Well Done RLWC Team! Best yet!

[iangidds]

3 minutes ago, JonM said:

My assumptions/ guesses:

It'll work out to be somewhere around £25 million in ticket sales, programmes, merchandise etc. A couple of million more for tv rights, sponsorships etc. (but could be quite a lot more, who knows) plus the £25 million from the government. £10 million has already gone into funding community RL projects,  there's clearly a similar sized payment to the IRL. If the actual tournament company breaks even (and pays no income tax), that isn't necessarily a bad thing. And if we've had that much government funding to put the thing on, I wouldn't necessarily expect the RFL to be shouting to the world how much profit they've made.

Is it not a positive thread to shout it from the rooftops that you made a profit and what you are going to do with the proceeds to grow the game ?

If we did or do make a profit surely its in the games intrest to say so and put out positive statements to the public, media and sponsors ?

[Dave T]

3 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

I think people have just latched on to duttons break even comment which was prettier ambiguous and taken it to mean something it didn’t 

It was a stupid comment. It means literally nowt without context. 

It is now assumed it means "break even once we have hived off a load of profit". 

He made the comment literally to justify high ticket prices. Nothing else. 

Edited November 21, 2022 by Dave T

[Chrispmartha]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

I think it's useful to think about it in terms of fan experience - I think that's no more than a 5 out of 10 - poor atmosphere, no fanzones or entertainment, poor sound and vision (big screens), poor use of scoreboards and clocks, expensive seats, poor scheduling, poor ticketing. I think it earns a lot of credit just by being international RL which many of us love, and the inclusivity was brilliant, and being able to watch games fta with extensive coverage, plus I thought the social media work was great. 

As a tournament for fans it was (once again) saved somewhat by a few brilliant games. Tonga v PNG, Tonga v Samoa, Eng v Samoa, Aus v NZ in the men's, plus Eng v PNG and Aus v NZ in women's, plus Aus v Eng and Eng v France in wheelchair. 

It’s definitely been a mixed bag I don’t think anyone is denying that

[Chrispmartha]

Just now, Dave T said:

It was a stupid comment. It means literally nowt without context. 

It is now assumed it means "break even once we have hived off a load of profit". 

I agree Duttons comments throughout have been a bit odd and ill advised.

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Chrispmartha said:

It’s definitely been a mixed bag I don’t think anyone is denying that

I think describing it as the best world cup ever is a tad optimistic imho. 

[iangidds]

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I think it's useful to think about it in terms of fan experience - I think that's no more than a 5 out of 10 - poor atmosphere, no fanzones or entertainment, poor sound and vision (big screens), poor use of scoreboards and clocks, expensive seats, poor scheduling, poor ticketing. I think it earns a lot of credit just by being international RL which many of us love, and the inclusivity was brilliant, and being able to watch games fta with extensive coverage, plus I thought the social media work was great. 

As a tournament for fans it was (once again) saved somewhat by a few brilliant games. Tonga v PNG, Tonga v Samoa, Eng v Samoa, Aus v NZ in the men's, plus Eng v PNG and Aus v NZ in women's, plus Aus v Eng and Eng v France in wheelchair. 

Thats a pretty sad assesment Dave but that is the reality of the situation, people who think that it was a success need to really look at the whole picture rather than focussing on free TV and inclusivity

[Dave T]

Just now, Chrispmartha said:

I agree Duttons comments throughout have been a bit odd and ill advised.

I think a lot of it was coming from being under pressure. I think he should have been shielded somewhat. 

The narrative changed an awful lot once the wheelchair kicked in and drowned out the negativity. He was fortunate on that front. 

[Chrispmartha]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

I think describing it as the best world cup ever is a tad optimistic imho. 

Why? I personally think it’s been the best world cup, it could have been better, yes, but overall it’s been great, we will all have our own metrics for measuring it.

[Chrispmartha]

2 minutes ago, iangidds said:

Thats a pretty sad assesment Dave but that is the reality of the situation, people who think that it was a success need to really look at the whole picture rather than focussing on free TV and inclusivity

I can flip that round and say those that are saying its a failure need to look at the bigger picture and focus more on the tv coverage and the inclusivity

[Dave T]

Just now, Chrispmartha said:

Why? I personally think it’s been the best world cup, it could have been better, yes, but overall it’s been great, we will all have our own metrics for measuring it.

I think people are forgetting how positive, uplifting and full of optimism the tournament's in 1995 and 2013 were. 

