Less than 20,000 sold for Cup Semi Triple Header it seems

[Damien]

59 minutes ago, Mattrhino said:

Yeah its almost as if they have decided that. To become a premium event you just need to start charging premium prices. I really can't see who is going to be paying £180, £110, £85 etc.. for a game of RL.  I certainly won't. 

I bought tickets to the NFL the biggest league in the world for £60.

The really odd thing about the RLWC is that it has gone to such an extreme, far more expensive than any other RL matches that I've seen. I did think the tickets for the RLWC in 2013 were too cheap, that we lost out on a lot of revenue and that a lot of people would have gone to the matches anyway without all of the offers. I know I essentially only had to pay half price for all my tickets when I'd have readily paid the full amount. However the extreme we've gone to now is ridiculous.

Out of interest I looked up my 2013 tickets and compared them to this years for exactly the same seats. In 2013 I got £15 tickets for 2 quarter finals (Wigan and Warrington) which are now £70 each. I also got final tickets at Old Trafford for £49.50 which are now £150. All in all the 3 games I went to for a total of £79.50 a person would now cost me £290 a person. That's a heck of a difference.

Edited May 9, 2022 by Damien

[Tommygilf]

8 minutes ago, Damien said:

The really odd thing about the RLWC is that it has gone to such an extreme, far more expensive than any other RL matches that I've seen. I did think the tickets for the RLWC in 2013 were too cheap, that we lost out on a lot of revenue and that a lot of people would have gone to the matches anyway without all of the offers. I know I essentially only had to pay half price for all my tickets when I'd have readily paid the full amount. However the extreme we've gone to now is ridiculous.

Out of interest I looked up my 2013 tickets and compared them to this years for exactly the same seats. In 2013 I got £15 tickets for 2 quarter finals (Wigan and Warrington) which are now £70 each. I also got final tickets at Old Trafford for £49.50 which are now £150. All in all the 3 games I went to for a total of £79.50 a person would now cost me £290 a person. That's a heck of a difference.

It is especially so when RL relies on a relatively small pool of multiple ticket buyers, and given the density of World Cup games in the North, the RLWC will be no different in that respect.

[gingerjon]

10 hours ago, Mattrhino said:

To be fair 23k attended Leeds v Cas at ER a few years ago.

If two of Leeds, Cas or Wakey were playing the crowd might have been touching 30k and we would be crowing from the roof tops.

Again, that's a put it on and pray strategy.

And, as ever, selling to exactly the same group who we now expect to turn up to all our events.

[The Rocket]

Saturday's

@Betfred

#ChallengeCup Semi-Final between

@WiganWarriorsRL

and

@Saints1890

peaked at over 1 million viewers and pulled in the highest audience share in the UK for any game of Rugby League since the 2017 World Cup Final..

Worth clicking on the Betfred Challenge Cup there`s loads of highlights and nice stories in there.

Edited May 10, 2022 by The Rocket

[Tommygilf]

1 hour ago, gingerjon said:

Again, that's a put it on and pray strategy.

And, as ever, selling to exactly the same group who we now expect to turn up to all our events.

That is almost the nature of semi finals though, especially in a sport which is (only) as popular as Rugby League.

The two double headers in Bolton have been lucky with having 2 of the biggest local teams, Warrington and St Helens, playing alongside at least 1 of the biggest Yorkshire sides (Hull FC and Leeds). You can also add the novelty for Halifax getting there one of those years too. If it had been Salford, Wigan, Wakefield and Leeds at Bolton we'd probably still be having this discussion in reverse.

Whilst Yorkshire can probably rely on 2 clubs, Cas and Hull KR, to really punch above their relative weight at these events, its always going to be difficult if only 1 of the 4 best supported sides this side of the pennines. 

Whether the costs of a single stadium over 1 day outweigh the benefits of 2 "neutral" venues over 2 I'm not sure. I put "neutral" in inverted commas as realistically there are going to be semi final venues that feel less than Neutral just because of the draw and suitable available stadiums.

I'm not sure whether it is just that the RFL have created an event out of something that is not an event due to economics and are making the best of it they can.

[Damien]

 

[Tommygilf]

On 07/05/2022 at 12:50, theswanmcr said:

I’d be up for hearing your suggestions.

Apologies I was away this weekend and wanted to give this some proper consideration.

On a purely short term fix, the inclusion of Cup games where there is home advantage for one side, in whatever variety, into the Season Ticket model the sport as a whole has adopted seems to make obvious sense. As I said that is only a short term fix however.

Getting more to the heart of the issue, I think the notion of the Challange Cup being an "open" competition is now fundamentally flawed. The supremacy of Full time Super League teams in a Rugby League match makes games against non-FT opponents almost always one sided (which is no fun to watch for anyone). I don't see this changing anytime soon.

