Jump to content

RLWC Attendance-O-Meter


Recommended Posts

Dutton never said the target was 750000 he actually said said the aim was to match the 570k that the womens euros got and to get as near to the ‘stretch’ target of 750000

“The goal now for organisers is to try and get near to the target of around 570,000 tickets that were sold at this summer's women's European Championships. With the tournament already near the total ticket sales of the last Rugby League World Cup held in England nine years ago, Dutton and his team are aiming to get as close to their 'stretch target' of 750,000 sales as possible.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites


9 minutes ago, Sitona said:

Dutton never said the target was 750000 he actually said said the aim was to match the 570k that the womens euros got and to get as near to the ‘stretch’ target of 750000

“The goal now for organisers is to try and get near to the target of around 570,000 tickets that were sold at this summer's women's European Championships. With the tournament already near the total ticket sales of the last Rugby League World Cup held in England nine years ago, Dutton and his team are aiming to get as close to their 'stretch target' of 750,000 sales as possible.”

Hmm. So we set the proper target based on an event that took place AFTER ours was originally intended to take place?

That seems odd too. 

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

2 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

It's not that odd, they would be daft not to relook at the target after the tournament got postponed 

The Women's Euros finished on 31st July.

I reckon our real targets were set long before then.

Either way, we're 150,000 short of it on current projections.

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 hour ago, Just Browny said:

We already discussed the group idea above on the 'which format' thread. It probably produces lots of dead rubbers because, in the 'weak' groups, you are basically knocked out with one loss but might have to play two more games.

My preference was for a preliminary round/group a la international cricket.

To be fair in the current model, every match played by the calibre of teams likely to be in groups C&D are dead rubbers. And boring mismatches at that. At least in this model they get 3 potentially competitive games, rather than at least 2 (perhaps 3) meaningless guaranteed defeats. 

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

4 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

The Women's Euros finished on 31st July.

I reckon our real targets were set long before then.

Either way, we're 150,000 short of it on current projections.

Yes were short on targets, and Im not defending the organisers particularly but, when a Tournament gets postponed a year and you have to return already bought tickets it would be mad not to relook at targets, it would also be mad not have a few targets like they have had, the biggest issue maybe that the 750,000 target seems to have been purely made a target to get government funding, I don't think it was ever a realistic target and the organisers knew it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Chrispmartha said:

Yes were short on targets, and Im not defending the organisers particularly but, when a Tournament gets postponed a year and you have to return already bought tickets it would be mad not to relook at targets, it would also be mad not have a few targets like they have had, the biggest issue maybe that the 750,000 target seems to have been purely made a target to get government funding, I don't think it was ever a realistic target and the organisers knew it.

Fair. It's a distraction now, really, anyway.

The barest minimum for success on attendances was growth against 2013.

The first mention of the women's Euros was more to do with capturing some of the positive energy from it. I'd say that a key frustration for me is that our double-header/curtain-raiser approach for the actual women's games makes it really hard to do that.

But, on attendances, it seems to now be impossible to avoid saying that something has gone badly wrong somewhere. I do have sympathy about the year extension - and have made the point before that we're stretching the same money over a longer period and fewer people - but there are so, so many self-inflicted wounds along the way.

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

54 minutes ago, The Masked Poster said:

I think, unless we are actually honest, we'll be having this conversation in another 20 years. 

But until it is admitted that there is a problem, it won't be solved. And I don't mean something gimmicky to make things look artificially better, actual remedial work. 

I do think, though, that the wider UK game has had this conversation and acknowledged the fundamental truths about limited popularity that you have outlined. This has led to the radical move of bringing IMG on board to effectively relaunch professional rugby league in this country.

The problem with the RLWC is that in many ways the organisers have acted like this work has already been done - and the sport is more popular than it is, with the way they have priced and scheduled the tournament.

The fact is, UK rugby league  - on any possible measure - is no more popular than it was in 2013. It's not less popular either, which is good, but by and large we shouldn't have expected a major increase in attendance just because we've called it a World Cup.

Sure, there are a bunch of things we could have done better about pricing, scheduling, locations, event production etc, and there was also stuff that was out of our hands like COVID and economy. But even getting all that right the potential pool of ticket buyers was always no bigger than it was in 2013. That's what it all boils down too, and that never added up to 750,000 sales.           

So RLWC has messed up, but I don't think the wider UK game is in denial about the reality of the sport here.    

