England vs Samoa Series

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, 17 stone giant said:

I 

As I said, I would be interested to hear the view from the RFL. Someone in that organisation has chosen not to play Tonga or Samoa in London. Why?

I think the answer to this one is quite clear. They on y ever stage marquee games in London, and they don't have the confidence to sell these games in London. 

Many here are disagreeing with that approach. You're welcome to disagree, but when supporting the RFL it is important to remember this is an organisation that has staged absolutely horrendous international events at the likes of Leigh, Wire, Salford, Hudds and a disastrous World Cup. 

Their decision to retract from the 2013 progression World Cup to deliver a Northern WC in 2021 was an absolute failure. But they are taking the same approach here. 

It would appear many fans have more confidence in RL than the RFL do. 

Edited June 16, 2024 by Dave T

[17 stone giant]

39 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Yes, the numbers showed out of 8 series we played in London for 5 of them. 

I'm not into this weird rewriting of history that suggests that world cups in the UK are not RL tournaments and when we play in London they don't really count. 

I didn't say they didn't count. I was just trying to put a bit of context to the stats. They weren't 1 game out of a 3 game series. They were 1 or 2 games in a world cup of 31 matches.

[Dave T]

7 minutes ago, 17 stone giant said:

I didn't say they didn't count. I was just trying to put a bit of context to the stats. They weren't 1 game out of a 3 game series. They were 1 or 2 games in a world cup of 31 matches.

That isn't a caveat tgat needs to be brought in. We rarely play 3 game series during the period mentioned. 

But anyway, England are playing. Not RL obviously!

[17 stone giant]

46 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I think the answer to this one is quite clear. They on y ever stage marquee games in London, and they don't have the confidence to sell these games in London. 

Many here are disagreeing with that approach. You're welcome to disagree, but when supporting the RFL it is important to remember this is an organisation that has staged absolutely horrendous international events at the likes of Leigh, Wire, Salford, Hudds and a disastrous World Cup. 

Their decision to retract from the 2013 progression World Cup to deliver a Northern WC in 2021 was an absolute failure. But they are taking the same approach here. 

It would appear many fans have more confidence in RL than the RFL do. 

It's not about me agreeing or disagreeing with the approach. I can sit here and come up with my perfect set of annual fixtures and where they should be played, but I'm not the one who will be out of pocket if my approach and confidence in my choices, goes wrong.

The RFL have that responsibility and I feel that I need to give them the respect of knowing at least something about the market they're operating in.

As I keep saying, I'd like for the RFL to be asked to explain their thinking. If nothing else, it might lead to an opportunity to survey the fans and the response can then be "Go for it. Take a game to London every year. Be brave."

Of course, if it then still goes wrong, it will be the RFL having to pick up the pieces, not all of us on this forum.

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

48 minutes ago, 17 stone giant said:

The RFL have that responsibility and I feel that I need to give them the respect of knowing at least something about the market they're operating in.

I feel that they have very limited understanding of the market that they're operating in, and also they don't appear to have any confidence in their own sport, as evidenced by the venue selection and ticketing strategy for the events that they run. I don't know what the state of the RFL's coffers looks like at the moment, but it feels like they really are on the breadline, and have zero flexibility to speculate to accumulate with these international events. So as a consequence, everything appears to be the safe, cheap option (venues, ticketing, scheduling of multiple games on the same day, pre-match entertainment or lack of). There doesn't appear to be any evidence of any sort of strategy whatsoever to grow this element of their business. This really depresses me, as international RL is what got me hooked on the sport, and I believe it's the best tool for the game to reach a wider audience, but the RFL's approach to it seems to be one step up from not bothering.

[Dave T]

21 minutes ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

I feel that they have very limited understanding of the market that they're operating in, and also they don't appear to have any confidence in their own sport, as evidenced by the venue selection and ticketing strategy for the events that they run. I don't know what the state of the RFL's coffers looks like at the moment, but it feels like they really are on the breadline, and have zero flexibility to speculate to accumulate with these international events. So as a consequence, everything appears to be the safe, cheap option (venues, ticketing, scheduling of multiple games on the same day, pre-match entertainment or lack of). There doesn't appear to be any evidence of any sort of strategy whatsoever to grow this element of their business. This really depresses me, as international RL is what got me hooked on the sport, and I believe it's the best tool for the game to reach a wider audience, but the RFL's approach to it seems to be one step up from not bothering.

