Attendances (Multiple Merged Threads)

[Dave T]

Just now, ShropshireBull said:

You said it was excuses and hypocrisy. Pointing out that Wakefield have had twenty years of excuses in circumstances in their control so it´s not the same, not even close. Wakefield have been failing the sport for a long time and let´s hope that stops with the developement. 

Ignore Wakefield, they were a name dropped in randomly.

We are told Thursdays are no excuse. It is being used as an excuse for Catalans and Toulouse.

We are told away fans are not important. Now we are being told that fans won't be able to travel to these games.

That is the hypocrisy.

FWIW, I think they are valid issues, just as they are for UK based clubs.

[Cameron Highlander]

8 minutes ago, Omott91 said:

80,500 @ Origin 1.

A sell-out!!!   And, for them, a "cold" night at 7 degrees....

 

[Tommygilf]

19 minutes ago, Dave T said:

OK. But that doesn't relate to my post.

Thursday nights are either an issue or they aren't. Away fans are either a benefit or they aren't.

I agree with the principle, I think we need a strong, clear plan for France integration into the UK structures, not this random invite that we currently hand out. The French federation should be stakeholders in the UK structure imho.

Well it does relate to your post because it is judging the two by the same metrics. If Wakefield were a key growth area, with few to no clubs nearby and as little history in top flight professional RL as TO, then I would advocate the same help should be sent their way too. 

I also agree that the relationship with French RL needs proper clarification.

[Dave T]

3 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Well it does relate to your post because it is judging the two by the same metrics. If Wakefield were a key growth area, with few to no clubs nearby and as little history in top flight professional RL as TO, then I would advocate the same help should be sent their way too. 

I also agree that the relationship with French RL needs proper clarification.

But my post wasn't about the rights and wrongs of approach - it was challenging hypocrisy and OTT claims. 

These outlandish claims are imho why we often fail to get people to go along with the journey on exciting initiatives. We are told that Toronto are the future of the game, that Toulouse and Catalans are crucial to SL, that we expand or we die, even the debate we had yesterday that relegation is 'catastrophic, and most clubs do not recover from it'.

Now on each of those points individually I agree they are good for the game - I'm an expansionist, was excited by Toronto, I think France should be our number 1 growth focus area, and that getting rid of relegation is probably the best thing for the comp - but I don't buy the antagonistic positioning of these initiatives. 

It is perfectly reasonable to believe that the French derbies should have been nice Saturday 6pm games live on Sky, whilst also believing that Catalans should have got far more than 8.9k for the first ever French derby even on a Thursday.

I think we are unnecessarily creating real extremes in the sport, the moderates are drowned out and I think more reasoned expectations and positioning of changes would see more people buy into some of these things.

[ShropshireBull]

5 minutes ago, Dave T said:

But my post wasn't about the rights and wrongs of approach - it was challenging hypocrisy and OTT claims. 

These outlandish claims are imho why we often fail to get people to go along with the journey on exciting initiatives. We are told that Toronto are the future of the game, that Toulouse and Catalans are crucial to SL, that we expand or we die, even the debate we had yesterday that relegation is 'catastrophic, and most clubs do not recover from it'.

Now on each of those points individually I agree they are good for the game - I'm an expansionist, was excited by Toronto, I think France should be our number 1 growth focus area, and that getting rid of relegation is probably the best thing for the comp - but I don't buy the antagonistic positioning of these initiatives. 

It is perfectly reasonable to believe that the French derbies should have been nice Saturday 6pm games live on Sky, whilst also believing that Catalans should have got far more than 8.9k for the first ever French derby even on a Thursday.

I think we are unnecessarily creating real extremes in the sport, the moderates are drowned out and I think more reasoned expectations and positioning of changes would see more people buy into some of these things.

Ok a fair take but I think part of that is when you have an artifical bottleneck of any 12 teams we are going to be leaving out clubs who could grow the sport. 

We as a sport are in a worse position at the top level than ten years ago whilst a host of clubs in the champ now have the infrastructure in place, unlike a dozen SL clubs, to add value to the only league that matters from a commercial standpoint (SL). 

When those clubs that have been the weakest in SL commercially are the ones largely dicatating the future of the sport this will clearly lead to hostility. So if we aren´t talking about growth we are picking a few winners and as it stands, it´s hard to make a serious case for Wakefield to be part of that circle, nor Salford if they don´t own their stadium. 

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, ShropshireBull said:

Ok a fair take but I think part of that is when you have an artifical bottleneck of any 12 teams we are going to be leaving out clubs who could grow the sport. 

We as a sport are in a worse position at the top level than ten years ago whilst a host of clubs in the champ now have the infrastructure in place, unlike a dozen SL clubs, to add value to the only league that matters from a commercial standpoint (SL). 

