England vs Samoa Series

[Dave T]

11 minutes 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. 

Samoa don't have to be the draw that the Aussies or Kiwis are. The big point is that this test played in London would very likely draw a bigger crowd than in Wigan or Leeds. 

We shouldn't ignore the fact that England games in London broadly speaking get almost double what they do in the North. 

[Dave T]

8 minutes ago, Damien said:

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.

The first time we took a Kiwi game to Wembley was in 1993. They were on tour over here and played in front of fewer than 5k vs Cas the week earlier. Tests 2 and 3 at Wigan and Leeds got 15 and 16k.

The opener at Wembley got 36k.

[Harry Stottle]

1 hour 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.

Quite rightly so, after all are the "Samoans" not born and bred Australians?

[Damien]

23 minutes ago, Dave T said:

The first time we took a Kiwi game to Wembley was in 1993. They were on tour over here and played in front of fewer than 5k vs Cas the week earlier. Tests 2 and 3 at Wigan and Leeds got 15 and 16k.

The opener at Wembley got 36k.

In 1989 we got 13k at Elland Road and 18k at Old Trafford, which was the start of us following the bigger stadium strategy with the Kiwis that we had stated in 1986 with the Aussies.

[Harry Stottle]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

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! 

So in your opinion what was the real overriding factor of the 40K 18 months ago, was it that it was Samoa England were playing, or the fact that it was the semi-final of the World Cup and irrespective of who the opposition were that fixture involving England would still have got that figure, probably even more so had it been Aus.

[MattSantos]

On 14/06/2024 at 23:42, 17 stone giant said:

What's different about this year?

If the powers that be aren't invested and ambitious then why should i?

Additionally, I have absolutely zero desire to visit Leeds and Wigan. In winter. Christ. My sporting funds will take me to Germany, France, London, Spain and perhaps Dublin if i can get myself sorted. All events that are known in advance so people can plan and in areas where people are interested in going. 

On 15/06/2024 at 07:12, Worzel said:

Your loss. It’s been a great season so far. 

It really isn't. Whilst i haven't watched a SL game, i watch the NRL and get my rugby fix there. See above for additional sporting experiences which are wonderful and actual experiences. Dave T's posts on the games actually being an event articulate it better than i can, but i have absolutely no fomo for an absolutely pointless 2 game series in small stadia.

[John bird]

1 hour ago, Mojo said:

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 

I hope you are right although I’m not a fan of players switching allegiances from tournament to tournament.

[Toby Chopra]

55 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Samoa don't have to be the draw that the Aussies or Kiwis are. The big point is that this test played in London would very likely draw a bigger crowd than in Wigan or Leeds. 

We shouldn't ignore the fact that England games in London broadly speaking get almost double what they do in the North. 

As you and others have rightly pointed out Dave the RFL have got themselves into a skintness trap where they perceive London internationals to be a risk they can't take, whereas another sport with a slightly better financial footing and a bit more institutional self-confidence would take a longer term view. 

Partly this lack of confidence is fuelled by the decreasing market knowledge, which only gets worse as we withdraw from the Southern market more broadly. Again, it's a chicken-and-egg situation, like the skintness. 

One factor I'd add is stadium choice, which I do think plays a big part in making London internationals a success. A major London stadium projects high level international sport, which attracts a crowd including union fans, many of whom who aren't as narrow minded as the blazers that run that game.

The problem is, Samoa or Tonga at, say, Charlton or Crystal Palace does not scream top international to many down here, nor does France at Brentford or Wimbledon. These might underperform.

Whereas playing at Spurs, Arsenal or London stadium adds a cachet. We should be able to look at getting 30-35k at one of those as a success to be built on, even if the financials are modest, but instead we view it as a risk and then retreat to a different type of modest.

If only there was a modern 40-50k stadium in London that could bridge that gap and, presumably if a bit cheaper to hire, encourage the RFL to be bold with it's choices. 