Perhaps most controversially then I would suggest restricting entry to the Challenge Cup, whilst having the 1895 Cup fulfill the community/part time RL aspect that has been largely lost from the most publicised stages of the Cup (and even when it is there, as stated above, it often causes apathy as walkovers are expected). Restricting access just means it not being "open" to me - enabling the powers that be to have strategic inclusions as they see fit; ie. qualifiers from the Championship, Elite 1 clubs. 

From that I see two broad potential options fitting in with the short term idea of Cup Games going onto Season tickets. 

1. Groups, semi finals, Final. There are a lot of ways this could be done. Group games would guarantee a set number of home fixtures for teams which is what most of them want (it maybe even replaces the oft bemoaned loop games). I would prefer a system which kept these to a minimal number, I've seen 4 groups of 5 with 2 home games each suggested for 4 group games each in total. There are of course other formulas for how this could be achieved too.

2. Two legged ties. Not something which has been tried in RL before, but RUs European Cup added an element of this to this year's competition and it seems to have been very positively received. If kept as a straight knockout it further guarantees a home fixture for each club in the competition, though it could be an element of the aforementioned groups style competition too.

I see opportunities for "cup memberships" for more casual fans being a possibility for clubs to look at selling to a different audience than their current season ticket base. For the BBC and other broadcast partners it could be an opportunity for more regular exposure of both the sport and the cup; building up the competition and the awareness of the game and its clubs.

I'm not saying any of this is 100% right or indisputably the best way forwards, but it is clear to me at least that the core reasoning behind the the Cup being how it is doesn't really apply anymore.

[Gerrumonside ref]

Can’t see group games being well attended.

The whole point of a cup competition is that it’s ‘do or die’ on the day.

We just don’t have enough SL level teams to make a group stage worthwhile.

We shouldn’t be copying the format from football or RU for the sake of it.

[Tommygilf]

6 minutes ago, Gerrumonside ref said:

Can’t see group games being well attended.

The whole point of a cup competition is that it’s ‘do or die’ on the day.

We just don’t have enough SL level teams to make a group stage worthwhile.

We shouldn’t be copying the format from football or RU for the sake of it.

Its more that it allows season tickets to be incorporated in a coherent way. 

We see that we got better crowds because Season tickets were included in the past.

[Gerrumonside ref]

2 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Its more that it allows season tickets to be incorporated in a coherent way. 

We see that we got better crowds because Season tickets were included in the past.

I think bolting on a group stage just creates a fixture pile up that the players and coaches won’t want and fans aren’t asking for.

Theres arguably too many club games as it is and the ones we have are hardly showing demand levels that call for even more to be added.

There must be a more simple solution than this.

[Damien]

I don't think group stages will work and would be poorly attended. I don't we have enough strong clubs for them to be attractive and it's just more repetition for me, almost like loop fixtures in another form. I also don't see a place for them in the calendar.

[redjonn]

13 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Its more that it allows season tickets to be incorporated in a coherent way. 

We see that we got better crowds because Season tickets were included in the past.

Previously my season ticket included the play-off games whether they made the play-offs or if the play offs where away.   If at home it felt like a free bonus.  

Personally I would use the Challenge Cup home games as a loss leader - that is a different market approach and pricing.

[whatmichaelsays]

12 minutes ago, redjonn said:

Personally I would use the Challenge Cup home games as a loss leader - that is a different market approach and pricing.

Surely that only really works if the sport can identify a new audience for the CC? Otherwise, what are we loss-leading for? We're simply asking the clubs to give away margin for no commercial benefit, and possibly doing something that is detrimental to all other forms of "all pay" fixture. Which really does raise the question as to why we're bothering with the cup at all? 

[Tommygilf]

6 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

Surely that only really works if the sport can identify a new audience for the CC? Otherwise, what are we loss-leading for? We're simply asking the clubs to give away margin for no commercial benefit, and possibly doing something that is detrimental to all other forms of "all pay" fixture. Which really does raise the question as to why we're bothering with the cup at all? 

I think that is the crux of the issue.

[redjonn]

16 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

Surely that only really works if the sport can identify a new audience for the CC? Otherwise, what are we loss-leading for? We're simply asking the clubs to give away margin for no commercial benefit, and possibly doing something that is detrimental to all other forms of "all pay" fixture. Which really does raise the question as to why we're bothering with the cup at all? 

yep,

I guess I should have said lower price aimed at getting in those that have some form of interest in RL or family and friends of RL households. That could be persuaded to take up as supporters if the product resonates.  In addition to a new audience.

Otherwise crowds keep getting lower and prices upped to cover costs and we are in a spiral down that says scrap it.  Obviously I am being extreme but it seems going in that direction.

