Jump to content

Eddie Hearn-Time for the RFL to swallow pride and let him take over,if he is still interested?


Recommended Posts

I dont know about the problems, but the target should be new customers,  people complaining about magic weekend attendance, challenge cup attendance being down.

 

Its because your fishing in the same hole,  same people, slowly walking away. But not being replaces by new fans, new customers, new pairs of eyes on the product.

 

And this is pre covid as well.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


17 hours ago, gingerjon said:

But, not sure if it was you but it has been said on here, the suggestion has been made that we could give Matchroom some of our key events like the Challenge Cup final.

Now, do you think someone like Hearn will be remotely interested in the Challenge Cup final if there's a danger that an unfashionable, unsupported or team that hasn't signed up to his agreements, qualifies?

In responding to the opening post I stated that I would not be adverse in involving - not giving -  the Hearn’s the opportunity to try to increase interest in the MW and CC Final as both of these events present a poor image to viewers in terms of large banks of unused seating.  And I would offer them a large cut of the extra income generated for attendances above a certain level.

Then you raised a pertinent point - which I agree with - that the 2013 WC and 2021 WC had been/will be well managed because the lead organising team had both money and time.  

But you also hit the nail on the head.  Having money and time, along with an appropriate level of skilled staff involved in the day to day running at RFL HQ is something that IMHO the RFL lack.  So does one just wait and hope that the RFL are able, at some point in time, to somehow increase their resources to enable them to increase attendances at some of our premier events, or, does the RFL offer financial incentives as I stated in my opening paragraph to encourage organisations - that may or may not include Matchroom - to be involved and shorten the timescale with little financial risk to the RFL by offering financial incentives rather than making a large payment up front?

Which do you think is the most logical approach? Or do you have an alternative

P.S. In respect of your final point.  If the RFL worked with an external organisation and managed to shift 50% of all the CC Final tickets before the Finalists are known then you greatly limit the impact if for example Catalans reach another final.  Or we can just moan about the attendance if nothing is done.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Adelaide Tiger said:

In responding to the opening post I stated that I would not be adverse in involving - not giving -  the Hearn’s the opportunity to try to increase interest in the MW and CC Final as both of these events present a poor image to viewers in terms of large banks of unused seating.  And I would offer them a large cut of the extra income generated for attendances above a certain level.

Then you raised a pertinent point - which I agree with - that the 2013 WC and 2021 WC had been/will be well managed because the lead organising team had both money and time.  

But you also hit the nail on the head.  Having money and time, along with an appropriate level of skilled staff involved in the day to day running at RFL HQ is something that IMHO the RFL lack.  So does one just wait and hope that the RFL are able, at some point in time, to somehow increase their resources to enable them to increase attendances at some of our premier events, or, does the RFL offer financial incentives as I stated in my opening paragraph to encourage organisations - that may or may not include Matchroom - to be involved and shorten the timescale with little financial risk to the RFL by offering financial incentives rather than making a large payment up front?

Which do you think is the most logical approach? Or do you have an alternative

P.S. In respect of your final point.  If the RFL worked with an external organisation and managed to shift 50% of all the CC Final tickets before the Finalists are known then you greatly limit the impact if for example Catalans reach another final.  Or we can just moan about the attendance if nothing is done.

Nobody worth their salt is going to work on a predominantly revenue share model. They want paying for their time. 

Anyone who does agree to such a model is only ever going to focus on short term tactics to bump up their fee and, frankly we've had plenty of those. The returns for any agency wouldn't even be that good for them unless you tie the RFL to a long-term retainer. Even if the CC currently averages 65k (a guesstimate), at most you're only giving that agent the capacity to sell another 20k-ish tickets - at even 50% rev share at an average £40 ticket, that's £400k before costs. I don't think that's enough incentive for an agency, especially for the risk you're trying to palm off onto them, and therefore they'd be asking for a share of a new fan's lifetime value over several years - at which point, you're giving away a lot of what you can do yourself. 

It's also important to still seeing this as an RFL problem to fix. It is the clubs who are responsible for Magic Weekend and, for all but a handful of occasions, they are the promoter and primary point if consumption. It's important to call out the clubs on this, not just use the RFL as a lightning rod.

Edited by whatmichaelsays
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

Nobody worth their salt is going to work on a predominantly revenue share model. They want paying for their time. 

