Jump to content

RLWC Attendance-O-Meter


Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

 

And if France 2025 had the same result - no profit but a gamechanging boost to RL's profile there - then I'd be happy with that (a profit as well of course would be even better).

To just pick up on this point, I disagree. It's really important that these tournaments fund the world game. Let's be honest, we don't do much development anyway, if IRL are skint then these world cups are a waste of time anyway. 

IRL have always been open that these are the funding vehicles, we can't accept break even being a good result. 

I made the point on the WC29 thread that we may have to do things differently in future, and if what we are hearing is true, then I don't see an RLWC sustainable anywhere. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I can absolutely see us struggling to break even - my questioning this is more around how we have allowed ourselves to get to this stage. 

IRL have regularly stated that World Cup profits are what funds their activity. They have little else. 

Even accepting the challenging environment and delays etc. to come out of this with no funding for IRL for the next 3 years would be a disaster. That's where my point about whether a hosting fee/guarantee was required. 

I've long said I fear there is a lot of style over substance and I worry that is going to bite us here. As I say, I hope they are being economical with the truth here and future investment is ringfenced, but if not, then we really are in RLWC 2000 territory. 

Yes - the disaster scenario will be an IRL with zero effective income to cover any activity for the next three years.

  • Thanks 1

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

1 minute ago, gingerjon said:

Yes - the disaster scenario will be an IRL with zero effective income to cover any activity for the next three years.

The thing giving me hope is that I do seem to recall in 2017 the Aussies had to guarantee money to IRL. Now IIRC there was some controversies as they failed to deliver their guaranteed number, but that at least suggests they have the concept of guaranteed return for the IRL in their head. 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Cumbrian Fanatic said:

Just a thought, maybe Dutton is saying the tournament is struggling to break even because he is incapable of admitting that they have botched some of the ticket prices and that is his way of defending them

Yes - honestly, we have no way of knowing.

It wasn't even clear just how bad 2000 had been financially until some time after.

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

6 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Yes - honestly, we have no way of knowing.

It wasn't even clear just how bad 2000 had been financially until some time after.

They claimed a £1m profit for quite a while as I recall.

  • Like 2

I can confirm 30+ less sales for Scotland vs Italy at Workington, after this afternoons test purchase for the Tonga match, £7.50 is extremely reasonable, however a £2.50 'delivery' fee for a walk in purchase is beyond taking the mickey, good luck with that, it's cheaper on the telly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Dave T said:

To just pick up on this point, I disagree. It's really important that these tournaments fund the world game. Let's be honest, we don't do much development anyway, if IRL are skint then these world cups are a waste of time anyway

IRL have always been open that these are the funding vehicles, we can't accept break even being a good result. 

I made the point on the WC29 thread that we may have to do things differently in future, and if what we are hearing is true, then I don't see an RLWC sustainable anywhere. 

I agree with almost all of your criticisms of the tournament organisation Dave, and the lack of development funds going forward would be a big black mark for any world cup, this one or France 25. I'm certainly not saying it's a good result.

But I just can't agree that putting it on would then be a waste of time. If the reality of rugby league as a sport is that we can only just about manage to afford to put on a world cup (in reality 3 world cups) then so be it. What's the alternative? Not putting it on? Where does that get us? 

This tournament is still a fabulous thing to watch and enjoy, and for those players and coaches and other staff involved, will be a highlight of their careers, especially the non-professional participants. By all means, let's do it better, and by golly we certainly can. But let's not give up on it as an aim in itself.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think one of the issues here is that the government funding may be milestone based. I recall reading an interview with Dutton where he said the £15m funding pledge was based on selling 750,000 seats. So we may not get £15m - there might be some kind of pro-rata based on actual ticket volumes.

Then we have the issue that the tournament was costed about 4 years ago and there have been massive increases in prices since then. Logistics costs will have increased to a multiple of what they planned for pre-covid.

Additionally there may well have been a lot of costs associated with the cancellation. We may have had to pay for some stadiums twice - don't forget there was technically no legislative reason why the tournament couldn't have been staged last year. The decision to postpone was made by the sport, it was not something they were being forced into by government regulations, it wasn't a a force majeure. Therefore it would not surprise me if we had to pay for the stadiums that had been booked last year and then pay again for them this year. We broke the contracts, there will have been some financial penalty as a consequence.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

I’m not prejudiced, I hate everybody equally

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Derwent said:

We may have had to pay for some stadiums twice - don't forget there was technically no legislative reason why the tournament couldn't have been staged last year. The decision to postpone was made by the sport, it was not something they were being forced into by government regulations, it wasn't a a force majeure. Therefore it would not surprise me if we had to pay for the stadiums that had been booked last year and then pay again for them this year. We broke the contracts, there will have been some financial penalty as a consequence.

That's a really good point.