They were the very definition of an international RL festival, and both of them delivered substantial growth for the tournament. 

I also think people are forgetting how underwhelming more than half of this tournament was. 

[JonM]

On 19/11/2022 at 19:57, Madrileño said:

To everyone who is bigging up the success of this World Cup:

Now try to come up with a response without using the word "wheelchair".

Biggest gate receipts for a game, biggest gate receipts for a tournament, biggest number of countries taking part. By a considerable distance the highest profile rugby league event in the UK, with every game free-to-air on the BBC. Positive media coverage everywhere you look - barely a negative comment anywhere. Huge amounts of money gone into community clubs in the UK. First world cup in 70 years where there's been significant numbers of fans from outside the host country - Scotland, Ireland, Greece, Fiji, Tonga, Samoa etc. Even a few thousand Australians turned up for the final. Big morale boost for RL in places like Jamaica, Greece, Brazil and it looks like all of those countries have gone away with a determination and a plan to get more people playing.

I saw 11 games, enjoyed every one, although obviously disappointed with the semi-final result. The women's double header opener at Headingley was in my top two or three most memorable RL events.

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Chrispmartha said:

I can flip that round and say those that are saying its a failure need to look at the bigger picture and focus more on the tv coverage and the inclusivity

The TV one is interesting. It needs to be monetised. 

In 2013 we had 14m viewers - our peak was higher than this year. Yet we have heard that we haven't really made much money from a TV deal. So we aren't turning these millions of viewers into cash. The thing we did get this year was increased commitment from the BBC in terms of coverage, but in 2025 it needs to be doing well in cold hard cash as well. 

[Chrispmartha]

3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I think people are forgetting how positive, uplifting and full of optimism the tournament's in 1995 and 2013 were. 

They were the very definition of an international RL festival, and both of them delivered substantial growth for the tournament. 

I also think people are forgetting how underwhelming more than half of this tournament was. 

I can’t remember 1995 much, but I wasn’t as engaged with the 2013 tournament as i was this one, and the fact most of it was shunted onto a small pay for channel made it feel a bit small time to me

[JonM]

11 minutes ago, iangidds said:

If we did or do make a profit surely its in the games intrest to say so and put out positive statements to the public, media and sponsors ?

The positive statements being put out are all about how this has been the most inclusive world cup, how much money has gone into community facilities and so on. Much better to focus on that kind of outcome than on profits, I would think.

"We took taxpayers' money and spent £10 million on building some pitches and changing rooms in run-down places up North. We staged a women's world cup and a wheelchair world cup and paid everyone the same" is better PR than "we took £25 million from the government and we made £20 million profit"

[Dave T]

Just now, Chrispmartha said:

I can’t remember 1995 much, but I wasn’t as engaged with the 2013 tournament as i was this one, and the fact most of it was shunted onto a small pay for channel made it feel a bit small time to me

I think it's a tough argument to accept much smaller crowds this year for the men's tournament but refer to 2013 as small time for being on Premier. Nothing says small time more than 5 and 6k rattling round Wire, Saints and Leeds. 

Its also interesting that people are happy to publicly slate the 2017 tournament in Oz as a flop, yet from a crowd point of view, the averages were pretty much identical to this year. The only reason we topped 2017 is because we staged more games.

If those additional events were stripped out to compare to 2013, we would have been below 400k.

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, JonM said:

The positive statements being put out are all about how this has been the most inclusive world cup, how much money has gone into community facilities and so on. Much better to focus on that kind of outcome than on profits, I would think.

"We took taxpayers' money and spent £10 million on building some pitches and changing rooms in run-down places up North. We staged a women's world cup and a wheelchair world cup and paid everyone the same" is better PR than "we took £25 million from the government and we made £20 million profit"

Money from this tournament will fund worldwide development for the next cycle - it is the most important part of the whole tournament (not downplaying the things you highlight too). Without money, those positives will die. 

They boasted how much they made after 2013, and I expect in due course we will hear how much has gone to the IRL. 

[Archie Gordon]

On some metrics, the best ever; on others, second, third or fourth best.

What seems obvious to me, is that it was absolutely on course to be the best ever by some distance - £25m government investment in particular - but it failed to cut through much outside the RL public and it ought to have done. The men's tournament - the flagship - was well short of the best ever.

