Where has the Fun gone?

[Dave T]

37 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

When would you expect the novelty of "the long day" to become the norm? most people like to get dressed up and go out for a meal but ration it to not very frequently as it is not the occasion any more. My missus and I love to go on cruises, get ready to go for the evening meal in plush and nice surroundings, meet new friends etc but after a couple of weeks I crave the fact that when I get home I can loss about have my tea and don't have to be bothered with all the rigmarole, my point is and I can see the value in trying to attract newbies to the stadium, I do not think your "fun element" could be done each and every home game.

I'm not sure of your point. 

Why can't face painters be at every game for the hundreds/thousands of kids? Why can't we have the right effort around music at every game? And so on.

In reality we are talking a match every two weeks if somebody attends every home game. Why does this have to be seen as novelty? If I simply want to go to the match, grab a beer at the social club near the ground, walk in and watch the Rugby, I can.

[fighting irish]

2 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

Yep good point on Newcastle, but they are fortunate enough as are London to be able to run an academy, but that is by the way.

If you want to apportion any blame whatsoever on the lack of expansion look no further than the Bill Fallowfield era, popular and thriving game, big crowds, not many other distractions asxare abound today, just right for taking into other area's but he sat on his laurels and was happy with what he had, maybe expansion would have given him some work to do.

And..... thanks for your answer, but you did not answer the question I posed.

I can't prove it either way Harry, but I thought Dave T demonstrated that Bullmania had a greater effect than the success would have done, on its own.

Whether the cost of Bullmania led to their downfall or not, is the key question I suppose, but we don't have the information on that.

I find it hard to believe that they spent so much money on bullmania that they didn't benefit from it financially.

[redjonn]

3 hours ago, Dave T said:

I'm not sure of your point. 

Why can't face painters be at every game for the hundreds/thousands of kids? Why can't we have the right effort around music at every game? And so on.

In reality we are talking a match every two weeks if somebody attends every home game. Why does this have to be seen as novelty? If I simply want to go to the match, grab a beer at the social club near the ground, walk in and watch the Rugby, I can.

I get the point but I guess face painting becomes boring if its the same children - well it was for my kids... I know it was just an example but I guess doing something every game needs an imaginative approach to vary the "fun".

In incidentally on a side note I use to do an  "I Spy" type thing/quiz for my Kids when I took them to a game... they seemed to enjoy it and as they got older they use to do it for the younger one's - I was always surprised how creative they use to be... They got to know the hand signals from the ref much better than I knew them... chuckle

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, redjonn said:

I get the point but I guess face painting becomes boring if its the same children - well it was for my kids... I know it was just an example but I guess doing something every game needs an imaginative approach to vary the "fun".

In incidentally on a side note I use to do an  "I Spy" type thing/quiz for my Kids when I took them to a game... they seemed to enjoy it and as they got older they use to do it for the younger one's - I was always surprised how creative they use to be... They got to know the hand signals from the ref much better than I knew them... chuckle

Your 2nd line is the point - it does need some imagination, my view is that is often the lacking piece here rather than out and out lack of cash. 

But too many of the responses here are quite small time answers to tactical ideas rather than the principle. 

We can't sell craft beer because it goes off, face-painting becomes boring for the same kids, the novelty wears off etc. My personal view would be that I have never known a 5 or 6 year old get bored of face painting yet. 

[Jughead]

12 minutes ago, redjonn said:

I get the point but I guess face painting becomes boring if its the same children - well it was for my kids... I know it was just an example but I guess doing something every game needs an imaginative approach to vary the "fun".

In incidentally on a side note I use to do an  "I Spy" type thing/quiz for my Kids when I took them to a game... they seemed to enjoy it and as they got older they use to do it for the younger one's - I was always surprised how creative they use to be... They got to know the hand signals from the ref much better than I knew them... chuckle

You keep it fresh and you keep it interesting with things on rotation then so that it’s not the same band on every week or the same woman sat in a corner painting faces or the same burger van selling the same burgers each week. You create something that feels fresh and new each home game rather than it just being the same thing regurgitated, which is exactly what we’ve landed on with fan parks at Magic and the like. I would put money on there being the following at Magic; an Oddballs stand, the Super League trophy will be there, there will be a mechanical bull like game for kids, a stage and some form of host, an area to get a beer and probably some form of passing game. I’d put money on it because every year the above has made up the fan park and while I always end up walking into it/past it, it never changes and there’s very little to entice me to stay. Now it’s harder because it’s a one-off event but if you have the same things weekly, it will get boring. 

[JohnM]

 Although I have no evidence,  I expect that a decent number of local groups would be only too pleased to take part in activities before a game.  Face painting,  Scout and Guide groups, junior RL teams, ATC, St. John Ambulance etc etc. Street dance groups, Battle of the Bands.   Regularity, reliability is key. Only needs to be in the 2 hours before kick-off . Some outside the stadium,  some inside. Smooths the flow of arrivals at the game, too. 