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

17 minutes ago, Derwent said:

I think one of the issues here is that the government funding may be milestone based. I recall reading an interview with Dutton where he said the £15m funding pledge was based on selling 750,000 seats. So we may not get £15m - there might be some kind of pro-rata based on actual ticket volumes.

Then we have the issue that the tournament was costed about 4 years ago and there have been massive increases in prices since then. Logistics costs will have increased to a multiple of what they planned for pre-covid.

Additionally there may well have been a lot of costs associated with the cancellation. We may have had to pay for some stadiums twice - don't forget there was technically no legislative reason why the tournament couldn't have been staged last year. The decision to postpone was made by the sport, it was not something they were being forced into by government regulations, it wasn't a a force majeure. Therefore it would not surprise me if we had to pay for the stadiums that had been booked last year and then pay again for them this year. We broke the contracts, there will have been some financial penalty as a consequence.

Pretty salient points these - cheers

Apparently this site says I "won the day" here on 23rd Jan, 19th Jan, 9th Jan also 13th December, whatever any of that means. Anyway, 4 times in a few weeks? The forum must be going to the dogs - you people need to seriously up your game. Where's Dutoni when you need him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't they go back to the govt and get more money for the delay?

But as I have said before - cancelling all those hotels alone would have cost a fortune if there was no additional money to cover it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, The Masked Poster said:

They did indeed. Or thereabouts anyway 

So what profit, if any, did the 2000 rugby league World Cup mate? Or did it make a loss?

 

I felt very depressed watching it on TV in Oz … it really was a poorly organised event that also suffered from bad luck… I think the current one is much much better so hopefully it can reach all its targets or go close and make some sort of a profit, fingers crossed!

 

Edited by Jim from Oz
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Jim from Oz said:

So what profit, if any, did the 2000 rugby league World Cup mate? Or did it make a loss?

 

I felt very depressed watching it on TV in Oz … it really was a poorly organised event that also suffered from bad luck… I think the current one is much much better so hopefully it can reach all its targets or go close and make some sort of a profit, fingers crossed!

 

I don't think it made a profit whatsoever, in fact I'm fairly sure it lost a lot of money. But I distinctly remember that even after the final and the dust had settled, they were saying things like "despite everything, the tournament stands to make a profit of (£750k - £1M ish) due to good sponsorship deals"

It seemed at least plausible at the time as the sponsors (Lincoln Financial Group) were supposedly big shots and had paid a lot of money for the rights. Rodney Walker was one of the guys behind it, so ...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, hunsletgreenandgold said:

Anybody got a rough estimate on expected crowd at Aus v Scotland tonight? Hoping it'll be 12k plus but I'm concerned it could be hovering around that 8/9k mark

Comments already that it will be 5 figure.

 

12k would be excellent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The frustrating thing is we are probably only 4 000 - 5 000 spectators per game short to be considering the whole thing a success, and then dreaming of what we`d have to improve to get it up another 4 000 - 5 000 after that.

We should also wait until a clearer picture comes in from the Tv viewing audience numbers, those numbers will play a big part for sponsors deciding whether they want to get back on board. One thing for certain for me, I certainly know who Cazoo is now.

Edited by The Rocket
Add word.
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, The Rocket said:

The frustrating thing is we are probably only 4 000 - 5 000 spectators per game to be considering the whole thing a success, and then dreaming of what we`d have to improve to get it up another 4 000 - 5 000 after that.

We should also wait until a clearer picture comes in from the Tv viewing audience, those numbers will play a big part for sponsors deciding whether they want to get back on board. One thing for certain for me, I certainly know who Cazoo is now.

Plus we have Bolton and likely a rammed QF and Semi.

Suddenly you go from one big audience a round to probably a big audience every game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Toby Chopra said:

I agree with almost all of your criticisms of the tournament organisation Dave, and the lack of development funds going forward would be a big black mark for any world cup, this one or France 25. I'm certainly not saying it's a good result.

But I just can't agree that putting it on would then be a waste of time. If the reality of rugby league as a sport is that we can only just about manage to afford to put on a world cup (in reality 3 world cups) then so be it. What's the alternative? Not putting it on? Where does that get us? 

This tournament is still a fabulous thing to watch and enjoy, and for those players and coaches and other staff involved, will be a highlight of their careers, especially the non-professional participants. By all means, let's do it better, and by golly we certainly can. But let's not give up on it as an aim in itself.  

Waste of time is probably too harsh a statement. But it does completely change the objective of what the World Cup is for, and we need to be really clear on what we are doing and why. 

At the moment the World Cup is the main income driver for International Rugby League. It's how we fund most of the development. Without that, we risk bringing our activity to a grinding halt. Because none of the other tournaments have ever materialised. 