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

There's no denying this I think, we need to be honest with ourselves. I thought Andrew Foster's idea of 2 eilte groups and 2 'emerging' groups on Twitter the other week was pretty compelling. Would give us many more competitive group games, and ensure something for all to play for related to their current level of capability. I'm sold on this: 

 

 

 

I don't think we need to kneejerk and change structure again, Id rather we have a plan to make teams more competitive and focus on events rather than the on-field being so important. 

But if we were to go down the restcuture route, having three qualify from a group of four isn't great. If anything the 3rd placed teams should have to meet the 2bd place from the lesser groups to get through. 

The 2008 WC had three qualifying from a group of four and I didn't like it one bit tbh. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Maximus Decimus said:

I share your frustration when trying to discuss this honestly with people who are naturally being defensive and trying to look for non-damaging reasons why crowds have been poor.

For that reason, people will often completely discount valid possible reasons such as people just not being very interested in RL; the lack of competitiveness and predictability being a huge issue; and people being put off by semi-farcical heritage sides. I try to be honest rather than placate the feelings of some posters, and therefore will say unpopular things like I wouldn't attend Australia-Scotland even if it was in Widnes and cheap, and that I've only watched a few games all the way through. This is coming from a lifelong RL fan of 35 odd years. 

However, the accurate comparison to be made is between the 2013 tournament and this one. Things have not declined so much that comparable crowds should be much lower. The whole tournament felt different, and it got more positive as it went on. Matches like Rochdale for Fiji vs Ireland with a sellout of just under 9,000, and Tonga vs Italy with over 10,000 epitomise the difference for me. These were RL towns were RL was already at a low-ebb but they were interested enough to come out. 

The only real differences for me that explain these problems, are the absurd cost of many games and the real lack of competition due to the less convoluted tournament. This in turn has prevented a feel-good factor developing around the event and in fact has done the opposite.

Broadly agree, but I dont think the saturation point can be discounted, I think that's a biggie. 

Whilst we still had plenty in the North, Rochdale and Halifax for example were real positives and have been replaced by more games in Wire, Saints, Leigh and Doncaster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

I do think, though, that the wider UK game has had this conversation and acknowledged the fundamental truths about limited popularity that you have outlined. This has led to the radical move of bringing IMG on board to effectively relaunch professional rugby league in this country.

The problem with the RLWC is that in many ways the organisers have acted like this work has already been done - and the sport is more popular than it is, with the way they have priced and scheduled the tournament.

The fact is, UK rugby league  - on any possible measure - is no more popular than it was in 2013. It's not less popular either, which is good, but by and large we shouldn't have expected a major increase in attendance just because we've called it a World Cup.

Sure, there are a bunch of things we could have done better about pricing, scheduling, locations, event production etc, and there was also stuff that was out of our hands like COVID and economy. But even getting all that right the potential pool of ticket buyers was always no bigger than it was in 2013. That's what it all boils down too, and that never added up to 750,000 sales.           

So RLWC has messed up, but I don't think the wider UK game is in denial about the reality of the sport here.    

I agree with you - and I don't agree with you at the same time. 

How many of the people who attended the women's Euros for example had NOT been to a women's football ganei in the previous 9 years? I bet it was the vast majority. Where did they drum up the 50000 or so who attended that recent women's game between Arsenal and (?, I forget) ? The point is they didn't appear by magic, they were engaged enough to go along. 

There are plenty of people out there who would attend a RLWC game, even if out of curiosity and they never go again. The problem is they need to know about it and feel as if they should join in. 

There are thousands and thousands of people out there. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sitona said:

Dutton never said the target was 750000 he actually said said the aim was to match the 570k that the womens euros got and to get as near to the ‘stretch’ target of 750000

“The goal now for organisers is to try and get near to the target of around 570,000 tickets that were sold at this summer's women's European Championships. With the tournament already near the total ticket sales of the last Rugby League World Cup held in England nine years ago, Dutton and his team are aiming to get as close to their 'stretch target' of 750,000 sales as possible.”

There are many, many articles which talk about the 750k target. 

You have found an interview with Dutton that was pretty recent and sales were struggling. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Which was before they knew what was going on with the tournament, has he used the 750,000 target since the relaunch dates?

750k is used in article after article after article yes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Which was before they knew what was going on with the tournament, has he used the 750,000 target since the relaunch dates?

If we do want to be generous and allow for the rewriting of the target to become 'stretch target' - hey we've all lowered our targets haven't we? - then we do at least need to hold them to the claims that they will exceed the last one in the UK and the women's euros. 

Even in October organisers were still saying they would beat these. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

If we do want to be generous and allow for the rewriting of the target to become 'stretch target' - hey we've all lowered our targets haven't we? - then we do at least need to hold them to the claims that they will exceed the last one in the UK and the women's euros. 