Cut the appalling and deafening PA music and chat so fans can talk to each other about the game, the teams etc in the seats in front of you, at the side of you and behind you.

Above all, hype the fixture. Promote the competitive nature of the two teams in the days running up to kickoff.

[EastLondonMike]

When the clubs and senior management at the RFL stop seeing such activities as 'add-ons' or 'one-offs' and realise this is now part and parcel of what they should be offering as the norm, with the view that it needs to get better and better, year on year, then progress might be made.

But with the 'is it really worth our while' mentality prevalent no real improvements will be made.

Too many clubs would sooner close a stand than invest some money to fill it.

[GUBRATS]

7 hours ago, fighting irish said:

I think Dave T made a good case about Bullmania Harry, I don't want to go over that.

My belief is that we need to introducing more children to the pure joy of playing RL football in order to create lifelong fans.

Gubrats said he didn't think that it translated to higher spectator numbers well I disagree, wholeheartedly. He's basing his opinion on a very short term view and a very small scale experiment.

I say this, if the game had not chosen to rush to organising clubs into inward looking leagues and instead, had looked out to the wider world, for playing opposition, then the game would have spread across the country at least as fast RaRa.

I'm well aware of course of their prejudices which inhibited the spread of the game in here and in France but we survived never the less.

What I say to Gubrats is, just imagine we had been spreading the game just as Newcastle are doing, but for the last 120 odd years! Do you think we'd have bigger crowds then? Super League clubs right across the country? A more competitive International scene? Of course we would.

So that's my solution, its not a short term fix, but we should be doing it, and we should have been doing it all along.

Even now the envious refuse to acknowledge the success of the N.E. of pursuing a planned development programme.

There's precious little acknowledgement of Bob Brown at Hemel, who proved it can be done (anywhere) with the right mentality, and approach.

So that's my best advice Harry.  

RL was born out of paying it's players and playing competitive matches , RU remained for its first century an amateur ( yes I know ) sport without the competitive edge we had in RL , they played friendlies , so it was much easier to expand , in fact much of that expansion had already been done , dont forget transport a hundred years ago wasn't the same as it is now , which probably stopped the expansion of RL ( although football managed it ) due to the costs incurred by both parties 

[Martyn Sadler]

On 19/06/2022 at 08:21, Dave T said:

This has been something that has been bugging me for a while now, but I dont think it could have been any more evident than yesterday. 

IMO, Rugby League events have forgotten that they are meant to be about FUN.

Now, to avoid pure negativity her I want to clarify that I thoroughly enjoyed myself yesterday. I really enjoyed the England Women's game, and I liked seeing the England Men win. 

However - just after half time, my 6 year old declared that she was bored, so my wife and her left to do some shopping and I stayed for the last half hour myself. The East Stand where I sat had emptied by this stage as the dance initiative that had been a success led to many of them leaving once they had danced at half time. 

As I sat on my own, it really struck me that RL like this is for the purists. I felt like a dinosaur enjoying County Cricket or something with a few other (mainly) older blokes. 

It got me thinking about the event and I couldn't think of a single thing that had been put on to entertain all those kids and families outside of the 160m of Rugby League. For people like me, and I suspect many on these boards, that is enough, but clearly for kids, new fans etc. it just isn't. 

The presentation of the event was fine, professional, but all very po-faced and serious. Where were the attempts at singalong music, where was the entertainment, where were the mascots, face-painters, use of the video screen etc? I should add the dance event was great, my neices were part of it and loved it (then left with their family). 

I think every event we stage should be offering something for people to have fun at, outside of the core game. I don't always like the comparisons to cricket, but they recognised that they needed to inject fun and have re-poaitiined their game massively. We did at the start of SL 25 years ago, but we seem to have now gone back to 1994 - the event yesterday was like an old skool event, and not for the better imo. 

I really fear that we are going to blow the RLWC if we get a load of new fans in the grounds and then don't captivate them. 

That is one of the most thought-provoking OPs I've seen on this forum recently, together with the subsequent discussion.

I have sent a link to this thread directly to Matt Dwyer of IMG.

I hope he reads it, although I'm sure there are no easy answers.

[Oxford]

10 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

That is one of the most thought-provoking OPs I've seen on this forum recently, together with the subsequent discussion.

I have sent a link to this thread directly to Matt Dwyer of IMG.

I hope he reads it, although I'm sure there are no easy answers.

Great that you've given information to IMG I don't imagine for one moment  they'll think the answers are easy or simple.

