England vs Samoa Series

[Dunbar]

6 minutes ago, Dave T said:

This conversation is taking quite a lot of posts.

And we all know we haven't played these teams in London. 

The evidence that was referred to was that on a like-for-like basis England games pretty much always outperform heartland games. 

It's a reasonable view to think that there could be a flip based on it not being Aus/NZ. 

So, just to be clear, we are having a conversation on this with several posts but I am the one making a big thing of it?

[Dave T]

3 minutes ago, 17 stone giant said:

Oh, I see.

So, if we look at the top 10 teams instead, would all of these be credible opponents?:

Australia 1st, New Zealand 2nd, Samoa 4th, Tonga 5th, Papa New Guinea 6th, Fiji 7th, Lebanon 9th, Cook Islands 10th.

Could we invite, say, Lebanon and Cook Islands over for a summer Tri-nations to be held in London?

The NRL control 9 of the top 10. There will be no summer tests. 

[Dave T]

Just now, Dunbar said:

So, just to be clear, we are having a conversation on this with several posts but I am the one making a big thing of it?

If you like. 

Happy to leave it. 

[Damien]

2 minutes ago, 17 stone giant said:

Oh, I see.

So, if we look at the top 10 teams instead, would all of these be credible opponents?:

Australia 1st, New Zealand 2nd, Samoa 4th, Tonga 5th, Papa New Guinea 6th, Fiji 7th, Lebanon 9th, Cook Islands 10th.

Could we invite, say, Lebanon and Cook Islands over for a summer Tri-nations to be held in London?

A summer international against any of those teams full of NRL players just isn't going to happen, never mind a Tri-Nations.

To answer your question though, if it could I personally wouldn't consider past 7th in that list.

[Leyther_Matt]

22 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I may be mis-remembering, I thought it was a World Cup warmup, but was that Italy? 

Italy was pre-RLWC2013, pre-RLWC2021 was against Fiji. Both at Salford. 

[Sports Prophet]

10 hours ago, Dave T said:

The comparisons that I've provided have been for games against the same teams. They haven't been perfectly like for like - as you say, World Cups have the potential to be more credible. 

But I have broken down the comparisons that show within the same series London has outperformed the Northern games almost every time. 

The QPR match being the exception - and the Watford one was poor too if we count that as London. 

The evidence is that stage a game in Wigan and Leeds and London and the London one will perform best. It's impossible to argue against that tbh. 

I don't think anyone is looking at it like you've presented it. 

I am definitely looking at it the way @Dunbar has presented it. I have made the same points earlier in this very thread.

 

[Sports Prophet]

3 hours ago, 17 stone giant said:

…we have quite a few local-ish European teams among the top 25 in the world:

France 8th, Serbia 11th, Netherlands 12th, Italy 13th, Malta 14th, Greece 15th, Ireland 16th, Wales 17th, Scotland 19th, Ukraine 20th, Czechia 21st, and Germany 22nd.

What's stopping us playing some of those teams in London in 2025?

That is a great question…

 

3 hours ago, Damien said:

…Wales similarly as the only other nation that plays RL to a decent standard but I dont think they'd be a sell in London to make it worthwhile.

… I would have thought with all the talk on this thread of London’s successful history in hosting internationals, that a home nations test match in the capital between the top two GB nations would be just as easy to sell, if not easier, than a test match with a backwater Pacific Island nation.

We have posters presenting London’s historic test match crowds as evidence to support the theory that a test match against Samoa in London would sell well. Surely that same theory applies to a test match against Wales.

Not that I’m advocating an England v Wales test match in London.

Edited June 21, 2024 by Sports Prophet

[Dave T]

19 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

I am definitely looking at it the way @Dunbar has presented it. I have made the same points earlier in this very thread.

 

The evidence we have is that England RL games do better in London when we compare like for like. I. E. Eng v Aus in London always does better than Eng v Aus in the heartland. 

You are going with the theory that this is a phenomenon that only works for Aus/NZ, despite there being zero evidence that this is the case. 

So in fact, you are dismissing what evidence there is to create a hypothesis that is based on zero evidence. 