Anyone who does agree to such a model is only ever going to focus on short term tactics to bump up their fee and, frankly we've had plenty of those. The returns for any agency wouldn't even be that good for them unless you tie the RFL to a long-term retainer. Even if the CC currently averages 65k (a guesstimate), at most you're only giving that agent the capacity to sell another 20k-ish tickets - at even 50% rev share at an average £40 ticket, that's £400k before costs. I don't think that's enough incentive for an agency, especially for the risk you're trying to palm off onto them, and therefore they'd be asking for a share of a new fan's lifetime value over several years - at which point, you're giving away a lot of what you can do yourself. 

It's also important to still seeing this as an RFL problem to fix. It is the clubs who are responsible for Magic Weekend and, for all but a handful of occasions, they are the promoter and primary point if consumption. It's important to call out the clubs on this, not just use the RFL as a lightning rod.

Thanks for you response but a strange thing just happened.

In preparing a response to your guesstimate about CC crowds I put a search into Google to find a FOI request that someone had put to Brent Council that I found a few years ago where the FOI response stated that the attendance for the 2017 CC Final between Hull and Wigan was actually 54,000 and not 68,000 that included the Club Wembley seats.

I found the FOI link BUT to my surprise one of the top listings was a link to the Totalrl.com site and that link took me to a topic titled ‘Is Wembley the only venue for the CC Final’ that I started on 11 December 2018 based in the fact that possibly the 2 biggest teams in the game could only fill just over half the capacity.

You were the 5th person to respond giving a passionate ‘No’ to my question stating that it would be a ‘pretty damning and symbolic decision’.  You also stated that the ‘RFL, Super League and clubs need to come up with new ideas …. to make this sport relevant and to connect with new audiences’.

Obviously you still believe that it is a RFL problem.  So in all honesty do you see any progress because quite frankly I don’t.  How long are you prepared to wait before a hoped for response from the RFL?  because it is my fear is that it will not eventuate without external assistance and meanwhile the non-committed RL viewer - and remember that SKY want more eyes watching our game - might be left with the perception that the vast banks of empty seats demonstrates that few people care about attending our premier events. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Adelaide Tiger said:

Thanks for you response but a strange thing just happened.

In preparing a response to your guesstimate about CC crowds I put a search into Google to find a FOI request that someone had put to Brent Council that I found a few years ago where the FOI response stated that the attendance for the 2017 CC Final between Hull and Wigan was actually 54,000 and not 68,000 that included the Club Wembley seats.

I found the FOI link BUT to my surprise one of the top listings was a link to the Totalrl.com site and that link took me to a topic titled ‘Is Wembley the only venue for the CC Final’ that I started on 11 December 2018 based in the fact that possibly the 2 biggest teams in the game could only fill just over half the capacity.

You were the 5th person to respond giving a passionate ‘No’ to my question stating that it would be a ‘pretty damning and symbolic decision’.  You also stated that the ‘RFL, Super League and clubs need to come up with new ideas …. to make this sport relevant and to connect with new audiences’.

Obviously you still believe that it is a RFL problem.  So in all honesty do you see any progress because quite frankly I don’t.  How long are you prepared to wait before a hoped for response from the RFL?  because it is my fear is that it will not eventuate without external assistance and meanwhile the non-committed RL viewer - and remember that SKY want more eyes watching our game - might be left with the perception that the vast banks of empty seats demonstrates that few people care about attending our premier events. 

 

The CC Final is an RFL event so yes, I expect the RFL - and other stakeholders - to come up with a way to make the CC Final an event that is more relevant with the wider public and to make it more of a "FOMO" event. Likewise, I expect the Super League clubs to do it for Magic given that it is a Super League event.  And I stand by my remarks about Wembley. I don't think that the way to make this sport grow is to downsize one of its main events. 

But that goes beyond just "getting Eddie Hearn" to be a hype man for it. I've said this many times, but I don't think the RFL, Super League and the clubs can advertise their way out if this problem - and that's what I think a lotn of people think when they say "market it better". I think when people use that phrase, there's an undercurrent of "fix this problem, but don't dare change it in a way that I don't like", which makes it a comment made in bad faith. 