Edited May 10, 2022 by redjonn

[Dave T]

25 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

Surely that only really works if the sport can identify a new audience for the CC? Otherwise, what are we loss-leading for? We're simply asking the clubs to give away margin for no commercial benefit, and possibly doing something that is detrimental to all other forms of "all pay" fixture. Which really does raise the question as to why we're bothering with the cup at all? 

We have the cup for exposure like the 1m peak tv viewers that has just been announced. Plus the sponsorship and TV deal that comes with it. The commercials may be modest (aren't they all in RL), but it is one of the major assets that we have. 

We also see things like Whitehaven welcoming Saints and getting their largest crowd for years, we shouldn't just judge the cup by things like Wire's 2.5k v Wakefield. 

There is a model that makes money and returns decent crowds (season tickets) - the only risk is whether we feel that we are at peak price point for our season tickets, there is little to suggest that is the case. 

The Cup has everything setup to be a really strong asset, but how we use it is rubbish, typically. 

Edited May 10, 2022 by Dave T

[wiganermike]

The RFL may well be considering a group stage for the Challenge Cup already. The women's Challenge Cup involved a group stage this year and I thought when it was announced that this may be a trial run assessing viability. The theoretical 4 groups of 5 mentioned by Tommygilf made up of 12 SL teams plus 8 qualifiers (2 qualifiers in each group) could lead to SFs or as it did with the women's cup to QFs. As to who makes up the 8 qualifiers it could be either the top 8 from the previous year in the Championship (relegated SL team in place of the promoted side) or the last 8 from the 1895 cup in the previous year. The qualifiers would not play in the 1895 cup that year but would get 2 home games v SL clubs in the Challenge Cup.

[Tommygilf]

5 minutes ago, Dave T said:

We have the cup for exposure like the 1m peak tv viewers that has just been announced. Plus the sponsorship and TV deal that comes with it. The commercials may be modest (aren't they all in RL), but it is one of the major assets that we have. 

We also see things like Whitehaven welcoming Saints and getting their largest crowd for years, we shouldn't just judge the cup by things like Wire's 2.5k v Wakefield. 

There is a model that makes money and returns decent crowds (season tickets) - the only risk is whether we feel that we are at peak price point for our season tickets, there is little to suggest that is the case. 

The Cup has everything setup to be a really strong asset, but how we use it is rubbish, typically. 

I don't disagree with any of that, but the way the cup is set up makes the successes you point to less likely.

[Damien]

9 minutes ago, Dave T said:

We have the cup for exposure like the 1m peak tv viewers that has just been announced. Plus the sponsorship and TV deal that comes with it. The commercials may be modest (aren't they all in RL), but it is one of the major assets that we have. 

We also see things like Whitehaven welcoming Saints and getting their largest crowd for years, we shouldn't just judge the cup by things like Wire's 2.5k v Wakefield. 

There is a model that makes money and returns decent crowds (season tickets) - the only risk is whether we feel that we are at peak price point for our season tickets, there is little to suggest that is the case. 

The Cup has everything setup to be a really strong asset, but how we use it is rubbish, typically. 

Well said. I dont really get the arguments to do away with the Challenge Cup. It is a historic competition that adds some much needed variety to the season and gives teams more to play for. As is I think the sport has been guilty of placing all its eggs in the SL basket and getting rid of the Challenge Cup leaves nothing else.

Yes it may not be what it was but the final is still our biggest or 2nd biggest attended event of the year. It is also the most lucrative for clubs and this alone makes it a final well worth getting to. Yes we have some poorly attended games but then we also have some good crowds and quality David v Goliath matches. I'm guessing clubs still make money even on some of the poorly attended games as you get paying fans rather than just more league games bolted on to season tickets.

It has also been our primary FTA outlet for a long time and without it the sport would have next to no relationship with the BBC, bar whatever fleeting internationals that may get arranged or World Cup. We ruin that at our peril.

When the Challenge Cup works it works really well. Lets face it the RFL have paid lip service to the Challenge Cup for years and you get out what you put in. The final experience in particular is woeful compared to the old Wembley with next to nothing going on and next to no build up. Moving about in the calendar doesn't help either.

[RP London]

If it were to go to groups (and i can see the logic) then I think there is a lot to made from it, however, there is a massive potential issue too. 

first, scrap the unpopular loop fixtures freeing up 11 weekends in the calendar.

I would personally keep the build up to the groups the same with knock out rounds including community clubs, its nice and adds romance to the cup and doesnt really impact much further. The aim is to have 4 groups of 5. I would have the 12 super league clubs through automatically to the groups and the other 12 coming through the knock out "early rounds". You would expect those that qualify to be Champ but you never know (romance). Then its 1 game against each in the group so 4 matches, 2 at home. Groups drawn by seeded pots like the world cup based on the previous years league finishing positions. 

