Jump to content

Attendances (Multiple Merged Threads)


Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, M j M said:

But we can be very certain that if Hetherington had remained the club would not have gone bust.

Sheffield had to be run as a tight ship, it was never going to be a great moneymaking venture which I mean a reliable SL club with 3-5,000 crowds and financial stability........) Mark Aston continues to run Sheffield on similar principles today, but the ability to get to the top flight isn't quite as easy as it was.

If Hetherington HAD remained at the club would it now be a viable club for Superleague in terms of being able to run an academy developing players and finding the funds to pay professional wages.  I merely suggest that isn't really the case for this well loved club even if they had a rich owner on board.  You appear to agree.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites


2 hours ago, Damien said:

It's annoying when people repeat untruths like this and it undermines their entire arguments. I remember the same poster making the same claim previously and being corrected. Once may be accidental but to just repeat it again suggests an agenda at play.

Plenty of those on all sides on here 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, M j M said:

I'm not saying anything of the sort, stop creating false binaries.

But we can be very certain that if Hetherington had remained the club would not have gone bust and would not in a million years have merged with Huddersfield. For starters he would never have begun paying over the odds for players or budgeted for huge increases in crowds which would have driven the club out of business if/when they didn't turn up.

Sheffield had to be run as a tight ship, it was never going to be a great moneymaking venture and its success (by which I mean a reliable SL club with 3-5,000 crowds and financial stability) came through doggedly sticking around, embedding themselves locally, grabbing attention where they could, spotting and signing players on the cheap who would overachieve and being willing to cash in on good players that other clubs would pay good transfer fees for (Powell to Keighley and Aston to and then from Fev being the obvious examples).

Mark Aston continues to run Sheffield on similar principles today, but the ability to get to the top flight isn't quite as easy as it was.

You cannot be certain of things that didn't happen , only guess 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, steve oates said:

Sheffield Eagles (Wikipedia) Just as the club seemed to be on the verge of its greatest period, following the win in the cup final, things began to go wrong. The expected increase in attendances did not happen and the team did not perform well, finishing close to relegation. Finances plummeted and with little outside help it became apparent that the Eagles were not viable in their current state. Just a year after performing the greatest upset in Challenge Cup history, the Eagles announced that they were to fold at the end of the season should no investors come on board to save the club.

I also personally recall the disappointment that the Wembley Victory did nothing to boost the Eagles in terms of attracting people to play Rugby League in Sheffield and new people to come in and provide greater levels of investment. We should beg to differ. You appear to be saying if Hetherington had stayed Eagles would now be still in Superleague, with bigger crowds and with a relatively strong presence in schools and a significant number of Amateur clubs developing the kids into professionals?  Are you?

Hang on, I thought Huddersfield stole them?

Or is that just a myth that certain clubs fans still hold on to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, meast said:

Hang on, I thought Huddersfield stole them?

Or is that just a myth that certain clubs fans still hold on to?

Huddersfield took advantage of the weakened position of an important SL club to absorb that club and avoid their own, well-earned, relegation.

They did not show any interest in preserving the well-established foundations of Rugby League in Sheffield.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Josef K said:

FC looked to have taken a good following tonight, hopefully they would’ve had a nice weekend to make up for the result. That weather would have been too hot for me. 

Would be a wonderful sign of normality to start seeing big away followings going over there again. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, M j M said:

Huddersfield took advantage of the weakened position of an important SL club to absorb that club and avoid their own, well-earned, relegation.

They did not show any interest in preserving the well-established foundations of Rugby League in Sheffield.

But the argument has always been that Sheffield were a sound, stable club and Huddersfield stole them to avoid relegation.

The fact that SLE waved £1m in front of them has never entered most people's thoughts.

Either way it was a shambles!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9,858 at Saints today. Our lowest of the season, a shame as it will probably discourage more Sunday fixtures.

Looked as many as the 11K for Hull FC to my eye (which seemed on the high side as an announced crowd, but what do I know!)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Chris22 said:

9,858 at Saints today. Our lowest of the season, a shame as it will probably discourage more Sunday fixtures.

Looked as many as the 11K for Hull FC to my eye (which seemed on the high side as an announced crowd, but what do I know!)