I have to disagree with the word safe, but I think you're spot on with the word cheap. Their decisions are delivering losses. 

[Damien]

25 minutes ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

I feel that they have very limited understanding of the market that they're operating in, and also they don't appear to have any confidence in their own sport, as evidenced by the venue selection and ticketing strategy for the events that they run. I don't know what the state of the RFL's coffers looks like at the moment, but it feels like they really are on the breadline, and have zero flexibility to speculate to accumulate with these international events. So as a consequence, everything appears to be the safe, cheap option (venues, ticketing, scheduling of multiple games on the same day, pre-match entertainment or lack of). There doesn't appear to be any evidence of any sort of strategy whatsoever to grow this element of their business. This really depresses me, as international RL is what got me hooked on the sport, and I believe it's the best tool for the game to reach a wider audience, but the RFL's approach to it seems to be one step up from not bothering.

Pretty much spot on.

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

49 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I have to disagree with the word safe, but I think you're spot on with the word cheap. Their decisions are delivering losses. 

To clarify - what they perceive to be 'safe', as opposed to what I would deem safe.

[Hopie]

I was surprised one of the games was booked at Wigan, I thought the RFL were only using the Rugby League owned grounds for their events like semi finals and internationals, that would also explain why London doesn't make the list, need to rent a stadium there where money leaves the game. I'd speculate that they may get mates rates or better payment plans with the stadium companies they know best too.

[Sports Prophet]

There is a lot I agree with @17 stone giant about in his comments and definitely think @RugbyLeagueGeek’s assessment of the RFL financial position is spot on. I doubt the RFL can afford to host one of two international matches in London and are taking the financially “safe” option.

Personally, I am not convinced a second tier nation like Samoa, outside a World Cup semi final, is a draw for the non-heartland audience. The only real evidence we hold about fan interest in watching England play second tier nations in a non-tournament environment is Tonga last year and even those who are rusted on supporters of RL couldn’t get off their erse’s to go watch those matches live in any compelling numbers.

With so much finger pointing going on here, why are the hundreds of thousands of RL fans of the heartlands being spared for not turning up to the rare number of international fixtures being organised?

[gingerjon]

49 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

There is a lot I agree with @17 stone giant about in his comments and definitely think @RugbyLeagueGeek’s assessment of the RFL financial position is spot on. I doubt the RFL can afford to host one of two international matches in London and are taking the financially “safe” option.

Personally, I am not convinced a second tier nation like Samoa, outside a World Cup semi final, is a draw for the non-heartland audience. The only real evidence we hold about fan interest in watching England play second tier nations in a non-tournament environment is Tonga last year and even those who are rusted on supporters of RL couldn’t get off their erse’s to go watch those matches live in any compelling numbers.

With so much finger pointing going on here, why are the hundreds of thousands of RL fans of the heartlands being spared for not turning up to the rare number of international fixtures being organised?

They're not being spared. They're covered by the comment that they are in the only area of the country over saturated with RL. Regular weekly games plus Magic and the Grand Final - and now every home England game.

[Mojo]

11 hours ago, John bird said:

Hopefully Samoan born RTS will be second on the plane after fa’alogo.

10 samoans are in Origin 2 now. If they all commit this series could be special

[Sports Prophet]

13 hours ago, gingerjon said:

They're not being spared. They're covered by the comment that they are in the only area of the country over saturated with RL. Regular weekly games plus Magic and the Grand Final - and now every home England game.

They are not over saturated with England international fixtures though, so I’m not sure the point you are making is relevant.

What no-one on this forum knows is the return on investment for a match in London and the number of fans required to attend to make it profitable. If the RFL can “safely” earn good pay day from two tests in the North against a second tier opponent, then I think that’s ok. For now I am satisfied London is saved for blue chip events like CC Finals, World Cups and tours from tier 1 NZ and Aus.

Edited June 17, 2024 by Sports Prophet

[John bird]

16 minutes ago, Mojo said:

10 samoans are in Origin 2 now. If they all commit this series could be special

Sadly that’s a big if mate.

if the kangaroos come calling then I can see a few of the Samoans choosing to play in the pacific tournament rather than travel all the way to northern England to play in the cold, wind and rain.