When those clubs that have been the weakest in SL commercially are the ones largely dicatating the future of the sport this will clearly lead to hostility. So if we aren´t talking about growth we are picking a few winners and as it stands, it´s hard to make a serious case for Wakefield to be part of that circle, nor Salford if they don´t own their stadium. 

I think you are giving rather too much credit to the likes of Wakey and Salford - they aren't the ones controlling the game over here. 

Agreed with the principle of difficult decisions to be made and maybe teams being in/out etc. But we have done that plenty of times, we've shown we're happy to take tough decisions.

[Wanderer]

34 minutes ago, Cameron Highlander said:

A sell-out!!!   And, for them, a "cold" night at 7 degrees....

 

and two teams 900km apart !

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Wanderer said:

and two teams 900km apart !

Don't NSW and Queensland border each other?

[Tubby]

1 hour ago, Scubby said:

Because it was on a bloody Thursday night! Who is travelling from Carcassonne, Narbonne, Albi etc. for an 8.30pm kick off on a work day - never mind Toulouse. Good Friday isn't even recognised as a holiday in France. 

It was scheduled on a Thursday night because SL wanted another double up weekend. It was an 8.30pm kick off because Sky wanted in on at 7.30pm. 

The same thing is happening in August - short term thinking for a nuts doubling up of fixtures.

This flies in the face of the 'fact' that Sky want strong french teams in SL, though.  If that were the case, surely Sky would have chosen to show that game at a more helpful time over the same weekend?

[Scubby]

3 minutes ago, Tubby said:

This flies in the face of the 'fact' that Sky want strong french teams in SL, though.  If that were the case, surely Sky would have chosen to show that game at a more helpful time over the same weekend?

No it means that according to their contract they can choose whatever game they like and decide the kick off times in line with their schedules. Is Channel 4 insisting on 12.30pm kick off on a Saturday thinking about the clubs in anyway - or is it what they have been sold in their contract?

Edited June 8 by Scubby

[Tubby]

1 minute ago, Scubby said:

No it means that according to their contract they can choose whatever game they like and decide the kick off times in line with their schedules. Is Channel 4 insisting on 12.30pm kick off on a Saturday thinking about the clubs in anyway - or is it what they have been sold in their contract?

But the fact remains that under the terms of said contract Sky could have requested the French 'derby' game be played a time that would both suit them and suit the two teams in the strives to make RL the force that it can be in France.  Why did they choose to scupper all those efforts, if (as we're told) they are only interested in RL because of French/Canadian/any place in the world clubs?

[Scubby]

4 minutes ago, Tubby said:

But the fact remains that under the terms of said contract Sky could have requested the French 'derby' game be played a time that would both suit them and suit the two teams in the strives to make RL the force that it can be in France.  Why did they choose to scupper all those efforts, if (as we're told) they are only interested in RL because of French/Canadian/any place in the world clubs?

Why don't you email and ask them if you believe this? You seem to have more knowledge of the clauses and details of the Sky contract than I do.

u2us@skysports.com

[ShropshireBull]

7 minutes ago, Tubby said:

But the fact remains that under the terms of said contract Sky could have requested the French 'derby' game be played a time that would both suit them and suit the two teams in the strives to make RL the force that it can be in France.  Why did they choose to scupper all those efforts, if (as we're told) they are only interested in RL because of French/Canadian/any place in the world clubs?

Who has said their only interested in World Clubs? Strawmanning there. Sky are interested in views and subscriptions. Games like St vs Pies, Hull Derby are marketable. We should be helping them turn Cat vs Toulouse into another marketable game. We need stronger teams because we haven´t replaced Bulls in its position in the UK market and that hurts , so we either need to find another, build one or have smaller crowds in more commercially appealing areas (London etc).

[Dave T]

9 minutes ago, Tubby said:

But the fact remains that under the terms of said contract Sky could have requested the French 'derby' game be played a time that would both suit them and suit the two teams in the strives to make RL the force that it can be in France.  Why did they choose to scupper all those efforts, if (as we're told) they are only interested in RL because of French/Canadian/any place in the world clubs?

The French Derby was arranged by SLE for the Easter Rivals Round. Sky could possibly have shown it on Good Friday, but with travel on Monday the Thurs was probably favoured. 

If you are going to make your argument, yiu may be better focusing on where Catalans have been on TV in France but Sky haven't shown them here. 

[Tommygilf]

6 hours ago, Dave T said:

But my post wasn't about the rights and wrongs of approach - it was challenging hypocrisy and OTT claims. 

These outlandish claims are imho why we often fail to get people to go along with the journey on exciting initiatives. We are told that Toronto are the future of the game, that Toulouse and Catalans are crucial to SL, that we expand or we die, even the debate we had yesterday that relegation is 'catastrophic, and most clubs do not recover from it'.

