Rugby League World Cup 2021 (Merged Threads)

[Big Picture]

6 minutes ago, Dave T said:

You really should try and read, because tbh, I feel like I'm speaking to a toddler. 

The £1-£2m in ticket sales for this event does not benefit Newcastle, it does not count in the economic benefit for Newcastle City. 

The economic impact of the 2013 WC to Wales and England was c£38m. This year we hope to see bigger crowds, we'll stage more events and none will be held in Ireland and France. 

I suggest that if you don't know about economic impacts and how they are calculated, you stop just making things up and wasting everyone's time. Or you could go and read about it. 

As you say it's not the ticket sales, it's the other money spent in Newcastle by those ticket buyers.  My point about the link between ticket sales and economic impact was simply that we can derive a ratio between the two numbers from their targets for those numbers, that seems to have gone over your head.

Thanks for giving the economic impact number for the 2013 tournament, based on the total attendance of 458,483 that number works out to an average of just under 83 £ of economic impact per ticket sold so my calculation of 100 £ per ticket sold sounds about right based on inflation since 2013.

Now I'm even more certain that they need to sell 750,000 tickets so they can reach the 75 million £ of economic impact and give the government a good news story to crow about.  I suggest that the current UK government absolutely does need some good news they can crow about and this will be one of their few opportunities to get some of that.

[GeordieSaint]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

My personal view is I'd hope they could get an extra 10k and make it 45k, but tbh, the fact they haven't given a further update makes me worry. 

Yep - me too.

I think they’ve massively ballsed up prices. But that’s been done to death already. 

[saintspete83]

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

My personal view is I'd hope they could get an extra 10k and make it 45k, but tbh, the fact they haven't given a further update makes me worry. 

Still only Monday, maybe hear something come Wed or Fri. Let's not forget that there will be possibly 15k at Leeds later in the day. Maybe they should have had game 1 as a stand alone? how many attending that one would have made the trip a little further up north. That said I will definitely be on the lookout for a good bar in Newcastle to watch the Aus V Fiji game 

In regard to tickets does anyone know if pay on the day/Door will be an option? I feel it will be a big mistake if it isn't. I am tempted to go to the match at Warrington on the Sunday but will only make that choice on Sunday. 

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Big Picture said:

As you say it's not the ticket sales, it's the other money spent in Newcastle by those ticket buyers.  My point about the link between ticket sales and economic impact was simply that we can derive a ratio between the two numbers from their targets for those numbers, that seems to have gone over your head.

Thanks for giving the economic impact number for the 2013 tournament, based on the total attendance of 458,483 that number works out to an average of just under 83 £ of economic impact per ticket sold so my calculation of 100 £ per ticket sold sounds about right based on inflation since 2013.

Now I'm even more certain that they need to sell 750,000 tickets so they can reach the 75 million £ of economic impact and give the government a good news story to crow about.  I suggest that the current UK government absolutely does need some good news they can crow about and this will be one of their few opportunities to get some of that.

This discussion has never been about 750k. The disagreement has been about the price. You've claimed the government demanded these prices, based on completely misunderstanding the economic impact numebrs. 

My whole point right through this discussion is that the price point is too high and will make the total fan number much lower. 

You can keep making out others are missing the point, but it's quite clear what's happened here. 

[Maximus Decimus]

22 minutes ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

 

It's to do with rankings Johnny....Aussies arent ranked number one

There's a misunderstanding that it's to do with rankings. The top 4 seeds were each given a group. England were given A as group hosts. 

I've seen nothing to suggest that the other three groups were selected for any reason aligned with rankings.

It also ignores the fact that the traditional system has been adjusted to ensure that half the teams cannot meet each other until the final.

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Maximus Decimus said:

There's a misunderstanding that it's to do with rankings. The top 4 seeds were each given a group. England were given A as group hosts. 

I've seen nothing to suggest that the other three groups were selected for any reason aligned with rankings.

It also ignores the fact that the traditional system has been adjusted to ensure that half the teams cannot meet each other until the final.

The other groups do look like they were ranked, and I believe there was an element of geography with Lebanon not being allowed in England's group. 

If iit wasn't a ranking issue, they could have exchanged Cooks and Lebanon. 

[Maximus Decimus]

14 minutes ago, graveyard johnny said:

I only wanted to know if we could play Samoa twice without ever facing aus or nz - again sorry but unable to work out charts, timetables and graphs amongst other things due to ........ well just can't anyway - thanks to some posters for the sarcasm though 

This is true.

Essentially there are two sides of the draw and if we make the semi-final no matter how we got there will 99.99% be against Samoa or Tonga.

It's actually pretty crazy that there is a something like 65% chance that Tonga or Samoa will contest the WC final. This was literally as unthinkable as say PNG or Fiji are now even in 2013.

[Maximus Decimus]

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

The other groups do look like they were ranked, and I believe there was an element of geography with Lebanon not being allowed in England's group. 

If iit wasn't a ranking issue, they could have exchanged Cooks and Lebanon. 

Each group already had a seeded team, with England given A because of being hosts. As I said, I've seen nothing to suggest that they were chosen by any ranking system.

The rest was drawn by Prince Harry, and came out of 3 pots. There was something where Lebanon had to be kept apart from our group to ensure a Pacific team in the group.

[graveyard johnny]

2 minutes ago, Maximus Decimus said:

This is true.

Essentially there are two sides of the draw and if we make the semi-final no matter how we got there will 99.99% be against Samoa or Tonga.

It's actually pretty crazy that there is a something like 65% chance that Tonga or Samoa will contest the WC final. This was literally as unthinkable as say PNG or Fiji are now even in 2013.

thanks for the explanation MD

[Maximus Decimus]

Just now, graveyard johnny said:

thanks for the explanation MD

If you go back 6 or 7 pages, you'll see a pretty in-depth discussion on my thoughts about it .