[fighting irish]

20 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

RL was born out of paying it's players and playing competitive matches , RU remained for its first century an amateur ( yes I know ) sport without the competitive edge we had in RL , they played friendlies , so it was much easier to expand , in fact much of that expansion had already been done , dont forget transport a hundred years ago wasn't the same as it is now , which probably stopped the expansion of RL ( although football managed it ) due to the costs incurred by both parties 

Rugby League foolishly believed that the Rugby Union would cling to and defend the amateur ethos forever. This meant that they also believed they had no need to promote the amateur version of the game because they could always pluck players from RaRa by offering them a few quid. Job done, no need to grow. Once the Ra ditched their hypocrisy and turned pro, we were caught with our trousers down. Bereft of adequate support from underneath. 

The amateur league clubs, quickly followed suit in the early days, in that they too, organised their competitions into local leagues, (to save money by reducing the travel expenses). It was inward looking, low (minimum) cost, low (minimum) effort, and of course, inherently anti-expansionist.

The RaRa, philosophically opposed to the tradesmans ethos of playing to win, for trophies, shunned leagues and so employed ''fixture secretaries'' who's job it was to compile friendly fixtures for the club at least a season or two in advance.

They made efforts to look beyond the town boundary and create more interesting fixture lists by inviting (and accepting invitations) from clubs further afield. Some of these would be seen as prestigious fixtures, against bigger clubs, universities and at the very least, clubs they'd never played against before. New opponents meant unknown outcomes, excitement and kudos, thereby keeping their season ''interesting'' while our amateur leagues bumped heads with the same nut-jobs every season, year in, year out.

By it's very nature their outward looking process, fed the development and growth of the sport, even though they hadn't deliberately set it as a goal. New clubs could set up and begin seeking fixtures (friendlies) from any club within reach and off they went. 

So Gubrats, I put it to you, that these are the reasons why we failed to expand and why we've wasted at least a hundred years, and as such, find ourselves in the shadow of a bigger but far inferior sport. I'm just saying that it's about time we recognised the value, nay the absolute necessity of focusing on spreading our game far and wide and begin to redress a hundred years of smug, lazy, wholly inadequate, moneygrubbing. 

[GUBRATS]

17 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

Rugby League foolishly believed that the Rugby Union would cling to and defend the amateur ethos forever. This meant that they also believed they had no need to promote the amateur version of the game because they could always pluck players from RaRa by offering them a few quid. Job done, no need to grow. Once the Ra ditched their hypocrisy and turned pro, we were caught with our trousers down. Bereft of adequate support from underneath. 

The amateur league clubs, quickly followed suit in the early days, in that they too, organised their competitions into local leagues, (to save money by reducing the travel expenses). It was inward looking, low (minimum) cost, low (minimum) effort, and of course, inherently anti-expansionist.

The RaRa, philosophically opposed to the tradesmans ethos of playing to win, for trophies, shunned leagues and so employed ''fixture secretaries'' who's job it was to compile friendly fixtures for the club at least a season or two in advance.

They made efforts to look beyond the town boundary and create more interesting fixture lists by inviting (and accepting invitations) from clubs further afield. Some of these would be seen as prestigious fixtures, against bigger clubs, universities and at the very least, clubs they'd never played against before. New opponents meant unknown outcomes, excitement and kudos, thereby keeping their season ''interesting'' while our amateur leagues bumped heads with the same nut-jobs every season, year in, year out.

By it's very nature their outward looking process, fed the development and growth of the sport, even though they hadn't deliberately set it as a goal. New clubs could set up and begin seeking fixtures (friendlies) from any club within reach and off they went. 

So Gubrats, I put it to you, that these are the reasons why we failed to expand and why we've wasted at least a hundred years, and as such, find ourselves in the shadow of a bigger but far inferior sport. I'm just saying that it's about time we recognised the value, nay the absolute necessity of focusing on spreading our game far and wide and begin to redress a hundred years of smug, lazy, wholly inadequate, moneygrubbing. 

Too late now IMO 

[GUBRATS]

18 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

Rugby League foolishly believed that the Rugby Union would cling to and defend the amateur ethos forever. This meant that they also believed they had no need to promote the amateur version of the game because they could always pluck players from RaRa by offering them a few quid. Job done, no need to grow. Once the Ra ditched their hypocrisy and turned pro, we were caught with our trousers down. Bereft of adequate support from underneath. 

The amateur league clubs, quickly followed suit in the early days, in that they too, organised their competitions into local leagues, (to save money by reducing the travel expenses). It was inward looking, low (minimum) cost, low (minimum) effort, and of course, inherently anti-expansionist.

The RaRa, philosophically opposed to the tradesmans ethos of playing to win, for trophies, shunned leagues and so employed ''fixture secretaries'' who's job it was to compile friendly fixtures for the club at least a season or two in advance.

