RLWC Attendance-O-Meter

[gingerjon]

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.

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

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

[Leonard]

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.

[Jim from Oz]

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 October 21, 2022 by Jim from Oz

[The Masked Poster]

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 ...

 

[hunsletgreenandgold]

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

[Leonard]

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.

[The Rocket]

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 October 21, 2022 by The Rocket
Add word.

[Leonard]

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.

[Dave T]

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 October 21, 2022 by Dave T

[Dave T]

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.

[Dave T]

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.

[The Masked Poster]

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.

[Big Picture]

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.

[Dave T]

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.

[Dave T]

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 October 21, 2022 by Dave T

[Leonard]

4 minutes ago, Dave T said:

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.

I can only assume the breakeven is the current position.

In reality - there will be a hell of a lot of additional tickets sold. A sold out Emirates and Final would be transformative.

[Dave T]

12 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.

To add to this, the aftermath of that disastrous WC meant that we had to go back into a shell and play it safe. But actually it wasn't terrible. England hosted end of season internationals for 5 years on the bounce. 2 x ashes tours, a Kiwi tour and then two Tri-Nations. We also had some secondary England A games etc. 

That allowed us to steady the ship, make some money and grow from there. 

[Dave T]

4 minutes ago, Leonard said:

I can only assume the breakeven is the current position.

In reality - there will be a hell of a lot of additional tickets sold. A sold out Emirates and Final would be transformative.

Who knows mate? 

I hope that's the case and any claims of the tournament struggling to break even was simply a clumsy attempt at defending sales strategy. 

[JonM]

31 minutes ago, Dave T said:

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.

An important point. There are a whole bunch of amateur clubhouses, extensions, pitches and so forth that have been funded by the £15 million in the RLWC legacy fund. Things like Hemel getting a female changing room so that they can aim for a Women's superleague team, a fenced pitch for Haydock, clubhouses at Queensbury, Sharlston etc. 

[Leonard]

Just now, Dave T said:

Who knows mate? 

I hope that's the case and any claims of the tournament struggling to break even was simply a clumsy attempt at defending sales strategy. 

I might be up to 10 for the Emirates now - so I might single handedly be saving the day.

[Big Picture]

2 hours 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.

It not only may be milestone based, I have no doubt whatever that it is milestone based.  And considering that the funding was part of Northern Powerhouse, I have no doubt that the government is behind the ticket prices being charged.

The government desperately needs to able to claim that Northern Powerhouse has been a success if it somehow wants to hold on to the votes of the former Labour voters who gave them their majority last time, and without that they're sure to be defeated at the next election.  A successful northern-based tournament at these ticket prices would be an indication that they're succeeded in turning things around in the North, an unsuccessful tournament with these ticket prices will be a sign that NP has failed to achieve that turnaround.

[EggFace]

By the looks of things have we went backwards as looking at all the crowds for 2013 there was not a bad crowd at all games e.g, Australia v Fiji St.Helens got over 14000. 

[The Masked Poster]

4 minutes ago, Dave T said:

To add to this, the aftermath of that disastrous WC meant that we had to go back into a shell and play it safe. But actually it wasn't terrible. England hosted end of season internationals for 5 years on the bounce. 2 x ashes tours, a Kiwi tour and then two Tri-Nations. We also had some secondary England A games etc. 

That allowed us to steady the ship, make some money and grow from there. 

Yeah the 2001 Ashes series was a pretty good one, that at least started off with a win.  2002 Kiwi series saw some great games and decent crowds ditto  the 4 Nations in 2004.

Actually getting nostalgic for those days lol. 

[hunsletgreenandgold]

1 minute ago, EggFace said:

By the looks of things have we went backwards as looking at all the crowds for 2013 there was not a bad crowd at all games e.g, Australia v Fiji St.Helens got over 14000. 

But if it is a 5 digit attendance tonigt, in a non-heartland area and with respect, against Scotland - i'd take that.