McNamara blasts Huddersfield after IMG discussions

[The Future is League]

1 hour ago, Eddie said:

Are you sure they have no interest in doing it? I’m fairly sure they recently said that that are interested. 

Perhaps they have changed their mind

[GUBRATS]

18 minutes ago, glossop saint said:

Come on now Harry. There is a lot of moving of goalposts going on. We started off with Catalans don't contribute because there is no French TV deal. When it was pointed out that they were part of the Sky deal it changed to they don't draw in subscribers. Then the argument is that they have to have paying fans at home games (they have the SL record). Now what is required is to be paying money to other clubs as away fans. I'm pretty sure that there are some North Wales Crusaders fans who go to watch Catalan away fans. Or do they not count either? Are we going to reach the point that they have to spend at least 10 pound on half time food at every away game before they are seen to not be a drain on the game?

No , now you are trying to confuse things 

Last night there were 2/3 pages of claim and counter claim about how many SKY subscribers only watch RL because of the French clubs 

I put that to bed , 95% of SKY sports are bought for football , RL is just a filler to it in summer , nobody knows how many ' fans ' would stop watching RL on SKY if it was Leigh and Fev instead , in isn't quantifyable 

Anyway work to be done , I'll call back at dinner , see how your all getting along 

[Dunbar]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

OK Tommy, but each individual 'Fan' buying a £40/50 shirt after the initial costs to the club isn't putting very much into the club of their passion are they?

Let me re-iterate, by my definitions 

A 'Fan' to the Owner, CEO, Board and Club Accountant is invisible and directly offers very little in respect of monetary value.

A 'Supporter' is accountable, they are a visible asset, they immediately add to the so very important cash flow especially in a cash strapped sport like RL.

So by my definition the equation is a very simple one, does a club desire fans or does it need supporters, and plenty of them?

 

Surely the key to this is seeing supporters as a subset of fans and working on ways to convert more passive fans into supporters and monetising the outcome.

Essentially, there are three levels of interaction between an individual and sport/club.

One.  Potential fans who develop an initial understanding about a sport or team through things like word of mouth, social interaction or highlights on TV or social media TV.  At this stage, when the individual has no direct connection to an individual entity, they are un-monetised.

Two. Once a fan is engaging with a sport or club on a regular basis, they will begin to display transactional behaviours. This can be anything from watching games on (pay) TV to purchasing tickets and merchandise, but the most important thing is that their engagement can now be monetized.

Three.  Fan engagement breeds the opportunity to build long term relationships where they become supporters and attend games on a regular basis. At this stage the fan has developed an emotional attachment to a sport, team or brand, and the challenge becomes to retain them through promotional initiatives such as loyalty programs and rewards offerings.

I would ask the question; how much is our sport/clubs doing at the top end of this funnel to produce the results at the bottom.

[GUBRATS]

4 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

No, but you might pay, as an example, £150 for 13 games.

How much of that £10 or so per game is actual profit for the club once the costs of opening the stadium, switching on the power (etc) are included?

I'm genuinely interested in the economics of this.

So what , better to play at Leigh East ? , Don't be daft , yes there's the odd club in League 1 renting that probably don't make much if all , but even Leigh at the LSV will be making 75/80% of the ticket price in profit , Fev it's 100% ( Les the dreaded VAT of course ) 

[JonM]

51 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

OK Tommy, but each individual 'Fan' buying a £40/50 shirt after the initial costs to the club isn't putting very much into the club of their passion are they?

Let me re-iterate, by my definitions 

A 'Fan' to the Owner, CEO, Board and Club Accountant is invisible and directly offers very little in respect of monetary value.

A 'Supporter' is accountable, they are a visible asset, they immediately add to the so very important cash flow especially in a cash strapped sport like RL.

So by my definition the equation is a very simple one, does a club desire fans or does it need supporters, and plenty of them?

You don't think Liverpool get some value from having hundreds of millions of 'fans' worldwide, but only 50 000 spectators (or whatever the figures are)? You don't think that has any effect on tv contracts, media coverage or sponsorship deals? 

Widnes have 30 000 followers on Facebook, but only around 3000 people currently turning up to watch at a typical home game. That's a big pool of people who can be turned into customers, and increasing the size of that pool is pretty basic 'sales funnel' stuff that I'd expect a club CEO to care about.

[The Future is League]

11 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

Derek only saw 1 other person disagreeing with him because he wouldn't stop going on...

 

Delboy keeps ignoring the facts and that is the last time Leigh were in Super League they didn't bring in one worthwhile new sponsors and no news fans to our game, while Catalans and Toulouse and brought in worthwhile new sponsors and new fans to the game

[gingerjon]

Just now, GUBRATS said:

So what , better to play at Leigh East ? , Don't be daft , yes there's the odd club in League 1 renting that probably don't make much if all , but even Leigh at the LSV will be making 75/80% of the ticket price in profit , Fev it's 100% ( Les the dreaded VAT of course ) 

Stadiums are not free just because you don't rent though, are they? Especially not on match days when, y'know, you need to switch the lights on and things like that.