[Dave T]

4 minutes ago, Maximus Decimus said:

Each group already had a seeded team, with England given A because of being hosts. As I said, I've seen nothing to suggest that they were chosen by any ranking system.

The rest was drawn by Prince Harry, and came out of 3 pots. There was something where Lebanon had to be kept apart from our group to ensure a Pacific team in the group.

Yes, we may be talking at cross purposes, but each of the three pots that teams were selected from were grouped by rankings IIRC. 

I think you are right with A B C D etc. 

[Big Picture]

10 minutes ago, Dave T said:

This discussion has never been about 750k. The disagreement has been about the price. You've claimed the government demanded these prices, based on completely misunderstanding the economic impact numebrs. 

My whole point right through this discussion is that the price point is too high and will make the total fan number much lower. 

You can keep making out others are missing the point, but it's quite clear what's happened here. 

Sigh!  750,000 is the number of tickets they need to sell in order to achieve the economic impact they told the government they would get which was the basis for them getting 25 million £ of public money.  Naturally the government wouldn't want that target to be reached based on cheap tickets, that would take the glow off their achievement and give their critics ammunition to use against it.

[Maximus Decimus]

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Yes, we may be talking at cross purposes, but each of the three pots that teams were selected from were grouped by rankings IIRC. 

I think you are right with A B C D etc. 

Oh yeh I think so. I do think we were quite lucky in getting Samoa if only for the fact that we could've had a somewhat uncompetitive group.

 

[graveyard johnny]

so for me the realisation is starting to dawn that we have brought nz and aus  across from the other side of the world and after been starved of international rl for so long  there's a good chance we might not get to see Eng play either of them!

[Dunbar]

48 minutes ago, graveyard johnny said:

thanks - i have difficulty with things like that though due to something I wont go in to too much detail about - but thanks for the funny answer

I have edited my post.

[Maximus Decimus]

3 minutes ago, graveyard johnny said:

so for me the realisation is starting to dawn that we have brought nz and aus  across from the other side of the world and after been starved of international rl for so long  there's a good chance we might not get to see Eng play either of them!

The only scenario that really bothers me is the one where we beat Samoa on Saturday and then lose to them in the semi-finals without playing another really decent side.

[Damien]

9 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Yes, we may be talking at cross purposes, but each of the three pots that teams were selected from were grouped by rankings IIRC. 

I think you are right with A B C D etc. 

England were seeded 1 as hosts, Australia 2 as holders then NZ and Tonga 3 and 4 based on rankings.

[glossop saint]

11 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

Sigh!  750,000 is the number of tickets they need to sell in order to achieve the economic impact they told the government they would get which was the basis for them getting 25 million £ of public money.  Naturally the government wouldn't want that target to be reached based on cheap tickets, that would take the glow off their achievement and give their critics ammunition to use against it.

This seems pretty nonsensical. Who is going to be criticising the government if the RLWC sells tickets at 20 quid instead of 30 quid? That would be the most bizarre PMQs I'd have ever seen. I can hardly imagine Labour winning back the red wall by telling Truss that she should have forced the RLWC to charge more for tickets in the middle of a recession.

You're digging yourself further into the hole here BP. Know when to stop.

[Dave T]

38 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

Sigh!  750,000 is the number of tickets they need to sell in order to achieve the economic impact they told the government they would get which was the basis for them getting 25 million £ of public money.  Naturally the government wouldn't want that target to be reached based on cheap tickets, that would take the glow off their achievement and give their critics ammunition to use against it.

Jesus Christ

[Dave T]

27 minutes ago, Maximus Decimus said:

The only scenario that really bothers me is the one where we beat Samoa on Saturday and then lose to them in the semi-finals without playing another really decent side.

But if we get knocked out by Samoa then we have played a decent side, surely? 

[Damien]

Just now, Dave T said:

Jesus Christ

Give it up for your own sanity, I've been purposely not replying. I remember this ludicrous argument about 1 month ago and refuse to bite now. There isn't a single shred of evidence and no basis for these claims, it's completely nonsensical. 

[Dave T]

33 minutes ago, graveyard johnny said:

so for me the realisation is starting to dawn that we have brought nz and aus  across from the other side of the world and after been starved of international rl for so long  there's a good chance we might not get to see Eng play either of them!

We've moved on from just staging games against Aus and NZ because that is all that is important. 

We did that in 1995, 2000, 2008, 2013, 2017. We played Australia in every tournament just so we could get a crowd and get a credible game. 

Now we have moved on and are likely to get 40k plus against Samoa. That is hugely positive. 

[StandOffHalf]

34 minutes ago, graveyard johnny said:

so for me the realisation is starting to dawn that we have brought nz and aus  across from the other side of the world and after been starved of international rl for so long  there's a good chance we might not get to see Eng play either of them!

The thought does make one shudder. It would really take the gloss off the World Cup from an English perspective if it plays out like that.

Not a fan of how they've fiddled the draw, knock-out match-ups, etc.

[Dave T]

Just now, Damien said:

Give it up for your own sanity, I've been purposely not replying. I remember this ludicrous argument about 1 month ago and refuse to bite now. There isn't a single shred of evidence and no basis for these claims, it's completely nonsensical. 

Aye, that is me done mate. Can go back to debating pitch markings soon

[Maximus Decimus]

3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

But if we get knocked out by Samoa then we have played a decent side, surely? 

Another decent side.

I don't like the idea that we play the same team twice and go out because we lose the wrong one.

Without bringing up old ground too much, and acknowledging that it's not an enormous deal, I think the losing side on Saturday should have been put into Australia's side of the draw.