round.

There's some on here who look down their noses at people who do attend.

I mean "who wants to travel to Hull, Whitehaven, Widnes  to watch rugby on a Sunday afternoon, haven't they got anything better to do*

[Damien]

3 minutes ago, Jill Halfpenny fan said:

Lets face it,  you've been following a club home and away for god knows how many years, then someone comes along and wants to consign your club to history when you suspect said person probably attends a couple of games a year at most then I reckon they've every reason to get annoyed.

We all know that some people would attend if their health, finances etc were better.

But for plenty it comes down to priorities, and rugby league is nowhere near the top of them.

I'd actually go as far as saying you've got it the other way round.

There's some on here who look down their noses at people who do attend.

I mean "who wants to travel to Hull, Whitehaven, Widnes  to watch rugby on a Sunday afternoon, haven't they got anything better to do*

I'm not really sure why you decided to quote one line out of context just to have a rant about something else but hope you now feel better!

[Jill Halfpenny fan]

1 minute ago, Damien said:

I'm not really sure why you decided to quote one line out of context just to have a rant about something else but hope you now feel better!

Yep, much thanks.

[Niels]

1 hour ago, gingerjon said:

Super League isn't playing games on Thursday evenings because it's listening to people who attend games. It's playing on Thursday evenings because the real money that keeps the sport going requires that they do.

Sky used to show Championship games on a Thursday night. We always had good attendances at Batley for these. The same for Challenge cup matches on a Thursday also. 

I can't speak for all super league fans, but many championship supporters enjoyed the Thursday night games. 

[gingerjon]

7 minutes ago, Niels said:

Sky used to show Championship games on a Thursday night. We always had good attendances at Batley for these. The same for Challenge cup matches on a Thursday also. 

I can't speak for all super league fans, but many championship supporters enjoyed the Thursday night games. 

I’m sure they did.

Why don’t you have games on Thursdays now?

Because there’s no TV. If there were then, regardless of how much fun you found them, there would be games on Thursday again.

[Wanderer]

17 hours ago, bentleyman said:

Well how do i get there Gubby !!! 

get a taxi

[Niels]

3 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

I’m sure they did.

Why don’t you have games on Thursdays now?

Because there’s no TV. If there were then, regardless of how much fun you found them, there would be games on Thursday again.

The TV is definitely a factor. It seems incongruous, yet the fact that the game was live on Sky gave the attendance a real boost. The games were marketed well of course.

 

 

[gingerjon]

24 minutes ago, Niels said:

The TV is definitely a factor. It seems incongruous, yet the fact that the game was live on Sky gave the attendance a real boost. The games were marketed well of course.

 

 

From memory it did vary club to club but some put a real effort into making an event of it. Showed the semi professional game in a very good light.

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

41 minutes ago, Niels said:

The TV is definitely a factor. It seems incongruous, yet the fact that the game was live on Sky gave the attendance a real boost. The games were marketed well of course.

 

 

 

16 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

From memory it did vary club to club but some put a real effort into making an event of it. Showed the semi professional game in a very good light.

I'm pretty sure that money for marketing (including free tickets for schools) and putting on the extra 'entertainment' were provided by the league's sponsor (Co-Op) for those games.

[Damien]

Just now, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

 

I'm pretty sure that money for marketing (including free tickets for schools) and putting on the extra 'entertainment' were provided by the league's sponsor (Co-Op) for those games.

I seem to recall something like that too. Maybe that should be the idea for Super League as well. Hold back a small portion of TV money and give every club selected for a Thursday night Sky TV game £10k purely for marketing and extra entertainment. 

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

2 minutes ago, Damien said:

I seem to recall something like that too. Maybe that should be the idea for Super League as well. Hold back a small portion of TV money and give every club selected for a Thursday night Sky TV game £10k purely for marketing and extra entertainment. 

My memory is of £20k for those games. @GUBRATS may have been involved at Leigh around then and might remember?

[Damien]

2 minutes ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

My memory is of £20k for those games. @GUBRATS may have been involved at Leigh around then and might remember?

That seems huge money for the Championship. Either way the concept is sound if we are to have Thursday night games.

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

1 minute ago, Damien said:

That seems huge money for the Championship. Either way the concept is sound if we are to have Thursday night games.

Yes, I almost put 'seems high'. I've had a quick google but can't see anything.

[GUBRATS]

32 minutes ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

My memory is of £20k for those games. @GUBRATS may have been involved at Leigh around then and might remember?

It was £ 1000 per game , and you had to prove you spent it , no pocketing it

[Big Picture]

3 hours ago, gingerjon said:

Super League isn't playing games on Thursday evenings because it's listening to people who attend games. It's playing on Thursday evenings because the real money that keeps the sport going requires that they do.

