Jump to content

Attendances (Multiple Merged Threads)


Recommended Posts


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

2 hours ago, meast said:

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

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. 

Edited by ShropshireBull
  • Confused 1
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

8 hours ago, meast said:

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

 

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. 

8 hours ago, meast said:

Do Australian NRL clubs all fill their stadiums?

Do Wigan?

Do Hull?

Leeds?

Bradford?

No, so why would Huddersfield?

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.  

 

8 hours ago, meast said:

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

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. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Scubby said:

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. 

See previous response re NRL. 

8 hours ago, Scubby said:

If the Giants are getting 6k+ for some of their main games then what is the problem.

That every game looks awful for Sky who fund the sport and means giants are being carried.  If your peak games are 30% full that is a massive problem.

 

8 hours ago, Scubby said:

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

Different thread but was I advocating that a club who are going to be made homless from a stadium they currently generate next to nothing in rev from find a permenant home which they can generate rev off? Absolutely

 You either didnt know they were going to be booted from current stadium when you posed that question or chose to omit it because it doesnt suit your arguement.  

There maximum and potentially highest crowd this season  (aided by some decent Wigan fans) was less than 50% but I did say on here it looked good.  Sadly that is probably the only game this season that will look good. 

The sport cannot carry three teams in a 12 team league year on year who have terrible crowds and the overwhelming majority of their games cannot add value to the declining tv deal. 

Touch wood,  Wakey (redev) and Salford  (either move or get ownership of ground for rev) are taking that step to improve but the problem is pretty clear,  unless people choose not to see because it is a club you support.  

 

Edited by ShropshireBull
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

1 hour ago, daz39 said:

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

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:-

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!!

Already said I wouldnt want Bulls in current state in SL because it wouldnt be good for product but you clearly cant read. Then people who support huddersfield need to stop adding me in their messages saying 'I wonder what SB' thinks then hilariously saying they dont want to fuel my anti giants agenda when I explain Why its for the sport. 

I dont care anymore or less about huddersfield than anyone else.  I am not from heartlands so I want the game to do well.  

The only thing we are learning is why individual clubs shouldnt make decisions because people blindly defend their interest whether game benefits or not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

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. 

 

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. 

Edited by ShropshireBull
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Scubby said:

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

Imagine if the overwhelmingly majority of home england test days had noone there?  Would tv companies in the uk pay millions for it? Would they balls.  You cherrypicked a monday whilst ignoring the fantastic 4 other days of crowds.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mumby Magic said:

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

Tough to make 30% 0capacity look good on tv but Salford game did look good vs Wigan so yes, having vast swathes of empty seats where the camera faces should be avoided.  

  • Like 1
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

Aren't Sky more interested in how many people are watching the game on their TV screens rather than how many are sitting in the stands - even if those at home get their kicks from counting empty seats?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Rowan said:

Aren't Sky more interested in how many people are watching the game on their TV screens rather than how many are sitting in the stands - even if those at home get their kicks from counting empty seats?

Obviously TV viewers are key for Sky, though they undoubtedly understand that a big crowd adds to the TV spectacle.

Clearly TV coverage of Huddersfield, Salford and Wakefield Home games aren't a major priority for either Sky or the clubs in question, but they do still feature and obviously also feature away from home too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Toby Chopra said:

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. 

No because you ignore the counterfacutal. If we could have a club that runs an academy and plays in a more appropriate stadium in a less saturated market, you would take it. The more clubs like Huddersfield the less money the sport produces. 

If you are looking for a franchise system of 10 or 12 Giants would absolutely be at risk. 

Saints, Wigan, Leeds, Wire, Hull, KR, Catalan, Toulouse. Everyone else is up for debate. 

It isnt top but people keep tagging me into messages about I wonder what SB thinks about our crappy 30% capacity crowds so I tell them. Anyone taking SL money should be held to a much higher standard than Cornwall for example or Barrow. 

Edited by ShropshireBull
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Rowan said:

Aren't Sky more interested in how many people are watching the game on their TV screens rather than how many are sitting in the stands - even if those at home get their kicks from counting empty seats?

Yes but empty seats makes the product look ###### and in the UK culture where the main sport is packed it is a problem. We aren´t Australia, despite what so many on here would wish when defending sub par crowds. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

Now that nonsense is out of the way, what was the Leigh crowd?

35.216%

  • Like 1
  • Haha 4

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

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...