[gingerjon]

Just now, Sports Prophet said:

They are not over saturated with England international fixtures though, so I’m not sure the point you are making is relevant.

Ah, a little distraction. A gentle moving of the detail.

They are the only area of the country over saturated with top level RL - and, increasingly, any RL at all.

And, as when club games are not on season tickets, we see the same pick and choose approach when England internationals roll round.

We have decades of evidence that internationals outside the M62 corridor are the best driver of engagement and we have decent enough evidence that crowds are higher away from the M62 corridor too.

The result of years now of M62-only tests is fewer internationals with less visibility played before smaller crowds.

What's the definition of madness?

[Archie Gordon]

4 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

... If the RFL can “safely” earn good pay day from two tests in the North against a second tier opponent, then I think that’s ok. For now I am satisfied London is saved for blue chip events like CC Finals, World Cups and tours from tier 1 NZ and Aus.

You have causality the wrong way around IMO. Tonga and Samoa are second tier *because* they are sent to play in SL grounds along the M62. The best way of keeping them second tier is to carry on like this.

NZ used to be second tier in precisely the same way - then they got a first test at Wembley and drew 39k. Then 67k at Wembley, 44k at the London Stadium.

 

[Dave T]

2 hours ago, Sports Prophet said:

There is a lot I agree with @17 stone giant about in his comments and definitely think @RugbyLeagueGeek’s assessment of the RFL financial position is spot on. I doubt the RFL can afford to host one of two international matches in London and are taking the financially “safe” option.

Personally, I am not convinced a second tier nation like Samoa, outside a World Cup semi final, is a draw for the non-heartland audience. The only real evidence we hold about fan interest in watching England play second tier nations in a non-tournament environment is Tonga last year and even those who are rusted on supporters of RL couldn’t get off their erse’s to go watch those matches live in any compelling numbers.

With so much finger pointing going on here, why are the hundreds of thousands of RL fans of the heartlands being spared for not turning up to the rare number of international fixtures being organised?

London will generally bring in a larger crowd too tho, so a decent organisation should be able to make it work financially. 

We know what the North will bring really, we saw it in the World Cup and the Tonga series and it was pretty rubbish. 

It hardly feels like too much of a gamble to play in London. The only conclusion we come to is that we get mates rates on Leeds and Wigan and that can't be our over-riding factor. 

[Dave T]

10 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

You have causality the wrong way around IMO. Tonga and Samoa are second tier *because* they are sent to play in SL grounds along the M62. The best way of keeping them second tier is to carry on like this.

NZ used to be second tier in precisely the same way - then they got a first test at Wembley and drew 39k. Then 67k at Wembley, 44k at the London Stadium.

 

That's part of the story (an important part), but the bigger reason the Kiwis did well in London is because we staged regular international tournaments in the country, including games in London. The numbers weren't as impressive and instant as you present, it took sustained effort. 

The history of the Kiwis in London goes like this:

1993 - Wembley 36k

1998 - Watford 13k

2004 - QPR v Aus 17k

2005 - QPR 16k

2009 - Stoop v Aus 13k

2011 - Wembley double header 42k

2013 - Wembley semi double header 67k

2015 - Olympic St 44k

The Kiwis also played in Cardiff, an England A game in London, a 4N game in Coventry. 

The impact of the regular frequency of the Nations tournaments plus World Cups, with bolder scheduling can't be understated imo. Here we are heading back to bare minimum at SL grounds. We are undoing 20 years of development. 

[Archie Gordon]

6 minutes ago, Dave T said:

That's part of the story (an important part), but the bigger reason the Kiwis did well in London is because we staged regular international tournaments in the country, including games in London. The numbers weren't as impressive and instant as you present, it took sustained effort. 

The history of the Kiwis in London goes like this:

1993 - Wembley 36k

1998 - Watford 13k

2004 - QPR v Aus 17k

2005 - QPR 16k

2009 - Stoop v Aus 13k

2011 - Wembley double header 42k

2013 - Wembley semi double header 67k

2015 - Olympic St 44k

The Kiwis also played in Cardiff, an England A game in London, a 4N game in Coventry. 

The impact of the regular frequency of the Nations tournaments plus World Cups, with bolder scheduling can't be understated imo. Here we are heading back to bare minimum at SL grounds. We are undoing 20 years of development. 

