RLWC Attendance-O-Meter

[Tex Evans Thigh]

58 minutes ago, Hello said:

I think, more to the point, if you're going to have games outside the heartlands, which you should, then choose games that are not going to be obvious one sided blow outs.

The crowd in this case suggests that’s not really the problem. Closer games on paper and on grass in the heartlands have had lower crowds. There are problems throughout the strategy that has been employed.

[hunsletgreenandgold]

2 hours ago, Archie Gordon said:

To assume 10k, you would have to look at that crowd and say there were only 2 empty seats for every 1 taken. In most parts of the ground it was 6 or 7 to 1. 

So you didn’t count. That’s all you had to say. 

[Mickybooboo]

 

I am one of those people who have for a long time (near on a decade) read these forums without commenting on them. I need to comment because I’m disappointed with A COUPLE of the crowds, but I know there’s more to this.

 

Im an Australian writing from a lifetime’s love of the game of rugby league where I have lived within and without of heartland areas. I grew up in the Riverina in nsw which is a straight 50/50 split between league and Australian rules. I also lived in Sheffield, South Yorkshire for 2 years (what a wonderful place) and Melbourne for 12 years.

 

Please, please understand the positive impact this World Cup is having on the international game. For the first time that I can remember in Australia, the World Cup is beyond being taken seriously. After the opener in Newcastle, all the talk has been about deficiencies in the coaching of Samoa, not the legitimacy of the tournament. People are in tipping comps and talking about tight finishes in the Tonga v png game or Wales v the Cook Islands.

At work today kids I teach were talking about the part time nature of the wales team and how they’re going to watch their next game. This has NEVER happened before.

 

This is the first time ever where a World Cup would have been better served to be stage in Aus or NZ than in England. PNG, Tonga, samoa, Fiji would have drawn big crowds THIS time around. I know we’ve fluffed the comps before but there is a genuine engagement here and it is this side of the world where the growth of the game is real. I hope Greece and Scotland and Ireland kick on, but even teams like Lebanon would draw big numbers here.

 

What I am getting at is that this comp, even if  it is poorly attended, will be the launching pad of our great game. I’ve felt the disappointment of being an RL fan in the uk, but it will have long term benefits. If it only breaks even, and France only breaks even, but we have more competitive teams the next time it comes back (which I know might be 12 years away - I reckon a combined NZ/PNG comp should be after France) it will mean a sustainable, long term version of the WC that will be a huge event every 4 years.

 

My two cents - hope everyone is enjoying the wonderful footy!

[Mickybooboo]

Sorry about formatting - no idea what happened there.

[Sitona]

Crowds are unlikely to be reported as higher than they actually are as the tax returns are likely to be audited at some point as £15 million of public money has been provided.

[ghost crayfish]

21 hours ago, Dave T said:

If this tournament doesn't provide money for international development then it is no more than.a vanity project. 

If this loses money, then we are back to 2000 territory. 

'No more than a vanity project'... I think that's a bit over the top. You don't think offering smaller nations exposure in a high profile, fully televised international tournament is helpful to the game's growth? What about the new sponsors, fans and broadcasters being introduced to the sport? Even the simple act of giving players a top tier international platform to perform on - the chance to travel overseas, stay in good hotels and represent their nation? This stuff is all vital to the credibility, appeal and growth of a sport.

Of course a profit for reinvestment in the game's growth would be good, but it's not everything a world cup is about.

I'd argue a break-even tournament with an England win (if capitalised on by the game's administration) would prove about 100 times more beneficial for the game than what happened in 2013 (ie. profitable tournament, but easy Kangaroos win and England not making the final).

Edited October 22, 2022 by ghost crayfish

[IM2]

3 hours ago, Damien said:

Bar England games I don't think we've ever had a crowd over 20k for a World Cup group game. That in itself shows that stadiums like Coventry and Middlesbrough should be out if they are not to be used for England games.

For me there are probably 3 categories of group game and games should be allocated as such. The unattractive games that are a real hard sell should be played in sub 10k grounds such as York. Then you have the more attractive 10-15k games that suit the likes of Leigh and Warrington. For the bigger games then go for the sub 20k grounds like Headingley and Saints. For England games you can obviously go big with the Newcastle, Bolton and Coventrys of this world.