Also because low ratings led to the TV games being shunted from Saturday and Sunday evenings as was originally the case to Thursday and Friday evenings instead.

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

15 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

It was £ 1000 per game , and you had to prove you spent it , no pocketing it

Could've been £20k sponsorship total then.

PS you must be aware of creative accounting.... 

[GUBRATS]

9 minutes ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

Could've been £20k sponsorship total then.

PS you must be aware of creative accounting.... 

Yes , that would be the case , as I've put previously at my suggestion to Leigh , we'd just well beaten Widnes in a regular season game and were due to play them again in a NR cup match , I asked what we ( Leigh ) intended to spend the money on , " the usual fireworks and stuff " was the reply , so instead we provided 3 free coaches for the Widnes fans , Steve Oconnor ( the then Widnes owner ) matched that and we ended up with 7 coaches ( 350 fans ) bringing fans that might not have travelled as it was a televised game ( with a split gate ) , so essentially we ( both us and Widnes ) got our money back on the investment , the atmosphere was improved with a bigger following from the opposition 

We also battered them again , so it was a result all round

[Spidey]

Just now, GUBRATS said:

Yes , that would be the case , as I've put previously at my suggestion to Leigh , we'd just well beaten Widnes in a regular season game and were due to play them again in a NR cup match , I asked what we ( Leigh ) intended to spend the money on , " the usual fireworks and stuff " was the reply , so instead we provided 3 free coaches for the Widnes fans , Steve Oconnor ( the then Widnes owner ) matched that and we ended up with 7 coaches ( 350 fans ) bringing fans that might not have travelled as it was a televised game ( with a split gate ) , so essentially we ( both us and Widnes ) got our money back on the investment , the atmosphere was improved with a bigger following from the opposition 

We also battered them again , so it was a result all round

Those were some dark days

[Blind side johnny]

The original discussion was around the importance or otherwise of visiting supporters. Naturally the logical response to this is that every club should be taking any steps that they can to increase their own attendances first and worry about visitors later. I couldn't argue with this at all.

Can anyone point me to a UK pro RL club that has achieved a sustainable increase in attendances over a significant period  by any means other than from success on the field of play? How was this achieved?

[Scotchy1]

13 minutes ago, Blind side johnny said:

The original discussion was around the importance or otherwise of visiting supporters. Naturally the logical response to this is that every club should be taking any steps that they can to increase their own attendances first and worry about visitors later. I couldn't argue with this at all.

Can anyone point me to a UK pro RL club that has achieved a sustainable increase in attendances over a significant period  by any means other than from success on the field of play? How was this achieved?

That's a difficult question to answer because largely the big growth clubs have needed large investment to do so and that has correlated with relative success. 

Look Hudds, Hull and Wire who have grown substantially and have had success but it isn't necessarily the cause of it.

From the other side almost as a control group. The big three of Leeds, saints and Wigan have had success spread throughout SL. But interestingly its not necessarily correlated with good season on the field resulting in higher attendances. 

[Harry Stottle]

47 minutes ago, Blind side johnny said:

The original discussion was around the importance or otherwise of visiting supporters. Naturally the logical response to this is that every club should be taking any steps that they can to increase their own attendances first and worry about visitors later. I couldn't argue with this at all.

Can anyone point me to a UK pro RL club that has achieved a sustainable increase in attendances over a significant period  by any means other than from success on the field of play? How was this achieved?

Wild guess, Warrington moving to the HJ from a decrepit Wilderspool?

[Damien]

33 minutes ago, Scotchy1 said:

That's a difficult question to answer because largely the big growth clubs have needed large investment to do so and that has correlated with relative success. 

Look Hudds, Hull and Wire who have grown substantially and have had success but it isn't necessarily the cause of it.

From the other side almost as a control group. The big three of Leeds, saints and Wigan have had success spread throughout SL. But interestingly its not necessarily correlated with good season on the field resulting in higher attendances. 

In my experience of watching Wigan over the years attendances have always waned after a period of success and after the build up to and after the initial success as such. After a while complacency seems to set in, not just from the fans but also on the part of the club too. Hence why Wigan's average attendances have declined by around 4-5k over the last decade or so despite winning the Grand Final and Challenge Cup a number of times. As I have said on another thread success is only one part of the equation and attributing growth to success is very simplistic and flawed. Its an easy way out rather than addressing everything else.

[GUBRATS]

3 hours ago, Spidey said:

Those were some dark days

A few years back though and you turned it around , we put 50 past the pies , comfortably beat Wire and Saints , but got nowhere near a Danny Craven inspired Widnes 3 or was it 4 times in SL in 2017 , we watched you beat Catalans in the 8s in the pub , a massive cheer went up as we didn't want to play you in the million pound game , that worked out well for us