Should hopefully make some interesting games and the best of the Champ (realistically) get to go up against better opposition too which is good for their gates and for them building going forward, also some great stories of old rivalries re born etc

top 2 qualify then its straight knock out from the quarter finals. 

Couple of extra free weekends from taking away the loop fixtures and in those I would shorten the season by a couple of weeks, we start too early and I would also add in a couple of international weekends. 

So we have created a bigger competition to sell to someone (hopefully FTA) as there are more weekends and more competitive rounds to buy. We have also created International space to build another nice piece of "real estate" to sell to someone. 

It should also finish later in the season if possible with the final moving around venues if possible. I just think that gives people something to play for later in the season, it also adds a novelty factor to the final if its not always in that there London (and if it is, its not always at Wembley) also may pick up some locals who go along as neutrals because it is a big event (helps expansion of knowledge and potentially of the game as a whole)

The one downside is that the Super League deal will arguably be worth less as there are less weekends. However, perhaps you will make more by having 2 new quality competitions to sell to new bidders..

 

Edited May 10, 2022 by RP London

[Dave T]

50 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I don't disagree with any of that, but the way the cup is set up makes the successes you point to less likely.

Agreed, and that's what I refer to in my last line - but even with us being terrible and almost going out of our way to harm the comp, it still returns some great figures.

[Mattrhino]

34 minutes ago, Damien said:

Well said. I dont really get the arguments to do away with the Challenge Cup. It is a historic competition that adds some much needed variety to the season and gives teams more to play for. As is I think the sport has been guilty of placing all its eggs in the SL basket and getting rid of the Challenge Cup leaves nothing else.

Yes it may not be what it was but the final is still our biggest or 2nd biggest attended event of the year. It is also the most lucrative for clubs and this alone makes it a final well worth getting to. Yes we have some poorly attended games but then we also have some good crowds and quality David v Goliath matches. I'm guessing clubs still make money even on some of the poorly attended games as you get paying fans rather than just more league games bolted on to season tickets.

It has also been our primary FTA outlet for a long time and without it the sport would have next to no relationship with the BBC, bar whatever fleeting internationals that may get arranged or World Cup. We ruin that at our peril.

When the Challenge Cup works it works really well. Lets face it the RFL have paid lip service to the Challenge Cup for years and you get out what you put in. The final experience in particular is woeful compared to the old Wembley with next to nothing going on and next to no build up. Moving about in the calendar doesn't help either.

Not just that, it is one of the top attended sporting events in the UK period.

[Mattrhino]

15 minutes ago, RP London said:

If it were to go to groups (and i can see the logic) then I think there is a lot to made from it, however, there is a massive potential issue too. 

first, scrap the unpopular loop fixtures freeing up 11 weekends in the calendar.

I would personally keep the build up to the groups the same with knock out rounds including community clubs, its nice and adds romance to the cup and doesnt really impact much further. The aim is to have 4 groups of 5. I would have the 12 super league clubs through automatically to the groups and the other 12 coming through the knock out "early rounds". You would expect those that qualify to be Champ but you never know (romance). Then its 1 game against each in the group so 4 matches, 2 at home. Groups drawn by seeded pots like the world cup based on the previous years league finishing positions. 

Should hopefully make some interesting games and the best of the Champ (realistically) get to go up against better opposition too which is good for their gates and for them building going forward, also some great stories of old rivalries re born etc

top 2 qualify then its straight knock out from the quarter finals. 

Couple of extra free weekends from taking away the loop fixtures and in those I would shorten the season by a couple of weeks, we start too early and I would also add in a couple of international weekends. 

So we have created a bigger competition to sell to someone (hopefully FTA) as there are more weekends and more competitive rounds to buy. We have also created International space to build another nice piece of "real estate" to sell to someone. 

It should also finish later in the season if possible with the final moving around venues if possible. I just think that gives people something to play for later in the season, it also adds a novelty factor to the final if its not always in that there London (and if it is, its not always at Wembley) also may pick up some locals who go along as neutrals because it is a big event (helps expansion of knowledge and potentially of the game as a whole)

The one downside is that the Super League deal will arguably be worth less as there are less weekends. However, perhaps you will make more by having 2 new quality competitions to sell to new bidders..

 

 

Problem is you start messing with the format and the locations. You can end up like the Powergen Cup/Anglo-Welsh now the Premiership Cup.  You go from 60 -75,000 at Twickenham every year to 8,000 at club stadiums.

[Mattrhino]

If we ditch Wembley because 60k doesn't look good in it. I assure you that it won't be long until the Challenge Cup will be played at Elland Rd in front of 31k in no time at all.

[Damien]

1 minute ago, Mattrhino said:

If we ditch Wembley because 60k doesn't look good in it. I assure you that it won't be long until the Challenge Cup will be played at Elland Rd in front of 31k in no time at all.

I agree and have pointed this out before too. Downsizing just becomes managed decline.