Then go for 20k+ stadiums for the quarter finals onwards and sell them as marquee big events.

depends on what deals they got to go to those stadiums. its not just about the attendance. im going to Mboro and bringing 4 of my mates who arent league fans but are from close by. 2 of them top business men

[Tommygilf]

10k in Coventry doesn't sound spectacular, but I bet its more than we'd have got in several M62 locations for this game.

[The One]

Sheffield crowd will be interesting. It’s not a game that I would go to, so I’m interested to see if other rl fans are interested and how many non rl fans are motivated to go.

[Ragingbull]

8 hours ago, Damien said:

Bar England games I don't think we've ever had a crowd over 20k for a World Cup group game. That in itself shows that stadiums like Coventry and Middlesbrough should be out if they are not to be used for England games.

For me there are probably 3 categories of group game and games should be allocated as such. The unattractive games that are a real hard sell should be played in sub 10k grounds such as York. Then you have the more attractive 10-15k games that suit the likes of Leigh and Warrington. For the bigger games then go for the sub 20k grounds like Headingley and Saints. For England games you can obviously go big with the Newcastle, Bolton and Coventrys of this world.

Then go for 20k+ stadiums for the quarter finals onwards and sell them as marquee big events.

Finally someone that gets it! 

Absolutely hit the nail on the head

[Dave T]

5 hours ago, ghost crayfish said:

'No more than a vanity project'... I think that's a bit over the top. You don't think offering smaller nations exposure in a high profile, fully televised international tournament is helpful to the game's growth? What about the new sponsors, fans and broadcasters being introduced to the sport? Even the simple act of giving players a top tier international platform to perform on - the chance to travel overseas, stay in good hotels and represent their nation? This stuff is all vital to the credibility, appeal and growth of a sport.

Of course a profit for reinvestment in the game's growth would be good, but it's not everything a world cup is about.

I'd argue a break-even tournament with an England win (if capitalised on by the game's administration) would prove about 100 times more beneficial for the game than what happened in 2013 (ie. profitable tournament, but easy Kangaroos win and England not making the final).

I've acknowledged in a subsequent post that there would be some value in a break-even WC. 

However as per the IRL's annual reports, the WC provides 4 years worth of development funding. If that isn't there, then what happens for those four years? 

As much as I'd love to see England win, I'd argue being able to fund development of the sport around the world is more important. 

[Dave T]

6 hours ago, Mickybooboo said:

 

I am one of those people who have for a long time (near on a decade) read these forums without commenting on them. I need to comment because I’m disappointed with A COUPLE of the crowds, but I know there’s more to this.

 

Im an Australian writing from a lifetime’s love of the game of rugby league where I have lived within and without of heartland areas. I grew up in the Riverina in nsw which is a straight 50/50 split between league and Australian rules. I also lived in Sheffield, South Yorkshire for 2 years (what a wonderful place) and Melbourne for 12 years.

 

Please, please understand the positive impact this World Cup is having on the international game. For the first time that I can remember in Australia, the World Cup is beyond being taken seriously. After the opener in Newcastle, all the talk has been about deficiencies in the coaching of Samoa, not the legitimacy of the tournament. People are in tipping comps and talking about tight finishes in the Tonga v png game or Wales v the Cook Islands.

At work today kids I teach were talking about the part time nature of the wales team and how they’re going to watch their next game. This has NEVER happened before.

 

This is the first time ever where a World Cup would have been better served to be stage in Aus or NZ than in England. PNG, Tonga, samoa, Fiji would have drawn big crowds THIS time around. I know we’ve fluffed the comps before but there is a genuine engagement here and it is this side of the world where the growth of the game is real. I hope Greece and Scotland and Ireland kick on, but even teams like Lebanon would draw big numbers here.

 

What I am getting at is that this comp, even if  it is poorly attended, will be the launching pad of our great game. I’ve felt the disappointment of being an RL fan in the uk, but it will have long term benefits. If it only breaks even, and France only breaks even, but we have more competitive teams the next time it comes back (which I know might be 12 years away - I reckon a combined NZ/PNG comp should be after France) it will mean a sustainable, long term version of the WC that will be a huge event every 4 years.