Even in October organisers were still saying they would beat these. 

I agree Dave I'm not trying to exonerate them on this but I think we need to look at the fact the tournament was rearranged and the targets may have shifted, and also I'm not a fan of throwing words like 'corrupt' around (I know it wasn't you) when we have not seen and are not likely to see what that target means in relation to the funding.

And yes In my business we have lowered targets when circumstances change.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, The Masked Poster said:

I agree with you - and I don't agree with you at the same time. 

How many of the people who attended the women's Euros for example had NOT been to a women's football ganei in the previous 9 years? I bet it was the vast majority. Where did they drum up the 50000 or so who attended that recent women's game between Arsenal and (?, I forget) ? The point is they didn't appear by magic, they were engaged enough to go along. 

There are plenty of people out there who would attend a RLWC game, even if out of curiosity and they never go again. The problem is they need to know about it and feel as if they should join in. 

There are thousands and thousands of people out there. 

It's a fair question, and I'd love some real data with which to answer it accurately. But in the absence of that I'd say that people have to have some engagement with a sport - even at it's most basic level  - to attend.

I'd guess the vast majority of people who attended women's euros were football fans of some sort, even if it's only ever watching England men at the Euros/World Cup on TV once every two years - that's still a pool of tens of millions.

Same for RuWC - the widest pool is those that might watch a 6 Nations game on the TV a couple of times a year. Our pool  - which is maximum those that might watch CCF or an international on the BBC is a fraction of those.

We need to grow that pool - that's where IMG come in.      

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

World Cups over the last 20 years have delivered average crowds of between 8,000+(2000) and 16,000 (2013) so to increase this to 24,000 + was going to be a massive task.

I remember the figure of 750,000 being frequently mentioned and thought there was no way we would achieve this.

I am surprised that journalists did not challenge these figures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

I agree Dave I'm not trying to exonerate them on this but I think we need to look at the fact the tournament was rearranged and the targets may have shifted, and also I'm not a fan of throwing words like 'corrupt' around (I know it wasn't you) when we have not seen and are not likely to see what that target means in relation to the funding.

And yes In my business we have lowered targets when circumstances change.

 

 

Absolutely, we review our targets quarterly based on the current situation, market etc. I've no issues with that. 

I think I posted about a page or two back, the 750k isn't that important here, it's the lack of growth in attendances. There is no ambiguity in the fact that this was meant to smash all records in terms of crowds and be the biggest WC ever. In reality, we may get around what we did in 2013 if we sell every ticket available now (and hopefully we will). 

I also made the point that missing the 750k target wouldn't have been such an issue if any form of crowd growth was there. I think 550k would have been a good result, 650k excellent and 750k out of this world. 

It can be spun by people, but RLWC themselves will be disappointed with these crowds, without question. They hired bigger grounds and opened every area, they didn't expect many games to be played in front of 50% capacity or lower. One of the success criteria they quite from 2013 was that they had 76% occupancy. I think at best we will be 60% this time, and that's mainly due to the bigger events.

Whichever target people cherry-pick, the attendances have not been good. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think one point that has been missed regarding the changing of structures to give more competitive games to increase crowds it that NZ played Fiji , a competitive game , in Hull a city that attracts 18k of people regularly to two teams and only 7000 turned out . Same with NZ Lebanon , 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, RL Tragic said:

I think one point that has been missed regarding the changing of structures to give more competitive games to increase crowds it that NZ played Fiji , a competitive game , in Hull a city that attracts 18k of people regularly to two teams and only 7000 turned out . Same with NZ Lebanon , 

Tonga v Samoa - 12.6k. It was good, but not much different to Aus v Scotland and actually lower than NZ v Ireland in Leeds for example. 

It's right that we try and improve competitiveness, but I'm not sure structure change is the right way to go. 

It is interesting that RL fans always criticise authorities for focusing on structure changes, but fans jump straight to that mindset too.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Tonga v Samoa - 12.6k. It was good, but not much different to Aus v Scotland and actually lower than NZ v Ireland in Leeds for example. 

It's right that we try and improve competitiveness, but I'm not sure structure change is the right way to go. 

It is interesting that RL fans always criticise authorities for focusing on structure changes, but fans jump straight to that mindset too.

I actually think the Tonga Samoa game was at the wrong ground, well maybe not in isolation but due to the saturation of games at the same Venue.

 

The tie of the round, maybe in the whole WC so far was in the smallest venue and one that had been used too many times before.

 

Its not really hindsight either, that game could have been predicted.

Edited by Chrispmartha
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.