You can't claim this is about evidence and then take that approach in the same breath. 

[Dave T]

13 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

That is a great question…

 

… I would have thought with all the talk on this thread of London’s successful history in hosting internationals, that a home nations test match in the capital between the top two GB nations would be just as easy to sell, if not easier, than a test match with a backwater Pacific Island nation.

We have posters presenting London’s historic test match crowds as evidence to support the theory that a test match against Samoa in London would sell well. Surely that same theory applies to a test match against Wales.

Not that I’m advocating an England v Wales test match in London.

That isn't what is being presented. 

What is being presented is that an England game in London would get more than the same game played in the heartland - that is quite different to what you describe above. 

England v Wales in the heartland may get 5k at Wire or Salford or similar. It'd likely do better in London, but still be a waste of time. 

The claim isn't that you can stage any event in London and it'll do well. 

[Damien]

25 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

That is a great question…

 

… I would have thought with all the talk on this thread of London’s successful history in hosting internationals, that a home nations test match in the capital between the top two GB nations would be just as easy to sell, if not easier, than a test match with a backwater Pacific Island nation.

We have posters presenting London’s historic test match crowds as evidence to support the theory that a test match against Samoa in London would sell well. Surely that same theory applies to a test match against Wales.

Not that I’m advocating an England v Wales test match in London.

You seem to be completely ignoring the context.

I have no doubt that England v Wales would draw considerably more in London than the heartlands. I dread to think what such a match would get there. Its hardly going to get a huge crowd to justify trying to take it to even a middling London venue though. People in the UK aren't daft, they know the story with RL in Wales and its place. I don't really think that's the case with Samoa who are a much more exciting and exotic proposition, especially when a crowd of 40k saw them beat England less than 2 years ago.

Edited June 21, 2024 by Damien

[17 stone giant]

14 minutes ago, Dave T said:

That isn't what is being presented. 

Not from you, perhaps, but those are the sentiments that come across from certain other posters on here.

[Dave T]

There are three key pieces of evidence that leads me to believe that a Samoa test could do better in London than heartlands:

1. All previous like for like comparisons show that London out performs heartlands. 

2. The 2021 WC showed that non-heartland fans are not deterred by Samoa as a team, with crowds of 44k and 40k, despite awful organisation, pricing etc. 

3. Existing RL grounds often Under-perform crowd-wise, particularly for 2nd tier teams (Tonga), although Wigan and Leeds are the best of the bunch I'd add. 

So, whilst it may be presented we don't have a perfect like for like comparison, that's different to having no evidence that suggests success. 

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, 17 stone giant said:

Not from you, perhaps, but those are the sentiments that come across from certain other posters on here.

It's being presented that London would be likely to outperform heartland. That isn't a guarantee of success in London, as the bar is low. Even lower for Wales. 

[Sports Prophet]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

The evidence we have is that England RL games do better in London when we compare like for like. I. E. Eng v Aus in London always does better than Eng v Aus in the heartland. 

You are going with the theory that this is a phenomenon that only works for Aus/NZ, despite there being zero evidence that this is the case. 

So in fact, you are dismissing what evidence there is to create a hypothesis that is based on zero evidence. 

You can't claim this is about evidence and then take that approach in the same breath. 

Aus and NZ both hold a “rugby” prestige which Samoa does not. The evidence you have presented does not suitably fit this scenario.

Using the evidence the way you are is similar (not identical) to saying “three of the four biggest crowds we have seen in State Of Origin have been at the MCG which suggests appetite for representative RL in Australia is biggest at the MCG and that is where the Kangaroos should play the first of a two test series against Ireland”.

[17 stone giant]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

There are three key pieces of evidence that leads me to believe that a Samoa test could do better in London than heartlands:

But if you factor in - as others on here have commented upon - that maybe the RFL are getting a better price from using grounds more commonly associated with RL, rather than paying for a London stadium, can we be sure that any higher crowd in London would actually equate to more money for the RFL?

