RLWC Attendance-O-Meter

[Tommygilf]

11 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

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

Of course I agree with this, but in terms of the WC it is yet another example of confused strategy by the organisers.

On the one hand it seems they think the work has been done, and higher prices than ever before can be used because the game has the popularity to sustain that.

Yet they have also doubled down on traditional RL audiences, West of the Pennines particularly. This would suggest they haven't had too much faith in audiences beyond there (even Newcastle's 3 games at Kingston park wasn't originally on the cards).

[The Masked Poster]

23 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

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.      

That's fair. 

[FearTheVee]

Any of our resident seat counters have any idea how the Emirates crowd is shaping up?

I'd say 43k is par, 48k+ good and 52k+ excellent.

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, Chrispmartha said:

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.

It was due to be at Bolton, but as we saw with Anfield being replaced with Wigan, the replacement grounds sought by the organisers have been roughly half capacity of the original. If Elland Road couldn't host for example it wouldn't surprise me if Headingley or at most capacity-wise Huddersfield were the alternatives 

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Chrispmartha said:

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.

It brings us to another example of competitive vs non - in 2013, the 'big quarter final' was the Samoa v Fiji game, that got the same as yesterday. That is clearly the amount you will get at that ground. 

So we would probably expect 16k+ at Leeds. But we are also in a place where we can't just play everything at Leeds. Clearly Hudds and Hull have demonstrated little appetite for modest games in their big grounds. 

[WN83]

8 minutes ago, FearTheVee said:

Any of our resident seat counters have any idea how the Emirates crowd is shaping up?

I'd say 43k is par, 48k+ good and 52k+ excellent.

Other than the 35,000 sold comments a couple of weeks back, it’s tough to get a grip on it. They seem to have gone underground when it comes to shouting about ticket sales. How they didn’t make more of only having 1,000 or so tickets left for Saturday is beyond me. Even if it tempted an extra few people to go ‘I fancy a bit of that’ just tweet it, get it out there. 
 

You can still add ten £30 tickets to your basket on the ticket site but they’re in a £55 area. A sign we’re struggling? Or a weird reward for buying late? Who knows. I’d be chuffed to bits with 50k plus and miffed if we end up under 40k. 

Edited November 7, 2022 by WN83

[FearTheVee]

3 minutes ago, WN83 said:

Other than the 35,000 sold comments a couple of weeks back, it’s tough to get a grip on it. They seem to have gone underground when it comes to shouting about ticket sales. How they didn’t make more of only having 1,000 or so tickets left for Saturday is beyond me. Even if it tempted an extra few people to go ‘I fancy a bit of that’ just tweet it, get it out there. 
 

You can still add ten £30 tickets to your basket on the ticket site but they’re in a £55 area. A sign we’re struggling? Or a weird reward for buying late? Who knows. I’d be chuffed to buts with 50k plus and miffed if we end up under 40k. 

Hmmm that's a little worrying - given £55 were the second cheapest tickets anyway I'd like to think they would be all but gone.

Edited November 7, 2022 by FearTheVee

[Chrispmartha]

3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

It brings us to another example of competitive vs non - in 2013, the 'big quarter final' was the Samoa v Fiji game, that got the same as yesterday. That is clearly the amount you will get at that ground. 

So we would probably expect 16k+ at Leeds. But we are also in a place where we can't just play everything at Leeds. Clearly Hudds and Hull have demonstrated little appetite for modest games in their big grounds. 

I think Leeds would definitely have gotten a bigger crowd, maybe more on a Friday, but there was already too many games there, I think it needed to be in a 'different' stadium but still accessible, I think this is one fixture that needed to be in RL heartlands (or close enough) though as Samoa V Tonga would only really resonate with RL fans who know the players IMO! NZ or Australia fixtures could sell down south, and probably better than up north!

I do actually think MKM or John Smiths would have actually  been a better venues for Samoa Tonga

[Toby Chopra]

1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

Of course I agree with this, but in terms of the WC it is yet another example of confused strategy by the organisers.

On the one hand it seems they think the work has been done, and higher prices than ever before can be used because the game has the popularity to sustain that.

Yet they have also doubled down on traditional RL audiences, West of the Pennines particularly. This would suggest they haven't had too much faith in audiences beyond there (even Newcastle's 3 games at Kingston park wasn't originally on the cards).