That kinda backs up what I am saying. Look at Watford/QPR vs Wembley/London Stadium. Just like Northern fans, Southern fans can see where an effort is made.

And some of those are NZ vs Aus - that's not really fair.

Edited June 17, 2024 by Archie Gordon

[Dave T]

34 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

They are not over saturated with England international fixtures though, so I’m not sure the point you are making is relevant.

What no-one on this forum knows is the return on investment for a match in London and the required number of fans required to attend to make it profitable. If the RFL can “safely” earn good pay day from two tests in the North against a second tier opponent, then I think that’s ok. For now I am satisfied London is saved for blue chip events like CC Finals, World Cups and tours from tier 1 NZ and Aus.

The problem with that approach is that we will basically end up with a London test every blue moon. 

We built up a semi-regular amount of Tests there and we were seeing the results, all crowds way in excess of heartlands. 

I take the point that Samoa are less attractive than the Kiwis and Aussies, but we shouldn't ignore the fact that only 18m ago we played Samoa there with 40k on - billing this as a rematch and targeting those fans that came along feels like a natural step. Of course that 40k may have been enticed by England in the WC - but they saw that Samoa were excellent and knocked us out - the narrative is written! 

[Mojo]

59 minutes ago, John bird said:

Sadly that’s a big if mate.

if the kangaroos come calling then I can see a few of the Samoans choosing to play in the pacific tournament rather than travel all the way to northern England to play in the cold, wind and rain.

8 Samoans will definitely commit, the only 2 that would turn out for the kangaroos are Haas and Hammer. Haas has been around the panthers boys throughout the origin camp so hopefully they can convince him to play for samoa but I don't see it happening 

[Dave T]

24 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

That kinda backs up what I am saying. Look at Watford/QPR vs Wembley/London Stadium. Just like Northern fans, Southern fans can see where an effort is made.

And some of those are NZ vs Aus - that's not really fair.

I wasn't disagreeing mate, adding more context. But it wasn't a case of just stage a game in London and they flock (GB at QPR for example was rubbish) - but the regularity is key, and even though some of those internationals were NZ v Aus in London, they were bringing high quality international RL to the capital on a regular basis. 

IIRC we played two England A games down there - one versus the Kiwis and one versus the Aussies - could you imagine that happening now? Let's be honest, they'd be at Wire or Leigh, whichever was cheapest. 

It does rather feel like Wimbledon is set up for a decent mid-tier international, surely we have a decent relationship with them and could pack that out against France for example even if we've lost confidence around big events. 

[Damien]

1 hour ago, Archie Gordon said:

You have causality the wrong way around IMO. Tonga and Samoa are second tier *because* they are sent to play in SL grounds along the M62. The best way of keeping them second tier is to carry on like this.

NZ used to be second tier in precisely the same way - then they got a first test at Wembley and drew 39k. Then 67k at Wembley, 44k at the London Stadium.

Great points and you are entirely correct. If you play internationals at bog standard SL grounds in places that people aren't particularly fussed on going to then it should be no surprise when fans respond in kind. If the governing body can't treat internationals with the prestige and reverence they deserve then it should be no shock when no one else does either.

We know this and it was discussed often enough last year once the Tonga schedule was announced last year. Ditto when we have had matches at Leigh, Warrington and Salford too.

[Sports Prophet]

1 hour ago, Archie Gordon said:

You have causality the wrong way around IMO. Tonga and Samoa are second tier *because* they are sent to play in SL grounds along the M62. The best way of keeping them second tier is to carry on like this.

NZ used to be second tier in precisely the same way - then they got a first test at Wembley and drew 39k. Then 67k at Wembley, 44k at the London Stadium.

 

I think there is an element of truth to that Archie. Despite the obviously passionate individuals on this forum however, I don’t necessarily believe that an RL England v Samoa series outside a major tournament is a draw card that will have the masses turning up, while NZ have always been top shelf. 

[Damien]

1 minute ago, Sports Prophet said:

I think there is an element of truth to that Archie. Despite the obviously passionate individuals on this forum however, I don’t necessarily believe that an RL England v Samoa series outside a major tournament is a draw card that will have the masses turning up, while NZ have always been top shelf. 

New Zealand haven't always been top shelf. They were very much 2nd tier compared to the Aussies and still would be in a lot of people's eyes.