Jump to content

2024 attendance thread

N2022

By N2022
in The General Rugby League Forum

 Share

Recommended Posts

Tommygilf

Tommygilf

Posted
Posted
  On 27/05/2024 at 08:22, Dave T said:

That doesn't work. We'd find ourselves giving more points for a small club going from 3k to 3.6k than a club going from 10k to 11k.

Expand  

Exactly, Midlands Hurricanes would get a huge % attendance increase from going from 100 to 300 but ultimately would only have 300 people watching.

  • Like 1

  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

PREPOSTEROUS
PREPOSTEROUS

7200+ at Belle Vue on Friday. 

Leyther_Matt
Leyther_Matt

It’s higher than Halifax’s average if memory serves me right, and an 1,800 all-pay gate obviously turns over much more than a 1,500 gate with season tickets. If that’s grounds for it being a waste of

langpark
langpark

2,041 today for Oldham vs Rochdale.  And yesterday at the same venue, roughly the same for Rochdale Mayfield vs Waterhead.    

Posted Images

Dave T

Dave T

Posted
Posted (edited)

I do think people are missing the point of what the catchment point is for. It is to encourage playing in bigger markets. We are big fish in small ponds. We can only grow so big in those small ponds. 

Like a few of the things IMG have done here, it has been implemented clumsily, but the principle of it is fine. 

Original SL hand picked Paris and London, weve also manually added Gateshead, Catalans and South Wales teams, original licensing had a point for not being near another club, and grading here has a point for large catchment. There is no ambiguity here about what people want, and that has been consistent for the last 30 years. 

But we do need to have better standards, when London don't get top marks for this area you know the design is broken. 

Edited by Dave T
  • Like 2
Taffy Tiger

Taffy Tiger

Posted
Posted
  On 25/05/2024 at 16:47, redjonn said:

You have to be able to differentiate for increased levels of fans attending taking account of the population catchment.  Otherwise some clubs like Leeds given existing attendance will not need to make as much effort as a Leigh.   Currently Leigh are making lots of effort to attract increased attendance yet get little reward for that, Leeds can make none and will be rewarded more.

well come up with a formula for a Base Level of attendance for each club, can be simple as average attendance over a agreed period or come up with a more complex one, whatever.   Then points are awarded for percentage amounts of increased support achieved.   In addition if the attendance goes backwards points are deducted.

Expand  

Hi redjohn , would agree to a certain extent . There does have to be some reward though for teams achieveing the larger crowds , but perhaps your idea could be run in conjunction with this .

  • Like 1
dboy

dboy

Posted
Posted
  On 27/05/2024 at 08:06, Chrispmartha said:

I think you’re missing the point.

the fact that Leeds has 800k people living in it is why they score highly.

you are seeing it as a negative where IMG are seeing it as a bigger market to sell to.

Having said that i do think clubs should be rewarded for percentage increases in crowds somehow.

Expand  

No, I'm not missing the point - I understand what you say fully.

It's a nonsense metric.

The catchment score should be scrapped.

  • Like 1
dboy

dboy

Posted
Posted
  On 27/05/2024 at 08:41, Tommygilf said:

Exactly, Midlands Hurricanes would get a huge % attendance increase from going from 100 to 300 but ultimately would only have 300 people watching.

Expand  

Exactly.

Catchment points are inherently flawed in any guise.

Scrap them.

Tommygilf

Tommygilf

Posted
Posted
  On 27/05/2024 at 15:22, dboy said:

Exactly.

Catchment points are inherently flawed in any guise.

Scrap them.

Expand  

They aren't inherently flawed. They reward clubs being based in big metropolitan areas with big councils to support them (and them alone).

  • Like 1
redjonn

redjonn

Posted
Posted
  On 27/05/2024 at 15:30, Tommygilf said:

They aren't inherently flawed. They reward clubs being based in big metropolitan areas with big councils to support them (and them alone).

Expand  

I can see that some may see that as a goal.   You would need to tell me what of the existing clubs are in a big metropolitan area and those that are not. Thus which clubs would be expected over time to drop out and the projected replacements.  Bearing in mind our current footprint and all-be-it narrow footprint the danger is we lose a lot of fans and ingrained interest of those lost area's and in doing so accelerate decline in those to be lost area's whilst not able to build in the alternative area's.

Whilst we would love the sport to be more geographically spread in more affluent economic area's of the UK I just can't see that happening given the reality of the footprint, the investment required and how the sport spreads unless its more clubs from France/Europe.  

 

  • Like 1
dboy

dboy

Posted
Posted

They don't reward metropolitan areas, they punish them, as they are the sum of a number of amalgamated populations, most often containing more than 1 pro club.

The score is flawed because it rewards a club solely based on their catchment population and not what they do with it.

We already have a score for attendance; you shouldn't then get a further score for the population that you AREN'T engaging.

But hey, don't take my word for it, the clubs themselves think this is the most nonsensical pillar of the grading too. It's a score which has nothing to do with anything within the clubs control.