I think the west of Pennines bias was largely down to stadium quality - they decided that this time round grounds like Derwent Park and 'Fax weren't good enough for both that fans and players, and there may be something in that.

Yes,  even accounting for that, and the Northern Powerhouse funding they, could have staged 3 or 4 more games in the south (Millwall, Brentford, Bristol etc). But I genuinely think they thought they didn't need to bother with the organisational effort of doing that, as people would travel from far and wide to all those games in the North West... cos it's a World Cup innit - look at the prices, that's big time sport.

They were drastically wrong because they didn't understand their potential audience.  

[Dave T]

14 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Of course I agree with this, but in terms of the WC it is yet another example of confused strategy by the organisers.

On the one hand it seems they think the work has been done, and higher prices than ever before can be used because the game has the popularity to sustain that.

 

This is the big question for me. 

What do they think had changed in the game of RL that meabt they could up their prices by a huge amount? What exactly was the rationale behind price increases? 

Since 2013 we haven't done anything special. We've carried on staging a few internationals here and there at cheap prices. 

Suddenly charging £70 for a top seat at Wire wasn't part of a strategy and hadn't been earned.

[Tommygilf]

Been thinking a bit about 2013 vs now and my own experience of it. 

Firstly I had just turned 16, so independent travel and money wasn't as readily available as it is now for me. I went to 4(5) games in total. The opener double header in Cardiff, NZ vs PNG group stage game at Headingley, the NZ vs Scotland QF at Headingley, and finally the Final itself.

This time around I'll have been to Jamaica vs Ireland at Headingley, NZ vs Ireland at Headingley, possibly the Aus vs NZ semi at Elland Road (tbc), and the Final (doubl again. 

So about the same amount of events? I don't know what that says, if anything at all.

[Archie Gordon]

On Emirates, I think they've only got about 54k seats available. The middle 'club' tier (or whatever they call it) is mostly blacked out. I'm not sure whether we'll see folk in those seats - I hope so.

I think all categories are selling well. The £55 seats going for £30 are right up in the very top rows of the top tier. And there is not much other recategorisation going on which seems positive to me.

I would be massively disappointed with anything less than SJP but equally surprised at anything over 52k.

[Chrispmartha]

2 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Been thinking a bit about 2013 vs now and my own experience of it. 

Firstly I had just turned 16, so independent travel and money wasn't as readily available as it is now for me. I went to 4(5) games in total. The opener double header in Cardiff, NZ vs PNG group stage game at Headingley, the NZ vs Scotland QF at Headingley, and finally the Final itself.

This time around I'll have been to Jamaica vs Ireland at Headingley, NZ vs Ireland at Headingley, possibly the Aus vs NZ semi at Elland Road (tbc), and the Final (doubl again. 

So about the same amount of events? I don't know what that says, if anything at all.

I didn't go to a single game in 2013 - looking back I can't actually remember the reason why TBH!

[Tommygilf]

4 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

I think the west of Pennines bias was largely down to stadium quality - they decided that this time round grounds like Derwent Park and 'Fax weren't good enough for both that fans and players, and there may be something in that.

Yes,  even accounting for that, and the Northern Powerhouse funding they, could have staged 3 or 4 more games in the south (Millwall, Brentford, Bristol etc). But I genuinely think they thought they didn't need to bother with the organisational effort of doing that, as people would travel from far and wide to all those games in the North West... cos it's a World Cup innit - look at the prices, that's big time sport.

They were drastically wrong because they didn't understand their potential audience.  

Oh I totally understand why the stadiums East of the Pennines haven't been used. In fact, the 7 appropriate grounds in Yorkshire (Leeds x2, Huddersfield, Hull FC, Donny, York and Sheffield) have been the only one's that could be used realistically. It is unfortunate that York is probably a bit too small, Donny isn't in West Yorkshire, and everything else other than Headingley seems too big for most of our events that were held there.

They definitely got their target audience all wrong.

[Toby Chopra]

6 minutes ago, Dave T said:

This is the big question for me. 

What do they think had changed in the game of RL that meabt they could up their prices by a huge amount? What exactly was the rationale behind price increases? 

Since 2013 we haven't done anything special. We've carried on staging a few internationals here and there at cheap prices. 

Suddenly charging £70 for a top seat at Wire wasn't part of a strategy and hadn't been earned.