I appreciate and agree that money isn't always the only consideration - spreading the game, attracting new fans always has a value, even if it's not entirely clear what that value is right away - but at the same time, this probably isn't a sport that can afford to take too many risks.

It would be great to have the luxury of playing in London and if it didn't quite pay off on one occasion, it wouldn't matter. But I'm not sure that the RFL can do that right now.

[Damien]

2 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

Aus and NZ both hold a “rugby” prestige which Samoa does not. The evidence you have presented does not suitably fit this scenario.

Using the evidence the way you are is similar (not identical) to saying “three of the four biggest crowds we have seen in State Of Origin have been at the MCG which suggests appetite for representative RL in Australia is biggest at the MCG and that is where the Kangaroos should play the first of a two test series against Ireland”.

Have Australia had a 40k crowd against Ireland at the MCG?

[17 stone giant]

And just to pick up on what I said above, we don't always have to see everything that the RFL do in a negative way. Maybe their thought process was, there's only going to be two England home games this year, so maybe we should play them the heartlands so that fans there can see their national team play.

Who knows, maybe there would have been people on here complaining if one of the two games was in London. Perhaps if it was Wigan and London, someone in Hull might complain that there's nothing nearer to them.

It's so easy for people - as I'm reading from certain Londoners on here - to play the "oh, they don't care about me (namely Londoners/SE fans)" card, but someone always has to miss out. It doesn't mean that you're not respected or valued, just because you haven't got what you wanted on this occasion.

[Sports Prophet]

40 minutes ago, Dave T said:

That isn't what is being presented. 

What is being presented is that an England game in London would get more than the same game played in the heartland - that is quite different to what you describe above. 

England v Wales in the heartland may get 5k at Wire or Salford or similar. It'd likely do better in London, but still be a waste of time. 

The claim isn't that you can stage any event in London and it'll do well. 

 

32 minutes ago, Damien said:

You seem to be completely ignoring the context.

I have no doubt that England v Wales would draw considerably more in London than the heartlands. I dread to think what such a match would get there. Its hardly going to get a huge crowd to justify trying to take it to even a middling London venue though. People in the UK aren't daft, they know the story with RL in Wales and its place. I don't really think that's the case with Samoa who are a much more exciting and exotic proposition, especially when a crowd of 40k saw them beat England less than 2 years ago.

For what it is worth, marketed properly, with enough lead in time, I think a 2024 international against Samoa in London could have outperformed attendance figures in Wigan and Leeds.

In saying that, marketed properly and with enough lead in time, I think 2024 internationals against Samoa at any of Etihad, Old Trafford, Elland Rd, St James or Anfield would outperform the attendance of a London test match.

And finally, marketed the way it will be and with the lead in time available, I think the crowds in Wigan and Headingley will outperform what could be achieved in London.

Edited June 21, 2024 by Sports Prophet

[Damien]

Just now, 17 stone giant said:

And just to pick up on what I said above, we don't always have to see everything that the RFL do in a negative way. Maybe their thought process was, there's only going to be two England home games this year, so maybe we should play them the heartlands so that fans there can see their national team play.

Who knows, maybe there would have been people on here complaining if one of the two games was in London. Perhaps if it was Wigan and London, someone in Hull might complain that there's nothing nearer to them.

It's so easy for people - as I'm reading from certain Londoners on here - to play the "oh, they don't care about me (namely Londoners/SE fans)" card, but someone always has to miss out. It doesn't mean that you're not respected or valued, just because you haven't got what you wanted on this occasion.

The heartlands got 3 tests v Tonga last year. It also had a plethora of games the year before in the World Cup. Most, if not all, were poorly attended. Its not like heartland fans haven't been well catered for and they certainly have been compared to the rest of the country.

Leeds to Wigan is 60 odd miles, it's not like just having one venue in the heartlands is stopping anyone attending if they want to.

[Dave T]

18 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

 

For what it is worth, marketed properly, with enough lead in time, I think a 2024 international against Samoa in London could have outperformed attendance figures in Wigan and Leeds.

In saying that, marketed properly and with enough lead in time, I think 2024 internationals against Samoa at any of Etihad, Old Trafford, Elland Rd, St James or Anfield would outperform the attendance of a London test match.