[JonM]

2 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

So what , better to play at Leigh East ? , Don't be daft , yes there's the odd club in League 1 renting that probably don't make much if all , but even Leigh at the LSV will be making 75/80% of the ticket price in profit , Fev it's 100% ( Les the dreaded VAT of course ) 

You don't think Fev has to pay any money at all for stewarding, turnstile operators, electricity bills for floodlights, food for visiting team etc?

[glossop saint]

1 minute ago, GUBRATS said:

No , now you are trying to confuse things 

Last night there were 2/3 pages of claim and counter claim about how many SKY subscribers only watch RL because of the French clubs 

I put that to bed , 95% of SKY sports are bought for football , RL is just a filler to it in summer , nobody knows how many ' fans ' would stop watching RL on SKY if it was Leigh and Fev instead , in isn't quantifyable 

Anyway work to be done , I'll call back at dinner , see how your all getting along 

By 'put that to bed' then you mean you posted that. Was there actually any stats or even agreement that that was the case? (Genuine question as I might have missed it.) And if it is the case as to the club are irrelevant then why not Catalans?

But it goes back to the original point. Some posters are looking at ways to dismiss Catalans contribution to the sport, and are repeatedly changing the definition of what that contribution is.

Have a good morning at work. Hopefully this hasn't descended from good discussion by dinner time!

[Harry Stottle]

40 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

It wasn't a challenge, it was a genuine question.

Didn't look like a question more like a statement!

[gingerjon]

Just now, Harry Stottle said:

Didn't look like a question more like a statement!

My grammar isn't always the best - especially when I'm writing quickly and I tend to write it as I say it without realising it may not be read the same way.

[Harry Stottle]

38 minutes ago, glossop saint said:

Come on now Harry. There is a lot of moving of goalposts going on. We started off with Catalans don't contribute because there is no French TV deal. When it was pointed out that they were part of the Sky deal it changed to they don't draw in subscribers. Then the argument is that they have to have paying fans at home games (they have the SL record). Now what is required is to be paying money to other clubs as away fans. I'm pretty sure that there are some North Wales Crusaders fans who go to watch Catalan away fans. Or do they not count either? Are we going to reach the point that they have to spend at least 10 pound on half time food at every away game before they are seen to not be a drain on the game?

Excuse me Glossop, where is the reference particular to Catalan that says they have to have fans at home games, the rest of the post after that is just gibberish.

[glossop saint]

There is a good chance I misremembered and apologies if that is the case. Though there is no doubting that they obviously do have people attending their matches. Surely that in itself is a contribution.

As for the rest of the post I disagree with you.

Do you think Catalans contribute to the sport? And if not, why not?

[Harry Stottle]

26 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Surely the key to this is seeing supporters as a subset of fans and working on ways to convert more passive fans into supporters and monetising the outcome.

Essentially, there are three levels of interaction between an individual and sport/club.

One.  Potential fans who develop an initial understanding about a sport or team through things like word of mouth, social interaction or highlights on TV or social media TV.  At this stage, when the individual has no direct connection to an individual entity, they are un-monetised.

Two. Once a fan is engaging with a sport or club on a regular basis, they will begin to display transactional behaviours. This can be anything from watching games on (pay) TV to purchasing tickets and merchandise, but the most important thing is that their engagement can now be monetized.

Three.  Fan engagement breeds the opportunity to build long term relationships where they become supporters and attend games on a regular basis. At this stage the fan has developed an emotional attachment to a sport, team or brand, and the challenge becomes to retain them through promotional initiatives such as loyalty programs and rewards offerings.

I would ask the question; how much is our sport/clubs doing at the top end of this funnel to produce the results at the bottom.

Thanks for that Dunny, my interpretation as it stands on my initial post of Fan or Supporter to me using your analogy is a Fan falls into your level one and sone interaction with level two, but a Supporter is most definatley level 3.

Good post.

[Eddie]

28 minutes ago, The Future is League said:

Delboy keeps ignoring the facts and that is the last time Leigh were in Super League they didn't bring in one worthwhile new sponsors and no news fans to our game, while Catalans and Toulouse and brought in worthwhile new sponsors and new fans to the game

Leigh’s increase in support when they went up is comparable to TO’s, to say TO have brought new fans to the game while saying Leigh didn’t is disingenuous.   I do really want Toulouse to stay up btw, more than I want anything else in club RL this year, but don’t think they are the golden chalice that some seem to. 

[Harry Stottle]

27 minutes ago, JonM said:

You don't think Liverpool get some value from having hundreds of millions of 'fans' worldwide, but only 50 000 spectators (or whatever the figures are)? You don't think that has any effect on tv contracts, media coverage or sponsorship deals? 

Widnes have 30 000 followers on Facebook, but only around 3000 people currently turning up to watch at a typical home game. That's a big pool of people who can be turned into customers, and increasing the size of that pool is pretty basic 'sales funnel' stuff that I'd expect a club CEO to care about.