There are things about the CC that you could rely on the expertise of someone like Matchroom - presentation of the event, for example, but I think those are mostly cosmetic changes. There are other, more fundamental issues behind the CC in my view that have seen it's prestige wane. 

I think clubs playing each other too many times (and the number of games generally) is an issue. In the era of FT professionalism, we see fewer upsets. I think the CC generally just lacks some purpose and I think it's up to the RFL and the clubs to really define what purpose it should serve in this day and age, who it appeals to and where it fits as part of a wider RL calendar. Then you focus on shorter-term tactical aspects like presentation and matchday experience, pricing, media relations and PR, sponsorship etc but you don't need a Hearn to do that.

This is something that the RFL needs to own because if it doesn't, it is either giving away a lot of margin and/or equity in one if its key properties and because this is very much about joined-up, holistic strategy across the whole sport. I don't doubt Eddie Hearn's ability to hype up a one-off event but, as I've said before, he's the wrong answer to the wrong question. 

I don't know how long the RFL wants or needs to address these issues but it's worth remembering that the World Cup teams that have been praised in this thread are or were largely RFL staff in one form or another. These people can do it in the right circumstances. 

Edited by whatmichaelsays
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that there are more fundamental issues with the CC and that the RFL should lead the process and speak to its stakeholders but IMHO they also have to look outside of their organisation and engage with organisations who’s raison d’être is in presenting, promoting and publicity.  As I stated in my previous post such organisations can assist the RFL but not lead the process.  And the same process and engagement should be undertaken by SL clubs for the MW.

I disagree with your comment that the RFL can do all the ‘short term tactical aspects’ because if they had those skills, expertise, strategy and funding then they would be doing that already.

I also do not agree with your comment about giving up margin let only any equity.  If an external partner can sell out Wembley, which the RFL currently cannot, then let the external partner have 100% of the income for all tickets sold over 60,000.  34k times £30 a ticket seems a good return. The RFL struggle to get over 60k so they lose nothing.  In return full houses may change the perception of SKY and other investors to our game so the whole of the game may benefit financially.

I believe that an organisation that has an excellent track record in promoting, publicising and creating profitable events should be part of the answer.

Your last sentence just reaffirms what I said 2 posts ago.  Yes, the people associated with the 2021 WC RFL have done extremely well but they have had 3 or 4 years to thoroughly work through all elements and had funding to assist them.  But I will repeat myself by saying that the RFL apparently does not have the financial and Human Resources to address what we are discussing. Therefore my solution would be to work with new partners to lessen the cost to the RFL.

Anyway it’s bed time now so enjoy your day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Adelaide Tiger said:

I agree that there are more fundamental issues with the CC and that the RFL should lead the process and speak to its stakeholders but IMHO they also have to look outside of their organisation and engage with organisations who’s raison d’être is in presenting, promoting and publicity.  As I stated in my previous post such organisations can assist the RFL but not lead the process.  And the same process and engagement should be undertaken by SL clubs for the MW.

I disagree with your comment that the RFL can do all the ‘short term tactical aspects’ because if they had those skills, expertise, strategy and funding then they would be doing that already.

I also do not agree with your comment about giving up margin let only any equity.  If an external partner can sell out Wembley, which the RFL currently cannot, then let the external partner have 100% of the income for all tickets sold over 60,000.  34k times £30 a ticket seems a good return. The RFL struggle to get over 60k so they lose nothing.  In return full houses may change the perception of SKY and other investors to our game so the whole of the game may benefit financially.

I believe that an organisation that has an excellent track record in promoting, publicising and creating profitable events should be part of the answer.

Your last sentence just reaffirms what I said 2 posts ago.  Yes, the people associated with the 2021 WC RFL have done extremely well but they have had 3 or 4 years to thoroughly work through all elements and had funding to assist them.  But I will repeat myself by saying that the RFL apparently does not have the financial and Human Resources to address what we are discussing. Therefore my solution would be to work with new partners to lessen the cost to the RFL.

Anyway it’s bed time now so enjoy your day.

I think in reality, it would be very difficult for an agency to just come in and sell out those 30k tickets for a million quid. 

The cheap sales will have been swept up through the clubs and existing customer base. Selling to 30k 'new' customers is likely to be more expensive than that million. This is likely the reason we don't see new tactical marketing from the RFL. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, whatmichaelsays said:

Nobody worth their salt is going to work on a predominantly revenue share model. They want paying for their time. 