Literally the only thing I can think of that was better was the commitment by the BBC - but by definition that doesn't boost ticket sales up front (well, not unless they spent two years heavily trailing it, which they understandably didn't).

  

[Dave T]

16 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

 

I do actually think MKM or John Smiths would have actually  been a better venues for Samoa Tonga

I don't agree with that. 

We have seen pretty average crowds at those two grounds for even a full on England test match. I don't think there is anything in those grounds that would have delivered a materially bigger crowd, in a materially bigger ground. 12 or 13k in the 24k grounds would have looked worse. 

[Chrispmartha]

On thing that has been a success (and may have slightly affected attendances) is the coverage from the BBC and hence the visibility of the sport - I've never had as many people ask and talk to me about the game, so Whilst attendances have been very poor we shouldn't overlook the Visibility it has created.

 

And specifically on attendances, would we say the Wheelchair and Women's has been a success so far?

[Dave T]

4 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

Literally the only thing I can think of that was better was the commitment by the BBC - but by definition that doesn't boost ticket sales up front (well, not unless they spent two years heavily trailing it, which they understandably didn't).

  

Aye, there is a fair argument that BBC coverage hinders crowd growth. 

[FearTheVee]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

I don't agree with that. 

We have seen pretty average crowds at those two grounds for even a full on England test match. I don't think there is anything in those grounds that would have delivered a materially bigger crowd, in a materially bigger ground. 12 or 13k in the 24k grounds would have looked worse. 

Agreed - they are two of the last grounds I would pick for a game of international RL.

[Toby Chopra]

Just now, Dave T said:

Aye, there is a fair argument that BBC coverage hinders crowd growth. 

Yes, anecdotally, it certainly seems that given all the other factors we've discussed, blanket coverage has helped some people decide to stay at home. I still wouldn't trade it, but the benefits will only come in the future.   

[Dave T]

Just now, Chrispmartha said:

On thing that has been a success (and may have slightly affected attendances) is the coverage from the BBC and hence the visibility of the sport - I've never had as many people ask and talk to me about the game, so Whilst attendances have been very poor we shouldn't overlook the Visibility it has created.

 

And specifically on attendances, would we say the Wheelchair and Women's has been a success so far?

Agreed, and we discuss that on the RLWC thread as opposed to the attendance thread

I think the women and wheelchair tournament crowds have been decent. But against the predictions and stories of sold out arenas and World record women's crowd there has been some disappointment. 

But those tournaments are clearly taking a step up in level and success is probably measured differently for those tournaments. 

[Dave T]

3 minutes ago, FearTheVee said:

Agreed - they are two of the last grounds I would pick for a game of international RL.

I like Hudds for a big England game, I think its a nice ground inside the bowl and has a good atmosphere, but we have to work very hard to fill it. 

[Chrispmartha]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

I don't agree with that. 

We have seen pretty average crowds at those two grounds for even a full on England test match. I don't think there is anything in those grounds that would have delivered a materially bigger crowd, in a materially bigger ground. 12 or 13k in the 24k grounds would have looked worse. 

Well we can flip it round

Put the smaller crowd from Johns Smiths or MKM would have looked better at the HJ and the actual big fixture would have had a bigger stadium to try and fill.

[DoubleD]

36 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Of course I agree with this, but in terms of the WC it is yet another example of confused strategy by the organisers.

On the one hand it seems they think the work has been done, and higher prices than ever before can be used because the game has the popularity to sustain that.

Yet they have also doubled down on traditional RL audiences, West of the Pennines particularly. This would suggest they haven't had too much faith in audiences beyond there (even Newcastle's 3 games at Kingston park wasn't originally on the cards).

I would really like to know what stipulations the Government funding came with, in terms of holding a specific proportion of matches in the north. Because, as you say, on the face of it, it's a confused strategy and there was no way they were going to achieve the desired numbers unless they spread the geographical footprint further

[Chrispmartha]

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Agreed, and we discuss that on the RLWC thread as opposed to the attendance thread

I think the women and wheelchair tournament crowds have been decent. But against the predictions and stories of sold out arenas and World record women's crowd there has been some disappointment. 

But those tournaments are clearly taking a step up in level and success is probably measured differently for those tournaments. 

Its relevant in the attendance thread because it will affect them.