[Chrispmartha]

4 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I think it's a tough argument to accept much smaller crowds this year for the men's tournament but refer to 2013 as small time for being on Premier. Nothing says small time more than 5 and 6k rattling round Wire, Saints and Leeds. 

Its also interesting that people are happy to publicly slate the 2017 tournament in Oz as a flop, yet from a crowd point of view, the averages were pretty much identical to this year. The only reason we topped 2017 is because we staged more games.

If those additional events were stripped out to compare to 2013, we would have been below 400k.

There were some dismal crowds in 2013 aswell Dave.

the TV coverage was way, way, way better than in 2013. It felt like a big event because of it, more people eill have been aware of it because it was more visible, were probably not going to agree on it though but it is my personal opinion that this was the best WC we’ve had.

you can’t just strip out those extra events to try prove a point, because those extra events happened and were part of it, had those events not happened the crowds to the other events may have been higher.

Edited November 21, 2022 by Chrispmartha

[JonM]

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Its also interesting that people are happy to publicly slate the 2017 tournament in Oz as a flop, yet from a crowd point of view, the averages were pretty much identical to this year. The only reason we topped 2017 is because we staged more games.

I guess that is mostly because the games in NZ and PNG were so well attended - it was the Australian part of it that was a flop - 22K for the Australia/England opener - 12K for Australia's game in Canberra, 22K for Australia's SF, only 40K for the final.

One notable feature of this world cup is, of course, that England played neither Australia nor New Zealand. Maybe we should have retained the contrived pool formats of previous events to increase attendance figures.

[Chrispmartha]

3 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

On some metrics, the best ever; on others, second, third or fourth best.

What seems obvious to me, is that it was absolutely on course to be the best ever by some distance - £25m government investment in particular - but it failed to cut through much outside the RL public and it ought to have done. The men's tournament - the flagship - was well short of the best ever.

How do you know it hasn’t cut through to those outside the rl public?

Anecdotal of course but ive never had as many people speak to me about RL than in the last month. These aren’t RL people either but they saw it in the BBC

[JonM]

2 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

it is my personal opinion that this was the best WC we’ve had.

I think it was the best WC we've had by some distance. It was just a lot less than it could and should have been, and a lot less than people were hoping for.

I worry for France 2025 - they're a micro-federation with a tiny staff. They will need very significant extra help to achieve anything close to this, in just about every area.

[Chrispmartha]

2 minutes ago, JonM said:

I guess that is mostly because the games in NZ and PNG were so well attended - it was the Australian part of it that was a flop - 22K for the Australia/England opener - 12K for Australia's game in Canberra, 22K for Australia's SF, only 40K for the final.

One notable feature of this world cup is, of course, that England played neither Australia nor New Zealand. Maybe we should have retained the contrived pool formats of previous events to increase attendance figures.

Your last point is s good one, England didn’t play a tier one nation yet got better crowds than those in 2017

[JonM]

1 minute ago, Chrispmartha said:

Anecdotal of course but ive never had as many people speak to me about RL than in the last month. These aren’t RL people either but they saw it in the BBC

Yes - this. There are very few 'water-cooler moments' these days, but RL has been on national tv shows a lot over the last few weeks. Unheard of levels of coverage.

Almost every game I've been to, there's been people who didn't know the first thing about RL sat nearby (insert gag about fans of club of your choice here). The idea that it was mainly traditional RL fans making up the numbers at these games is way wide of the mark.

I was sit in a cafe yesterday in county Durham yesterday and the radio on in the cafe had a 10 minute piece about Women's RL and the history of it in the UK. 

The challenge now is for IMG/ RFL/ SL to build on the opportunity they have been given.

[Dovster]

Personally I think this World Cup has delivered. Yes definitely could have been organised better. However the true success of this tournament will be how many more people are attracted to Rugby League going forward. In players, fans or volunteers.

[Dave T]

18 minutes ago, JonM said:

I guess that is mostly because the games in NZ and PNG were so well attended - it was the Australian part of it that was a flop - 22K for the Australia/England opener - 12K for Australia's game in Canberra, 22K for Australia's SF, only 40K for the final.

One notable feature of this world cup is, of course, that England played neither Australia nor New Zealand. Maybe we should have retained the contrived pool formats of previous events to increase attendance figures.

I'm cynical of selecting positive elements for 2022 and ignoring positive elements for 2017.

There is no evidence the fixtures hampered us this time. 43k for the opener was the 2nd highest ever.