I was expecting a good crowd on yesterday. But i think fans have got used to the Friday night matches and then having the rest of the weekend for themselves. It did look more than 9,800 announced but full credit to the couple of hundred hardy soul’s who made the long journey from East Hull.
The weather people said the strong winds would die down for Sunday, but it didn’t it was blowing a gale. Even some people were saying it was cold at the game. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Josef K said:

I was expecting a good crowd on yesterday. But i think fans have got used to the Friday night matches and then having the rest of the weekend for themselves. It did look more than 9,800 announced but full credit to the couple of hundred hardy soul’s who made the long journey from East Hull.
The weather people said the strong winds would die down for Sunday, but it didn’t it was blowing a gale. Even some people were saying it was cold at the game. 

Couple of hundred, don't you mean couple of hundred thousand? apparently the huge away support from both Hull clubs keeps super league clubs in business for another year! 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/06/2022 at 12:58, gingerjon said:

France, Australia, ,New Zealand, Papua New Guinea

Rugby League is of course very restricted in France and NZ in the same way it is restricted here. The longevity of the game gives it some roots, but rival sports, like here, have been the reason the game in these places has not achieved the same success as the NRL, who somehow is bigger than Soccer in Oz. I am sure you don't think League here can overtake the English Premiership or the reach of Rugby Union? 

It's perhaps the same thing here. Historically Rugby League did well across the industrial belt of Yorkshire and Lancashire, but only in restricted places. It's a game that became big in Wigan, St. Helens, Warrington, Leeds, Bradford, Wakefield area, Huddersfield Hull and Halifax before Soccer really got going.  It's also a game people  have managed to just about completely ignore in Liverpool, much of Manchester, Bolton, Scunthorpe, Barnsley, Blackpool, Rotherham, Sheffield, Harrogate and Doncaster, who are still waiting to take off 70 years later??

Talking of Sheffield I do concede that Hetherington left the club for Leeds selling it on to a new owner, who then had the delights of the Wembley win over Wigan. But the fact seems to remain that the Sheffield publics reaction to this feat was one of apathy leading the owner to bail out AFAIK dumping the club on Huddersfield. This error doesn't change my stance that the expansion of pro Rugby League won't ever work outside the "Northern heartlands" of which I include Barrow!!, and notwithstanding Semor Kurdi piling £Millions into Newcastle. The the key to the games survival is hold on to what we have, and if someone wants to join us let's ensure it's a serious well funded project.  

Sorry that is not as glamorous as having clubs popping up all over the country, but I have read Trevor Delaney's book charting the failure of scores of new clubs from 1897 on to today.

I would guess that any new TV deal will now go to the Established clubs responsible for providing the TV fare, and the quality players to deliver it who sadly  include loads of Antipodeans which tells us something. It may be the case that rather than "expanding" we are being propped up by the bottom of the NRL's player pool?? It may be we are set to lose clubs from the bottom of our leagues. We shall see........ 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/06/2022 at 16:52, GUBRATS said:

Plenty of those on all sides on here 

Thanks for that, if we can't discredit the argument, it's good manners to concede it. I am sure the nature of the medium we are using makes it a lot easier not to do so. Rugby League is strong in Leigh - is that historical do you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ShropshireBull said:

Again, anyone who thinks More people wouldnt go to a game on saturday than on thursday is brain dead.  

Giants are alive.  Well? Having a great season and still getting awful crowds.  We have seen the peak of the clubs potential and it isnt helping the sport. 

 How are you defining "awful crowds"? And what are you basing it on?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, you think we can just walk away from a stadium that we own 20% of and build something else to satisfy people?

Do Australian NRL clubs all fill their stadiums?

Do Wigan?

Do Hull?

Leeds?

Bradford?

No, so why would Huddersfield?

So again, you're criticising the amount of empty seats at Huddersfield's stadium, not Huddersfield's crowds which are fine in the grand scheme of things.

And the league is decided by games won and lost on the field not how many seats aren't filled.

I'm out, you clearly have an agenda against Huddersfield so I'm not going to help fuel it.

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

9 hours ago, ShropshireBull said:

None of your games can be televised because you play in a massively oversized stadium and are thus a part of the problem. We´ve done this many times, it´s not Giants fault (even though their owner could build something else) and it´s not your  fault the league remains so weak a team with a 20% capacity at best is still in the top flight but it´s awful for the sport. 

Wakefield are at least finally updating their ground but the sport can´t carry three teams (Salford, Wakefield and Giants) whose vast majority of games aren´t able to be televised if we want to start to claw back any of that tv deal. 

I look forward to next year when Wakey or Salford improve, there´s no financial cheating and doping against the team coming up and they either shape up or get binned. 