 

My two cents - hope everyone is enjoying the wonderful footy!

That's good to hear about the attitudes in Oz. 

I'd also add that this tournament is being taken more seriously in the UK media than anything in my lifetime. 

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Tommygilf said:

10k in Coventry doesn't sound spectacular, but I bet its more than we'd have got in several M62 locations for this game.

The number is fine. We just haven't grasped how to use the Kangaroos have we. 

I know it wasn't a WC but Aus v Scotland in 2016 4N got 5.3k in Hull and in the last WC the Kangaroos played in front of 5k in Limerick. 

One of the things that is proving challenging is appropriateness of grounds. 10.2k is a solid result for this game, but its a shame it was in a ground that then had 22k empty seats. 

I think @Damien covers this point well in his post. 

[St Reatham]

Have the organisers given any indication as to why some of the grounds chosen were chosen, when it’s obvious that they were never going to fill them?

[Dave T]

8 hours ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

I was looking again at the figures for 2013, and I was surprised by how many so so crowds there were. Looking at Australia’s like for likes, there wasn’t much difference between the 2 Fiji games. I went to Limerick for their game against Ireland, which got half tonight’s crowd (and most of them were bemused and unmoved by the experience as I recall). They got 5k odd for their quarter final, and are certain to get a lot more this time around. 

If the reported figures for the quarters are as strong as they say, and England get a big crowd to Sheffield, beating 2013 seems eminently achievable to me (especially as we have 2 semis as opposed to the double header). 

It’s funny how unreliable memory can be sometimes. 

I'm not sure anyone has forgotten about 2013. There is always plenty of discussion about Limerick, Neath etc in discussions like this, and it is always acknowledged that many of the crowds in 2103 were modest. 

It is also acknowledged that we are hopeful of beating the total number from 2013.

So I don't quite agree with your summary of the situation. 

I think the problem is that while the numbers were low in Rochdale, Halifax, Workington etc, they were sellouts or close to. They were positive events, bustling and looked great on TV. So far we have direct comparisons in Leigh, Warrington and Leeds and those grounds have shown massive drops. But as a numbers game, last night made up around 5k on the lowest Aussies game for example. 

Numbers wise we will do OK versus 2013.

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

The number is fine. We just haven't grasped how to use the Kangaroos have we. 

I know it wasn't a WC but Aus v Scotland in 2016 4N got 5.3k in Hull and in the last WC the Kangaroos played in front of 5k in Limerick. 

One of the things that is proving challenging is appropriateness of grounds. 10.2k is a solid result for this game, but its a shame it was in a ground that then had 22k empty seats. 

I think @Damien covers this point well in his post. 

Agreed.

I think there is somewhat of a problem that outside of the rugby codes, suitable smaller stadiums with appropriate facilities are hard to come by. Almost all of ours are on top of eachother, and most Union grounds are in places that represent minimal opportunities for "legacy" (save Newcastle or Coventry for example). If you throw legacy out of the window somewhat, there is perhaps some more options open to the Comp like Northampton, Leicester or Gloucester. 

I do also think that increasingly to the non-RL diehards, the Kangaroos and the Kiwis aren't vastly different in terms of profile and sellability.

I'm sure we have had this discussion before but I remember thinking when the venues were announced that the logic didn't seem right. You can't kid the M62 corridor if you get me? A suspected walkover, especially not involving England, just won't get the crowds in. There's much more of a blank canvas and a less negative attitude to be found elsewhere. The Kiwis and Australia are far more likely to have an innate draw in areas we'd struggle to get traction in otherwise, regardless of their opponents.

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

Agreed.

I think there is somewhat of a problem that outside of the rugby codes, suitable smaller stadiums with appropriate facilities are hard to come by. Almost all of ours are on top of eachother, and most Union grounds are in places that represent minimal opportunities for "legacy" (save Newcastle or Coventry for example). If you throw legacy out of the window somewhat, there is perhaps some more options open to the Comp like Northampton, Leicester or Gloucester. 

I do also think that increasingly to the non-RL diehards, the Kangaroos and the Kiwis aren't vastly different in terms of profile and sellability.