Anyone who does agree to such a model is only ever going to focus on short term tactics to bump up their fee and, frankly we've had plenty of those. The returns for any agency wouldn't even be that good for them unless you tie the RFL to a long-term retainer. Even if the CC currently averages 65k (a guesstimate), at most you're only giving that agent the capacity to sell another 20k-ish tickets - at even 50% rev share at an average £40 ticket, that's £400k before costs. I don't think that's enough incentive for an agency, especially for the risk you're trying to palm off onto them, and therefore they'd be asking for a share of a new fan's lifetime value over several years - at which point, you're giving away a lot of what you can do yourself. 

It's also important to still seeing this as an RFL problem to fix. It is the clubs who are responsible for Magic Weekend and, for all but a handful of occasions, they are the promoter and primary point if consumption. It's important to call out the clubs on this, not just use the RFL as a lightning rod.

Just a minute, are you saying that £400,000 is not enough to pay for your experts? How much then, would be ''fair'' for what needs to be done?

Are you also saying that if they are worth their salt, they'll want to be paid for their time, irrespective of whether we/the game receives any benefit?

Is that how you judge their ''worth''.

We paid Elstone a fortune, but what did the game benefit?

Perhaps we should have got someone who asked for half a million, but was also unwilling to share the risk? Really? 

54 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I think in reality, it would be very difficult for an agency to just come in and sell out those 30k tickets for a million quid. 

The cheap sales will have been swept up through the clubs and existing customer base. Selling to 30k 'new' customers is likely to be more expensive than that million. This is likely the reason we don't see new tactical marketing from the RFL. 

If it would be very difficult for an agency (worth their salt) to come in and sell those 30k tickets to newcomers then why do you/we criticise the RFL for being unable to do it? By that definition the task is impossible. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

 

If it would be very difficult for an agency (worth their salt) to come in and sell those 30k tickets to newcomers then why do you/we criticise the RFL for being unable to do it? By that definition the task is impossible. 

To expand on my point, to sell those additional 30k tickets on a simple 'marketing' basis, it costs a lot of money. If Hearn wants to use TV, ticketing agencies, digital channels etc. it will cost a lot of money, and that is the same for the RFL (as I said in my post). 

Where the RFL has the advantage is that they own the whole comp, they have the club network, the community game - they can make the proposition more compelling etc. which is something that Hearn/a marketing agency can't do. 

If a marketing agency could sell tickets 60,001 to 90,000 and deliver a profit, it would be happening. I suspect in reality, some traditional marketing activity in new areas would maybe see a new company bring along 5 to 10k people and nobody makes money. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What exactly have the Hearns achieved??

Darts was always National as were Snooker and Boxing, what regional minority sport have they been a success in??

Barrys NET wealth seems to be about £40m and Eddie similar - decent but not huge and nowhere near that the web has for Koukash for example.

Give the sport to the good Doc and watch it flourish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, sweaty craiq said:

Give the sport to the good Doc and watch it flourish.

Salford are just about to be turfed out of the stadium that, I believe, Koukash said he would buy for them.

  • 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

32 minutes ago, Dave T said:

To expand on my point, to sell those additional 30k tickets on a simple 'marketing' basis, it costs a lot of money. If Hearn wants to use TV, ticketing agencies, digital channels etc. it will cost a lot of money, and that is the same for the RFL (as I said in my post). 

Where the RFL has the advantage is that they own the whole comp, they have the club network, the community game - they can make the proposition more compelling etc. which is something that Hearn/a marketing agency can't do. 

If a marketing agency could sell tickets 60,001 to 90,000 and deliver a profit, it would be happening. I suspect in reality, some traditional marketing activity in new areas would maybe see a new company bring along 5 to 10k people and nobody makes money. 

Might Hearn, or some other, address the RFL's network more efficiently, due to their expertise?

But I thought it was newcomers, we were after.

Then I suppose, we have to ask, whether it's worth getting 10k newcomers at break even?

I say it is (based on the potential lifetime value of those newcomers, to the game) or even at a small loss. 

If not we are surely doomed.

Edited by fighting irish
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

Might Hearn, or some other, address the RFL's network more efficiently, due to their expertise?