Here we go again, why do people think it essential to use the global phenomenon of football to get a point across, comparing it to RL is like trying to align Elon Musk's living standards and disposable income to a vagrant who sleeps on the streets, it has no relevance whatsoever.

Totally agree with your last paragraph.

[Oxford]

This is the problem with social media, TGG as a whole and a forum in particular:

The issues divide us and that makes us a small sport.

People in the sport use every occasion to put forward whatever silly little prejucdice that persuades them to get up in the morning.

Clubs in the sport put forward their own limited, short sighted  self - interest view which masqerades as for the good of the game displaying why the sport appears small to thw world and his wife.

Nit picking over which team does what ...... get a grip everyone that has never served the game well!

Edited July 25, 2022 by Oxford

[Harry Stottle]

34 minutes ago, The Future is League said:

Delboy keeps ignoring the facts and that is the last time Leigh were in Super League they didn't bring in one worthwhile new sponsors and no news fans to our game, while Catalans and Toulouse and brought in worthwhile new sponsors and new fans to the game

Totally wrong, I took an old buisness acquaintance to the LSV he had never been to a RL game before, he went another couple of times that season and has been this season he also took a family member along, there you go 2 new fans.

[Damien]

If anything sums up the corner shop mentality its some of the waffle I have read the last few pages to try and justify getting rid of Catalans.

Hopefully IMG take a higher level overview. The conversation should be about making the game more attractive commercially, attracting more higher value sponsors and increasing the value of future TV deals. Frankly whether someone buys a pie in a stadium or is only a fan/supporter if they live within 5 miles of a club shouldn't be part of the discussion. We certainly don't need IMG for that, it's the thinking that has dominated RL for 100+ years.

[ATLANTISMAN]

I was at the Dragons on Saturday and it was announced that IMG will be coming down to a match next month.

Knowing the Dragons they will ramp up the match day presentation and entertain the IMG delegation to a level not experienced before:)

It is well known in RL circles that 4 clubs in SL always vote against the Dragons and would love them kicked out (I am not going to name names however the clubs that are pro Dragons/Toulouse are:)

Leeds Rhinos

Hull FC 

Hull KR

Warrington Wolves

St Helens 

Wigan Warriors 

 

On another subject Warne Pearce was at the match on Saturday with his wife saw Sean Edwards to with his partner and children great day all on my French RL blog should be up tonight:)

Cheers 

 

Paul

[The Future is League]

10 minutes ago, Damien said:

If anything sums up the corner shop mentality its some of the waffle I have read the last few pages to try and justify getting rid of Catalans.

Hopefully IMG take a higher level overview. The conversation should be about making the game more attractive commercially, attracting more higher value sponsors and increasing the value of future TV deals. Frankly whether someone buys a pie in a stadium or is only a fan/supporter if they live within 5 miles of a club shouldn't be part of the discussion. We certainly don't need IMG for that, it's the thinking that has dominated RL for 100+ years.

The people who want to get rid of the Catalans are those who fear them, Leigh, Huddersfield etc.

Its this insular thinking that will stop the game progressing on any scale in the NH.

Little wonder we have a reduced TV deal and lower sponsorships deals. We need to be a lot more eclectic than we are now to get a better TV deal and better sponsorship deals

[WN83]

I'd hope IMG would look at the representatives of the clubs claiming the French bring nothing to the sport and realise that maybe, just maybe, they are the problem and not the French. 

Anybody from IMG following Beaumont on twitter last night must be wondering what they've let themselves in for. 

[Harry Stottle]

16 minutes ago, glossop saint said:

There is a good chance I misremembered and apologies if that is the case. Though there is no doubting that they obviously do have people attending their matches. Surely that in itself is a contribution.

As for the rest of the post I disagree with you.

Do you think Catalans contribute to the sport? And if not, why not?

Yes of course I do, both on and off the field.

Actually that is the first time I have been directly asked that question, tgank you.

Simply because I initially asked a very pertinent question about the French clubs having the abillity to secure a French TV deal in as so much is there enough interest in RL in France to make it a worthwhile venture for TV/Broadcasters to invest in, that seemingly has been taken very personally by some and I get the wrath of all those who two years ago implied "When Toulouse get Promoted" there will definatley be a TV deal, multi million euro sponsership contracts will be flying about, Toulouse will be enjoying 10,000 crowds which will in turn rapidly increase the game in France both in popularity and participation levels.

I have nothing against Toulouse and Catalan and I hope they go from strength to strength, but I will draw the line on them being ringfenced and protected from relegation when each and every other club they play in a league system are subjected to jeapordy.

[Eddie]

After 24 pages of ‘debate’ where nobody has changed their mind, does anyone yet know what (if anything) someone from Huddersfield Giants actually said, and who said it? 

[Eddie]

3 minutes ago, WN83 said:

I'd hope IMG would look at the representatives of the clubs claiming the French bring nothing to the sport and realise that maybe, just maybe, they are the problem and not the French. 

Anybody from IMG following Beaumont on twitter last night must be wondering what they've let themselves in for. 

I’m certain IMG knew all about DB before they signed the deal, these are highly professional operators.