Our World Cup needs to make money for the IRL. If it can't in its current format, then we need to work out a format that will do it. Because we have made profit in the last 3, and I expect did so in 1995 too. 2000 was obviously a car crash and we can't allow ourselves to go back to that situation.

I do agree with your point that if the very best the RLWC can do is wash its face then we should still do it - that is a fair challenge - but in reality, it needs to make millions of pounds for international development. 

Maybe this WC has just been too ambitious, or maybe it is a sign that this will be the last WC of this format and scale.

EDIT: we also shouldn't forget that we have had a further £10m invested in grassroots RL legacy projects from the government due to this WC. So in any case, if this tournament only breaks even, the legacy benefit is that England RL gets £10m investment.

Edited by Dave T
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Derwent said:

I think one of the issues here is that the government funding may be milestone based. I recall reading an interview with Dutton where he said the £15m funding pledge was based on selling 750,000 seats. So we may not get £15m - there might be some kind of pro-rata based on actual ticket volumes.

Then we have the issue that the tournament was costed about 4 years ago and there have been massive increases in prices since then. Logistics costs will have increased to a multiple of what they planned for pre-covid.

Additionally there may well have been a lot of costs associated with the cancellation. We may have had to pay for some stadiums twice - don't forget there was technically no legislative reason why the tournament couldn't have been staged last year. The decision to postpone was made by the sport, it was not something they were being forced into by government regulations, it wasn't a a force majeure. Therefore it would not surprise me if we had to pay for the stadiums that had been booked last year and then pay again for them this year. We broke the contracts, there will have been some financial penalty as a consequence.

I think that's all fair. I think it is easily possible to see a £5m projected surplus vanish based on cancellation costs and lower than forecast crowds.

I'd like to think we had some decent cancellation clauses in place though - although I'd be very surprised if they were zero in any agreement! I think if we were getting absolutely stung, we wouldn't have remained at those grounds necessarily. I'd like to think there was an element of goodwill at play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, The Masked Poster said:

I don't think it made a profit whatsoever, in fact I'm fairly sure it lost a lot of money. But I distinctly remember that even after the final and the dust had settled, they were saying things like "despite everything, the tournament stands to make a profit of (£750k - £1M ish) due to good sponsorship deals"

It seemed at least plausible at the time as the sponsors (Lincoln Financial Group) were supposedly big shots and had paid a lot of money for the rights. Rodney Walker was one of the guys behind it, so ...

 

Yeah, I think it emerged that it was around a £2m loss, which fell on the RFL. It almost bankrupted them.

Transparency around these tournaments is always lacking.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Yeah, I think it emerged that it was around a £2m loss, which fell on the RFL. It almost bankrupted them.

Transparency around these tournaments is always lacking.

Yes I seem to remember the aftermath being being very serious. I might be getting it wrong as it was over 20 years ago but I seem to remember it being touch and go for the RFL. 

And again, I might be getting mixed up but wasn't this debt essentially the reason Maurice Lyndsay personally got on the phone to the Aussies after they said they weren't playing in the 2001 Ashes series due to 9/11 attacks? It was apparently a matter of life and death (so to speak) that this went ahead and it not happening could have spelt curtains.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, The Rocket said:

 

Not to mention the other day we were told that revenue from tickets sold had already passed 2013 by 1m pound " with 55 matches to go ".

Hogan also shared positive news on the financial front - with this World Cup already the highest-grossing competition of all-time for ticket sales, with 55 matches still to go.

“This year’s tournament has now generated over £1m more than the 2013 total in ticket sales," he said. "There are still 56 matches to sell so we’re only just getting started.”

Struggling to break-even ????

It costs more to put on three tournaments at the same time instead of one, and that's before taking into account the impact of the 12 month delay.  Plus the income from their sponsorships and TV deals won't be a whole lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, The Masked Poster said:

Yes I seem to remember the aftermath being being very serious. I might be getting it wrong as it was over 20 years ago but I seem to remember it being touch and go for the RFL. 

And again, I might be getting mixed up but wasn't this debt essentially the reason Maurice Lyndsay personally got on the phone to the Aussies after they said they weren't playing in the 2001 Ashes series due to 9/11 attacks? It was apparently a matter of life and death (so to speak) that this went ahead and it not happening could have spelt curtains.

I think that's right, yep.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking at the IRL Annual Report from August 2021:

The company’s balance sheet shows that it has relied on financing from Australian Company (out of the profits from previous world cups) and also on advances received on its 2021 Rugby League World Cup rights fee. Following the deferred staging of the 2021 event, it is anticipated that in 2022 the profits from the competition will result in the company having a healthy, positive balance sheet going forward

So there was certainly an expectation at that stage that there would be a substantial return. 

So, there it is in black and white, discussion of a rights fee and profit for RLWC2021. Interesting.

If we are now only breaking even, it suggests its because we are missing targets.

Edited by Dave T
  • Thanks 1
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.