But I thought it was newcomers, we were after.

Then I suppose, we have to ask, whether it's worth getting 10k newcomers at break even?

I say it is (based on the potential lifetime value of those newcomers, to the game) or even at a small loss. 

If not we are surely doomed.

But we are talking incremental sales, so the risk with that is Hearn just cannibalise your current sales. 

It's where the approach of getting them to sell from 60k onwards doesn't work. 

I agree on more fans with a short term loss - we shouldnt be looking at return on a one-ticket basis, we should be looking at the fact that we are recruiting lifetime fans, not just an individual ticket sales. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, sweaty craiq said:

What exactly have the Hearns achieved??

Darts was always National as were Snooker and Boxing, what regional minority sport have they been a success in??

Barrys NET wealth seems to be about £40m and Eddie similar - decent but not huge and nowhere near that the web has for Koukash for example.

Give the sport to the good Doc and watch it flourish.

If Koukash has all this wealth, why are Cumbria, Liverpool, buying Bradford fish and chip paper and not reality?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Adelaide Tiger said:

I agree that there are more fundamental issues with the CC and that the RFL should lead the process and speak to its stakeholders but IMHO they also have to look outside of their organisation and engage with organisations who’s raison d’être is in presenting, promoting and publicity.  As I stated in my previous post such organisations can assist the RFL but not lead the process.  And the same process and engagement should be undertaken by SL clubs for the MW.

I disagree with your comment that the RFL can do all the ‘short term tactical aspects’ because if they had those skills, expertise, strategy and funding then they would be doing that already.

I also do not agree with your comment about giving up margin let only any equity.  If an external partner can sell out Wembley, which the RFL currently cannot, then let the external partner have 100% of the income for all tickets sold over 60,000.  34k times £30 a ticket seems a good return. The RFL struggle to get over 60k so they lose nothing.  In return full houses may change the perception of SKY and other investors to our game so the whole of the game may benefit financially.

I believe that an organisation that has an excellent track record in promoting, publicising and creating profitable events should be part of the answer.

Your last sentence just reaffirms what I said 2 posts ago.  Yes, the people associated with the 2021 WC RFL have done extremely well but they have had 3 or 4 years to thoroughly work through all elements and had funding to assist them.  But I will repeat myself by saying that the RFL apparently does not have the financial and Human Resources to address what we are discussing. Therefore my solution would be to work with new partners to lessen the cost to the RFL.

Anyway it’s bed time now so enjoy your day.

You say it's not about giving away margin or equity, only to immediately suggest giving a third party any ticket sales above 60k. That sounds an awful lot like giving away margin and/or equity in a key RFL property - especially when, depending on the clubs involved, evidence suggests that the RFL can sell a decent chunk of tickets 60,001-90,000 by themselves. 

But as @Dave T points out, those tickets are the ones that are the hardest sell and need the biggest push - certainly if you're looking at them as a one-off, year-by-year sales campaign. That's the wrong way to look at it - it's the short-term view. 

My point is that any such view (get someone in on a performance basis) comes from this idea that the problem with the CC Final is one of promotion. It's the hubris of "we have a great product but we need to tell more people about it" that I personally think is misplaced.

Yes, to ticket holders 1-60,000, it is a great product and that's what they're buying, but to an awful lot of people, this isn't a great product - certainly not one that they demanding and falling over themselves to get a ticket for. It's something they might like, but not something they're that fussed about missing out on so simply shouting louder about RL to these people won't make a difference because they don't currently care. This is where you need a long-term plan to identify, engage and adapt the product so that it creates demand from an audience over time - essentially you 'pay it forward' so that you're not paying as much to sell each ticket in future years. Decades of marketing research shows that in the long term, sacrificing some short-term gains for the long-term makes more money overall.  

That is where I think the Hearns are the wrong answer to the wrong problem. We don't need "hype", we need to understand exactly who we're trying to sell both the CC Final and RL as a whole to and adapt it to meet their needs and expectations. That's not something that I think the Hearns can do, or are interested in doing. You can't just say to any marketing agency "here's out event, you're paid on what you sell but by the way, you're not allowed to change it in any way/"; it's a waste of time - especially when the RFL and the clubs don't seem to know what audience they want to attract. 