Now on each of those points individually I agree they are good for the game - I'm an expansionist, was excited by Toronto, I think France should be our number 1 growth focus area, and that getting rid of relegation is probably the best thing for the comp - but I don't buy the antagonistic positioning of these initiatives. 

It is perfectly reasonable to believe that the French derbies should have been nice Saturday 6pm games live on Sky, whilst also believing that Catalans should have got far more than 8.9k for the first ever French derby even on a Thursday.

I think we are unnecessarily creating real extremes in the sport, the moderates are drowned out and I think more reasoned expectations and positioning of changes would see more people buy into some of these things.

If treating different clubs differently and with different expectations is hypocrisy Dave then we are doomed!

[Eddie]

6 hours ago, ShropshireBull said:

Who has said their only interested in World Clubs? Strawmanning there. Sky are interested in views and subscriptions. Games like St vs Pies, Hull Derby are marketable. We should be helping them turn Cat vs Toulouse into another marketable game. We need stronger teams because we haven´t replaced Bulls in its position in the UK market and that hurts , so we either need to find another, build one or have smaller crowds in more commercially appealing areas (London etc).

Is London more commercially appealing than other RL towns? I didn’t see a rush of high brow companies wanting to advertise when the Broncos came up. 

[Tommygilf]

4 minutes ago, Eddie said:

Is London more commercially appealing than other RL towns? I didn’t see a rush of high brow companies wanting to advertise when the Broncos came up. 

Brief stints tend not to overcome ingrained perceptions too well really do they?

Look at the Super League/Rugby League partners from 2009-2012ish and look now. Not only are there fewer, but the number of nationally recognised level brands are also down. No Gillette or even Izuzu for example.

I'm not saying RL having a constant London presence is a defining factor in that, but its intriguing that RLs turn away from a strategic approach has seen the commercial and sponsorship level of the sport decline.

[Dave T]

28 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

If treating different clubs differently and with different expectations is hypocrisy Dave then we are doomed!

I've explained the hypocrisy clearly. You can think it's fine, but it's clear cut hypocrisy. 

When people are so nitpicky about any mention of away fans at English games, it does them no favours when they then complain the day is no good for away fans in France. 

There is nothing clever, or strategic, or bigger picture about that, people use away fans as a stick to beat English clubs with, it's a silly thing they do. 

[Tommygilf]

6 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I've explained the hypocrisy clearly. You can think it's fine, but it's clear cut hypocrisy. 

When people are so nitpicky about any mention of away fans at English games, it does them no favours when they then complain the day is no good for away fans in France. 

There is nothing clever, or strategic, or bigger picture about that, people use away fans as a stick to beat English clubs with, it's a silly thing they do. 

Its not at all unreasonable to have different criteria applied to different clubs in different circumstances. Calling it hypocrisy might sound nice, but people, businesses and organisations rightly act in this way all the time. 

Treating everyone by the same standard helps nobody. Not Wakefield, not Toulouse, not Leeds Rhinos. I do not think that is a difficult concept to comprehend?

[GUBRATS]

27 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Its not at all unreasonable to have different criteria applied to different clubs in different circumstances. Calling it hypocrisy might sound nice, but people, businesses and organisations rightly act in this way all the time. 

Treating everyone by the same standard helps nobody. Not Wakefield, not Toulouse, not Leeds Rhinos. I do not think that is a difficult concept to comprehend?

Indeed , we see double standards all the time , even on here 

[Tommygilf]

40 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Indeed , we see double standards all the time , even on here 

Quite, mental gymnasts are no strangers on these pages. Though the majority of those people tend towards their own club biases. 

I would also posit that we see strawmen arguments too.

[ShropshireBull]

2 hours ago, Eddie said:

Is London more commercially appealing than other RL towns? I didn’t see a rush of high brow companies wanting to advertise when the Broncos came up. 

Playing at Ealing?  Wouldnt think so either.  We have all talked about the less than stellar job that has been done with broncos but London is clearly a bigger market from a commercial perspective than Leigh can be potentially.

[GUBRATS]

7 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

Playing at Ealing?  Wouldnt think so either.  We have all talked about the less than stellar job that has been done with broncos but London is clearly a bigger market from a commercial perspective than Leigh can be potentially.

Can be , potentially 

[Mr Frisky]

16 hours ago, Wanderer said:

and two teams 900km apart !

Officially they are less than 1mm apart as they are states (not cities)  that sit next to each other.

[Wanderer]

49 minutes ago, Mr Frisky said:

Officially they are less than 1mm apart as they are states (not cities)  that sit next to each other.

the closest derby in the world then!