And finally, marketed the way it will be and with the lead in time available, I think the crowds in Wigan and Headingley will outperform what could be achieved in London.

Your middle para would be interesting to see play out. Generally, London has still outperformed these grounds, but it's been far closer and I think marquee grounds in tge Heartlands could do well. 

I don't agree on your third para, but we've both presented our view so happy to disagree. A shame we possibly will never find out who was right! 

[Dave T]

28 minutes ago, 17 stone giant said:

But if you factor in - as others on here have commented upon - that maybe the RFL are getting a better price from using grounds more commonly associated with RL, rather than paying for a London stadium, can we be sure that any higher crowd in London would actually equate to more money for the RFL?

I appreciate and agree that money isn't always the only consideration - spreading the game, attracting new fans always has a value, even if it's not entirely clear what that value is right away - but at the same time, this probably isn't a sport that can afford to take too many risks.

It would be great to have the luxury of playing in London and if it didn't quite pay off on one occasion, it wouldn't matter. But I'm not sure that the RFL can do that right now.

That's a different conversation than I'm involved in. None of us know the financial so are guessing. But see my earlier post that touches on this in terms of how we measure success, it is wider than £. 

If Derek Beaumont offered to pay for LSV to be used and the marketing costs, meaning a decent commercial deal for tge RFL, would that 12k at Leigh be better than a potential 24k in Wigan? 

[Dave T]

32 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

Aus and NZ both hold a “rugby” prestige which Samoa does not. The evidence you have presented does not suitably fit this scenario.

Using the evidence the way you are is similar (not identical) to saying “three of the four biggest crowds we have seen in State Of Origin have been at the MCG which suggests appetite for representative RL in Australia is biggest at the MCG and that is where the Kangaroos should play the first of a two test series against Ireland”.

The selection of weak opposition is silly. 

I'm not the one advocating that. 

But we have chosen to play Samoa, getting the best of that is relevant. 

In fact, your point makes no sense, as it's nothing like my evidence of England games get big crowds in London so we should hold England games in London. 

[Damien]

7 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Your middle para would be interesting to see play out. Generally, London has still outperformed these grounds, but it's been far closer and I think marquee grounds in tge Heartlands could do well. 

I don't agree on your third para, but we've both presented our view so happy to disagree. A shame we possibly will never find out who was right! 

The thing is that 2nd paragraph is also what everyone that advocates a London match also says about the North. That it should be about big events and big stadiums in major cities. Its also much easier to sell those well if you don't saturate 3 matches in a 60 mile radius.

Its certainly not about playing them at bog standard SL grounds like last year, and many other games that we see.

Edited June 21, 2024 by Damien

[Dave T]

Just now, Damien said:

The thing is that 2nd paragraph is also what everyone that advocates a London match also says about the North. That it shoukd be about big events and big stadiums in major cities. Its also much easier to sell those well if you don't saturate 3 matches in a 60 mile radius.

Its certainly not about playing them at bog standard SL grounds like last year, and many other games that we see.

Yup. 

In reality there's a few tiers here. 

1. Low cost existing heartland grounds (Wire, Leigh, Saints). 

2. High quality existing heartland grounds Wigan, Hull, Hudds, Leeds? ) 

3. Marquee heartland (Etihad, Old Trafford, Elland Rd etc) 

4. Non-heartland marquee (Wembley, St James, Olympic St) 

We are consistently in tiers 1 and 2, we should really be pushing 3 and 4 at least once a series. 

[Damien]

22 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Yup. 

In reality there's a few tiers here. 

1. Low cost existing heartland grounds (Wire, Leigh, Saints). 

2. High quality existing heartland grounds Wigan, Hull, Hudds, Leeds? ) 

3. Marquee heartland (Etihad, Old Trafford, Elland Rd etc) 

4. Non-heartland marquee (Wembley, St James, Olympic St) 

We are consistently in tiers 1 and 2, we should really be pushing 3 and 4 at least once a series. 

Yeah, that's pretty much it in a nutshell.