The point about the Hearns being "event" people is true. When it comes to darts or boxing, they "own" all of the key entities - they own the talent, they own the production and they own the marketing. RL isn't something that allows them to do that - RL is a construct of losely connected entities with their own priorities, own leadership, own shareholders, own commercial challenges and own capabilties. 

This entire issue about worrying what Sky are pressuring us about has come about because the sport hasn't thought about how it builds demand to enhance the TV deal until the last minute. The SL chairmen are scambling around, trying to finish their homework on the day it is due when this whole process should have started on the day the last TV deal was signed. 

1 hour ago, fighting irish said:

Just a minute, are you saying that £400,000 is not enough to pay for your experts? How much then, would be ''fair'' for what needs to be done?

Are you also saying that if they are worth their salt, they'll want to be paid for their time, irrespective of whether we/the game receives any benefit?

Is that how you judge their ''worth''.

We paid Elstone a fortune, but what did the game benefit?

Perhaps we should have got someone who asked for half a million, but was also unwilling to share the risk? Really? 

If it would be very difficult for an agency (worth their salt) to come in and sell those 30k tickets to newcomers then why do you/we criticise the RFL for being unable to do it? By that definition the task is impossible. 

It's not "£400k" though. It's £400k as a best case scenario, before costs (eg, media spend, creative and content creation, PR activity, investment in match experience, staff time, etc). I don't think that is going to appeal to any decent agent (certainly not on the level of Matchroom) and, quite frankly, if you're asking an agent to shoulder the risk and a lot of sunk costs, rather than paying them for their time, they're going to want a significant premium for doing so. 

Edited by whatmichaelsays
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Hearns would be good if they focused on presentation, though you don't need the Hearns specifically to do that. They have also been good at building on people with existing (social)media personalities to boost their events and to make their own athletes media personalities. When was the last time you saw a Super League player with well known public individuals/celebrities? We don't even make the most of our own existing stars like Hurrell who has more followers on Instagram and Tik Tok than most entire clubs do. 

On a basic level, they have taken sports with a clear fundamental core appeal that were stuck in a 1970s attitude of "give the kids pop and crisps and they'll be reet" wondering why fewer and fewer people were taking notice despite that fundamental core appeal. That is quite clearly something that is easy for fans to see as being similar to RL, even if it is not quite translatable in practical terms. Our sport is stuck in the idea that what goes on on the pitch is the defining aspect of enjoyment of an event, or at least that it has been that way for so long we are playing catch up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

I know I'm considered a bit strange on here at times 

But I go to RL games to watch a RL game 

And that's great, the game is there for you to watch, but you go, its not you we need to work on. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone who knows me knows that I am not one to seek answers to the game's future in its past. And I'm not averse to letting Eddie Hearn's company promote an event, whether it is Magic or the Cup, or even both.

But handing over the administration of the sport to the latest putative "messiah"? Nope. And how long before we'd start reading sentences like "difficult decisions had to be made, and of course I have sympathy with the fans of <insert club name here>, but sport is a business these days."?

Edited by Futtocks
  • Like 1

"We are easily breakable, by illness or falling, or a million other ways of leaving this earthly life. We are just so much mashed potato."  Don Estelle

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, GUBRATS said:

So why do they go to the boxing ,darts and snooker ?

You know the answer to this. All sports have fans. 

New fans don't just pop up from nowhere. Sometimes you have to give them a reason to go and they become fans. 

But also, existing fans need to continue to be attracted when other events around us compete for people. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

You know the answer to this. All sports have fans. 

New fans don't just pop up from nowhere. Sometimes you have to give them a reason to go and they become fans. 

But also, existing fans need to continue to be attracted when other events around us compete for people. 

We don't have to sell out our events , yes we need to work constantly to improve our income streams in whatever form that may take , it's just good business sense and practice , Man City still don't sell out the Etihad despite their incredible success on the pitch , maybe they should get the Hearns in to help them 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

We don't have to sell out our events , yes we need to work constantly to improve our income streams in whatever form that may take , it's just good business sense and practice , Man City still don't sell out the Etihad despite their incredible success on the pitch , maybe they should get the Hearns in to help them 

Your 2nd line is what we are discussing though. 

I agree we don't need to sell every space and be obsessive about it, but we should always be looking to improve. 

  • Like 2
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...