There were 60,000 empty seats at Sydney for the Dogs-Parra game yet, in context, the attendance of over 20k is a solid one. If the Giants are getting 6k+ for some of their main games then what is the problem.

A few weeks ago you were advocating the benefits of Salford playing in a toy town stadium - yet they got almost 1000 more than the capacity at Moor Lane. Should we applaud that increase in interest at Salford or moan that the AJ Bell was 50% empty?

 

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

Wow so now attendance don't matter either it's the percentage of the ground that is full that matters?

Quote

Huddersfield after their biggest game of the season average 22% capacity

Remind me what percentage of Odsal's capacity was full the last time Bradford played in Super League? (it was 20% but apparently Super League needed Bradford!!!)

is it a case of our team are doing ok so pick on the crowd numbers?

Or

They're actually not too bad so let's pick on how many empty seats there are instead?

or maybe you're still a bitter little bully due to this:-

Quote

Bradford were beaten 52-26 by Huddersfield Giants in Round 21 which confirmed their relegation into the Championship.

Either way the topic is about attendances not number of empty seats, maybe start one on the latter to express your anger/bitterness/straw clutching at a Huddersfield club who are doing very well on and off the pitch right now!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Mumby Magic said:

Shropshirebull. Surely it's about which area of the ground tickets are sold from if it's about TV appearances?

They are obsessed with it. Looks good on TV. Yesterday there was nobody at the test cricket. No one gave a ####

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ShropshireBull said:

Clearly you cant read or choose not to.  Did I not say its not giants fault?  Oh wait, yes I did.  

You should build something else because not a single one of your games looks good for Sky on tv who fund this sport,  so your contribution to the millions you take in a tv deal is SFA.  So yes if you wanted to stop leeching off the tv deal you would. At least you run an academy unlike another. 

Are we in Australia where the NRL drives subscriptions? Oh wait,  we arent. We are a sport that is looked upon to add value to the main driver of subscriptions football, which are always packed. 

But looking at the nrl capacity figures only three are below 50% and two of those are moving to Sydney Football Stadium to get out of their oversized box because the NRL and everyone else recognises massively empty stadiums do not commercially enhance the product.  

We have all worryingly noted Wigan and Leeds decline over a few years and no surprise as crowds go down tv income drops. But Wigan are at 44% with Saints to come,  Leeds despite being woeful is at 60%. Hull is at 44% with KR still to come.  

Huddersfield after their biggest game of the season average 22% capacity.  You arent even close which is why Sky choose you as little as possible because it makes their product, and by extension ours, look awful.  

Bradford are not in SL and noone would say that (bar one or two games) we would add much value in our decrepit stadium but again, that comes from observing the facts rather than being blinded because it is my team. 

You, wakefield and salford are currently throwing away 34-35 of those 39 fixtures which look awful on tv and not shifting your weight, leaving teams like Wire Leeds Saints to carry you.  

 

Then stop tediously adding me in messages and I will stop explaining why Giants are a commercial dead weight and a black hole for a good tv deal. 

I see no firm evidence that Sky opt not to cover Giants home games, but even if you were right on that point, you are still wrong to say that means they add nothing to the TV deal. 

Giants are now a top 4 team, capable of beating the best. That's exactly what broadcasters want: more teams playing good rugby capable of challenging for the title, and fewer basketcases at the bottom clinging on for dear life.

The Giants deliver a team worth broadcasting, evidenced by the fact Sky have scheduled them in both of the the next two rounds. 

There's more than one way to contribute to the TV deal and the Giants - as a financially strong, competitive club - bring more than several others. 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

Why are Leeds and Wire still repeatedly shown despite their seasons? 

One is a bigger market and both get healthy crowds that look good on telly.

Having many teams challenging tbf does throw up more tv worthy games and in Giants case the academy is putting money bacl but so do Newcastle with their academy in a wider marlet (academy structure another conversation tbh) but sky will still endeavor to make sure it doesnt involve giants at home for said reasons. 

So there you go. The Giants business model produces a competitive team that TV wants to show, and an academy that produces numerous Superleague standard players. Why would we destroy that by forcing them to splurge millions on a smaller stadium they don't need?

In an ideal word they'd have a tidy 10k box, but they don't and it really isn't top of our list of things Superlague should be worrying about.

You have to make an overall assessment of value, and I bet if IMG are drawing up a 'kill list' Hudds will be firmly on the 'alive' list. 

  • Like 5
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.