[Hopie]

It should also be pointed out that 40k+ at the Emirates whilst decent should have been better, when I arrived at the ground it wasn't obvious it was a match day and it was one of those familiar experiences where locals ask you what shirt are you wearing and are surprised there is a game on. Then inside the ground there was nothing but game to see, the admittedly high quality kind of game that drew in an obviously inexperienced rugby league audience, but not an event to draw in those on the fence about rugby.

Massively hamstrung by the short build up to this series but if the RFL had some kind of expert marketing organisation to help them, perhaps they could have replicated or even beaten that crowd at one of the North London stadia.

[Dave T]

45 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

So in your opinion what was the real overriding factor of the 40K 18 months ago, was it that it was Samoa England were playing, or the fact that it was the semi-final of the World Cup and irrespective of who the opposition were that fixture involving England would still have got that figure, probably even more so had it been Aus.

England playing in a World Cup semi was the main factor. Samoa won't have been a draw really, but clearly England are. 

Nobody is saying Samoa are the draw, the draw is England playing a top quality international game of rugby league - history has shown that is a draw in London. 

The last World Cup was pretty awful, but the fact that we could draw 40k at Arsenal when we were 'only' playing Samoa is a great example of the potential down there. 

[Toby Chopra]

2 hours 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.

Beyond the official designation, Samoa and Tonga are only second tier opponents if we project them like that. The RFL does that through it's stadium choices and will reap what it sows. You cant "save" London for matches that might come once in a blue moon and just assume fans will turn up. You have to nurture that audience and it will reward you.

The Challenge Cup doesn't do it, is not a blue chip event for the southern audience. As we discussed in the CC thread, it's seen as local affair that the southern audience no longer pays attention to, if it ever did. 

We've missed two chances now to build on the 2022 London international and now won't get a chance until 2027. By then, it'll just be even harder to connect with the audience than it is now.

[Dave T]

Just now, Hopie said:

It should also be pointed out that 40k+ at the Emirates whilst decent should have been better, when I arrived at the ground it wasn't obvious it was a match day and it was one of those familiar experiences where locals ask you what shirt are you wearing and are surprised there is a game on. Then inside the ground there was nothing but game to see, the admittedly high quality kind of game that drew in an obviously inexperienced rugby league audience, but not an event to draw in those on the fence about rugby.

Massively hamstrung by the short build up to this series but if the RFL had some kind of expert marketing organisation to help them, perhaps they could have replicated or even beaten that crowd at one of the North London stadia.

It was a pretty depressing event, and not just because of the result! 

[Dave T]

16 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

As you and others have rightly pointed out Dave the RFL have got themselves into a skintness trap where they perceive London internationals to be a risk they can't take, whereas another sport with a slightly better financial footing and a bit more institutional self-confidence would take a longer term view. 

Partly this lack of confidence is fuelled by the decreasing market knowledge, which only gets worse as we withdraw from the Southern market more broadly. Again, it's a chicken-and-egg situation, like the skintness. 

One factor I'd add is stadium choice, which I do think plays a big part in making London internationals a success. A major London stadium projects high level international sport, which attracts a crowd including union fans, many of whom who aren't as narrow minded as the blazers that run that game.

The problem is, Samoa or Tonga at, say, Charlton or Crystal Palace does not scream top international to many down here, nor does France at Brentford or Wimbledon. These might underperform.

Whereas playing at Spurs, Arsenal or London stadium adds a cachet. We should be able to look at getting 30-35k at one of those as a success to be built on, even if the financials are modest, but instead we view it as a risk and then retreat to a different type of modest.

If only there was a modern 40-50k stadium in London that could bridge that gap and, presumably if a bit cheaper to hire, encourage the RFL to be bold with it's choices. 

Stadium choice is always a challenge, and that goes for all over the country. 

I've been pretty vocal about my disliking of Wembley, but what it does have is a nice modular design, meaning you can in effect easily use it as a 35k ground using only the lower tier. 

[Click]

2 hours 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. 