They made efforts to look beyond the town boundary and create more interesting fixture lists by inviting (and accepting invitations) from clubs further afield. Some of these would be seen as prestigious fixtures, against bigger clubs, universities and at the very least, clubs they'd never played against before. New opponents meant unknown outcomes, excitement and kudos, thereby keeping their season ''interesting'' while our amateur leagues bumped heads with the same nut-jobs every season, year in, year out.

By it's very nature their outward looking process, fed the development and growth of the sport, even though they hadn't deliberately set it as a goal. New clubs could set up and begin seeking fixtures (friendlies) from any club within reach and off they went. 

So Gubrats, I put it to you, that these are the reasons why we failed to expand and why we've wasted at least a hundred years, and as such, find ourselves in the shadow of a bigger but far inferior sport. I'm just saying that it's about time we recognised the value, nay the absolute necessity of focusing on spreading our game far and wide and begin to redress a hundred years of smug, lazy, wholly inadequate, moneygrubbing. 

Let's ALL just play friendlies then , and not pay the players for a hundred years , see where that gets us ?

[fighting irish]

14 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Too late now IMO 

I was fairly certain you'd say that. 

[fighting irish]

12 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Let's ALL just play friendlies then , and not pay the players for a hundred years , see where that gets us ?

You've missed the point entirely. 

 

[koli]

The advent of SL brought a big upsurge in support more or less across the top clubs.Bradford were the leaders but everyone saw significant gate increases .

We need something that replicates that sense of optimism ,new beginnings and so forth that drew back lapsed supporters and brought in new supporters.

[GUBRATS]

2 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

I was fairly certain you'd say that. 

Is that because it is ?

[GUBRATS]

2 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

You've missed the point entirely. 

 

No I've not , but I know when I'm beaten , also I've learnt through life and work not to beat myself up about decisions I made at any given time , as quite often at that time that decision was the right one given the circumstances , later proven to be the wrong on , hindsight eh , don't you love it ?

[Tommygilf]

16 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Let's ALL just play friendlies then , and not pay the players for a hundred years , see where that gets us ?

A global game with deep roots and connections in every continent?

Fwiw, RU now subcontract their social "grow the game" stuff like tours and festivals to schoolboys and amateurs. And it still works.

[GUBRATS]

6 hours ago, fighting irish said:

I can't prove it either way Harry, but I thought Dave T demonstrated that Bullmania had a greater effect than the success would have done, on its own.

Whether the cost of Bullmania led to their downfall or not, is the key question I suppose, but we don't have the information on that.

I find it hard to believe that they spent so much money on bullmania that they didn't benefit from it financially.

It wasn't the cost of Bullmania , it was the cost of the team 

[GUBRATS]

2 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

A global game with deep roots and connections in every continent?

Fwiw, RU now subcontract their social "grow the game" stuff like tours and festivals to schoolboys and amateurs. And it still works.

Would it ? , Where would the money come from to pay for it ?

[Tommygilf]

5 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Would it ? , Where would the money come from to pay for it ?

Same place it came from for every other sport that has a global reach. The military posting people there, evangelicals with time on their hands, businessmen without a hobby, rich parents.

RL did a lot of this too, just not in as many places.

[gingerjon]

2 hours ago, Martyn Sadler said:

I hope he reads it, although I'm sure there are no easy answers.

Oh plop.

I better check back and edit my answers to be more Wildean.

[redjonn]

7 hours ago, Dave T said:

Your 2nd line is the point - it does need some imagination, my view is that is often the lacking piece here rather than out and out lack of cash. 

But too many of the responses here are quite small time answers to tactical ideas rather than the principle. 

We can't sell craft beer because it goes off, face-painting becomes boring for the same kids, the novelty wears off etc. My personal view would be that I have never known a 5 or 6 year old get bored of face painting yet. 

yep, that was exactly my point that it needs to be imaginative and vary, as per a other post their are lots of idea's one can come up with, particular using technology during the more difficult periods during the game.

On a side note again... one match was for the children to observe and learn the ref signals which they seemed to find fun. The people around us were maybe not so impressed as my three children tried to outdo each other copying the signals and shouting out what the signal indicated - some of the adults learned too... they particularly liked the team warning which turned more into a group of helicopters hovering about which I think annoyed the adults to distraction 

[meast]

On 20/06/2022 at 19:30, Dave T said:

I know we've got bogged down with beer, but on this point I do think this is where we cater for certain demographics that become a self fulfilling prophecy (if that's the correct phrase). 

Offering Carlsberg as your main beer really is outdated now isn't it? There aren't many places that offer it, other than real bargain basement pubs in towns. Don't we demand better now? I was at the Neighbourhood Weekender Festival in Warrington a few weeks back, the two lagers were Amstel and Moretti. 

It does rather feel like we are treated like the absolute pits at many RL grounds. 

To be fair, the proper Carlsberg, the Pils is quite decent, the actual mass produced, fizzy chemical stuff isn't.