I'm sure we have had this discussion before but I remember thinking when the venues were announced that the logic didn't seem right. You can't kid the M62 corridor if you get me? A suspected walkover, especially not involving England, just won't get the crowds in. There's much more of a blank canvas and a less negative attitude to be found elsewhere. The Kiwis and Australia are far more likely to have an innate draw in areas we'd struggle to get traction in otherwise, regardless of their opponents.

I think we often overstate the value of kangaroos and kiwis to average RL fans. We've seen loads of times that we get low crowds for them. 

I do think either Newcastle (KP) or a modest ground in London would have been better for this. But I do accept this comes back to who bids etc to an extent. 

[Tommygilf]

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I think we often overstate the value of kangaroos and kiwis to average RL fans. We've seen loads of times that we get low crowds for them. 

I do think either Newcastle (KP) or a modest ground in London would have been better for this. But I do accept this comes back to who bids etc to an extent. 

It is difficult when there are bids involved. Coventry and Boro I believe won/paid for rights to host specific "high profile non England games". 10k is as you said a good crowd if it wasn't surrounded by 22k empty seats - indeed it is very strong given who was playing. Hopefully the Hurricanes were visible and on top form.

[David Shepherd]

Can't believe anyone is moaning about the crowd size. We got 10k for a nothing game at a Union stadium. I think that's bloody good.

[Dave T]

11 minutes ago, David Shepherd said:

Can't believe anyone is moaning about the crowd size. We got 10k for a nothing game at a Union stadium. I think that's bloody good.

Yup, not far behind Leeds and will probably be similar to what we get at Saints for the Kangaroos next game. 

At times the atmosphere came across really well on TV, its a shame they didn't try and keep fans closer together, as I think that would have improved the experience all round, on TV and in the ground. 

But five figures for this was not a bad result at all. 

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, ShropshireBull said:

I think both can be correct. Reality is that as it is on tv the most important thing going forward is the optics. So empty stadiums just look hideous for future sponsors and commercial partners.

Yes, I think that's slightly two different things and should be treated as such. Decent number, inappropriate ground. 

[gingerjon]

2 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

I think both can be correct. Reality is that as it is on tv the most important thing going forward is the optics. So empty stadiums just look hideous for future sponsors and commercial partners.

The replay for the wonder try is going round the world.

No comments about crowd size that I can see.

Optics can vary.

[Waynebennettswinger]

8 minutes ago, David Shepherd said:

Can't believe anyone is moaning about the crowd size. We got 10k for a nothing game at a Union stadium. I think that's bloody good.

I agree, it was a much bigger announced attendance than what it looked like to me on TV (probably due to stadium size and empty seats.) I guess we’re not comparing like with like but if you look at the attendances for the NZ match in Warrington and the Tonga V PNG match in St Helens then the attendance in Coventry is great in comparison, in my opinion. People will probably argue about games being mid week etc but you have one match with a top ranked team with genuine superstars of the game and the other match being built up to (and living up to) game of the tournament so far with again top quality players, both these games in the heartlands and neither attracting full stadia then I don’t see the point in being critical of the attendance in Coventry.

[St Reatham]

The crowd was reasonable, but it’s the negative image than an empty stadium creates that does the damage.

[Dave T]

3 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

The replay for the wonder try is going round the world.

No comments about crowd size that I can see.

Optics can vary.

I made the point last week, one of the big objectives has to be to create viral moments, and I think we are doing that. Some of the Rugby we have seen so far has been simply stunning, and I must say broadly speaking the social media coverage from RLWC, BBC, NRL, SL, RFL and others has been outstanding. Its things like this that shouldn't be ignored. 

One point I would make on crowds is that I think people are a little bit more used to emptier crowds again. The shift towards more women's sport on TV, plus more lower leagues etc has meant that more and more empty seats are shown - it isn't simply football with packed grounds and RL with empty ones. 

Watch Rugby Union, Cricket, Champ Football, Scottish Football, Women's Football - they all have huge sections of empty seats. I don't think it is as huge a thing as we have in our heads. Obviously the financial implications and fan experience are a challenge, but the perception point imo is less of an issue.