I hate that people keep mentioning Samoa not being a "draw" - England playing in London is the draw, it doesn't really matter who they are playing again, RL fans in London want to watch our international team play a game ffs.

[Mojo]

1 hour ago, John bird said:

I hope you are right although I’m not a fan of players switching allegiances from tournament to tournament.

8 of those players played for samoa last season. The samoan coach has come out and said he'll only choose players committed to the world cup and not for one year.

That's good for the game and Samoa's team chemistry towards the world cup.

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

3 hours 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. 

From what I can make out, for the wider public, it's England that seems to be the draw card - less so their opponents. In the heartlands, it seems to be the opposition that is the draw card.

[gingerjon]

29 minutes ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

From what I can make out, for the wider public, it's England that seems to be the draw card - less so their opponents. In the heartlands, it seems to be the opposition that is the draw card.

That's a really good way of differentiating it.

[Anita Bath]

3 hours ago, Dave T said:

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! 

Not disagreeing with the sentiment but a hell of a lot of those 40,000 tickets were sold before Samoa qualified for the semi final. It was the event not the participant that was the draw.

[Sports Prophet]

3 hours ago, Damien said:

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.

I disagree on the top shelf matter. Doesn’t mean that Australia were not necessarily a bigger draw though.

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Anita Bath said:

Not disagreeing with the sentiment but a hell of a lot of those 40,000 tickets were sold before Samoa qualified for the semi final. It was the event not the participant that was the draw.

England are the draw. 

History shows us the uplift an attractive test in London brings. 

It doesn't have to be 40k, but Wigan and Leeds are likely to get 13-20k - I believe London would easily beat those. 

[Sports Prophet]

3 hours ago, Dave T said:

Samoa don't have to be the draw that the Aussies or Kiwis are. The big point is that this test played in London would very likely draw a bigger crowd than in Wigan or Leeds. 

We shouldn't ignore the fact that England games in London broadly speaking get almost double what they do in the North. 

England games in London which get almost double what they do in the North broadly speaking are on a stage much bigger than the first, second or third test against a 2nd tier opponent.

Those fixtures are not like for like. Even if they do get double, are they necessarily as profitable?

[Sports Prophet]

40 minutes ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

From what I can make out, for the wider public, it's England that seems to be the draw card - less so their opponents. In the heartlands, it seems to be the opposition that is the draw card.

Again, I would suggest that we do not have evidence to conclude that England is necessarily the draw card more so than the occassion England is playing in.

[Guest]

Play a game at Fulham or The Stoop, I'd love that, great places to be around / drink, good sized, modern stadia, good access.  Loads of Aussies / rah rahs to market it to nearby.

I understand why the RFL are too hopelessly incapable of making it happen though.

[Click]

6 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

Again, I would suggest that we do not have evidence to conclude that England is necessarily the draw card more so than the occassion England is playing in.

You don't think having the national team play in London is a draw? 

Clearly the North don't particularly care for them, but London certainly wants to watch a game.

[Worzel]

2 hours ago, MattSantos said:

If the powers that be aren't invested and ambitious then why should i?

Additionally, I have absolutely zero desire to visit Leeds and Wigan. In winter. Christ. My sporting funds will take me to Germany, France, London, Spain and perhaps Dublin if i can get myself sorted. All events that are known in advance so people can plan and in areas where people are interested in going. 

It really isn't. Whilst i haven't watched a SL game, i watch the NRL and get my rugby fix there. See above for additional sporting experiences which are wonderful and actual experiences. Dave T's posts on the games actually being an event articulate it better than i can, but i have absolutely no fomo for an absolutely pointless 2 game series in small stadia.

I'm delighted for you. I do other things too. Life's full of choices and you're free to make yours. But if you no longer like watching British rugby league though, this isn't an airport, there's no need for departure announcements.

You preferring to do other things at the moment is not the same thing as our sport becoming a poor entertainment experience. I, and many thousands of others, are very much enjoying it at the moment thanks very much.