 

  • Like 1
Tommygilf

Tommygilf

Posted
Posted
  On 27/05/2024 at 16:08, redjonn said:

I can see that some may see that as a goal.   You would need to tell me what of the existing clubs are in a big metropolitan area and those that are not. Thus which clubs would be expected over time to drop out and the projected replacements.  Bearing in mind our current footprint and all-be-it narrow footprint the danger is we lose a lot of fans and ingrained interest of those lost area's and in doing so accelerate decline in those to be lost area's whilst not able to build in the alternative area's.

Whilst we would love the sport to be more geographically spread in more affluent economic area's of the UK I just can't see that happening given the reality of the footprint, the investment required and how the sport spreads unless its more clubs from France/Europe.  

 

Expand  

Leeds are in a big city area, for example.

The sport isn't exclusively rewarding this point however. Its just acknowledging that it is important.

Tommygilf

Tommygilf

Posted
Posted
  On 27/05/2024 at 16:08, dboy said:

They don't reward metropolitan areas, they punish them, as they are the sum of a number of amalgamated populations, most often containing more than 1 pro club.

The score is flawed because it rewards a club solely based on their catchment population and not what they do with it.

We already have a score for attendance; you shouldn't then get a further score for the population that you AREN'T engaging.

But hey, don't take my word for it, the clubs themselves think this is the most nonsensical pillar of the grading too. It's a score which has nothing to do with anything within the clubs control.

 

Expand  

You're being delusional because Wakey share the MDC with Cas and Fev. If they were Salford it would be a non issue for you.

Jill Halfpenny fan

Jill Halfpenny fan

Posted
Posted
  On 27/05/2024 at 15:30, Tommygilf said:

They aren't inherently flawed. They reward clubs being based in big metropolitan areas with big councils to support them (and them alone).

Expand  

Big metropolitan areas invariably contain big football clubs. Councils are not going to be that bothered about a niche sport pulling a few hundred spectators. There's probably a better argument to be made about clubs in smaller towns getting more favourable council treatment due to the fact they are the biggest sport in town.

  • Like 1

Just because you think everyone hates you doesn't mean they don't.

dboy

dboy

Posted
Posted
  On 27/05/2024 at 16:19, Tommygilf said:

You're being delusional because Wakey share the MDC with Cas and Fev. If they were Salford it would be a non issue for you.

Expand  

You're wrong to think it's a "Wakey" perspective.

The pillar of scoring is wrong, plain and simple.

I'd tell you that whether I supported any other club in the game.

It's a nonsense score.

Tommygilf

Tommygilf

Posted
Posted
  On 27/05/2024 at 16:40, Jill Halfpenny fan said:

Big metropolitan areas invariably contain big football clubs. Councils are not going to be that bothered about a niche sport pulling a few hundred spectators. There's probably a better argument to be made about clubs in smaller towns getting more favourable council treatment due to the fact they are the biggest sport in town.

Expand  

Leeds got support for £40 million redevelopment of Headingley.

Salford have had millions of debt wiped off and a new deal agreed with the council specifically to benefit them.

Wakefield, Fev and Cas are having the most public funding ever and are sharing £6 million. The dichotomy you present doesn't exist.

dboy

dboy

Posted
Posted
  On 27/05/2024 at 15:30, Tommygilf said:

They aren't inherently flawed. They reward clubs being based in big metropolitan areas with big councils to support them (and them alone).

Expand  

That's pure nonsense.

But let's play with your point...

Leeds Rhinos score well because you say they are in a big city, with a big population and therefore a big potential market. That's what the point is for.

How should we then score Leeds Rhinos in say, 3 year's time, if they have done nothing to realise and develop that potential market?

 

dboy

dboy

Posted
Posted
  On 27/05/2024 at 16:44, Tommygilf said:

Leeds got support for £40 million redevelopment of Headingley.

Salford have had millions of debt wiped off and a new deal agreed with the council specifically to benefit them.

Wakefield, Fev and Cas are having the most public funding ever and are sharing £6 million. The dichotomy you present doesn't exist.

Expand  

No club should be rewarded for having to rely on their local taxpayers/council.

To suggest Salford should be rewarded for running their sham business, constantly being bailed out by their council is utter madness!

Tommygilf

Tommygilf

Posted
Posted
  On 27/05/2024 at 16:48, dboy said:

That's pure nonsense.

But let's play with your point...

Leeds Rhinos score well because you say they are in a big city, with a big population and therefore a big potential market. That's what the point is for.

How should we then score Leeds Rhinos in say, 3 year's time, if they have done nothing to realise and develop that potential market?

 

Expand  

Then they'll get ###### scores in attendances and finance???

Tommygilf

Tommygilf

Posted
Posted
  On 27/05/2024 at 16:50, dboy said:

No club should be rewarded for having to rely on their local taxpayers/council.

To suggest Salford should be rewarded for running their sham business, constantly being bailed out by their council is utter madness!

Expand  

Point being, the council support them, others don't as much.

dboy

dboy

Posted
Posted
  On 27/05/2024 at 16:58, Tommygilf said:

Then they'll get ###### scores in attendances and finance???

Expand  

No, they'll continue to get the full scores they already do for those pillars.

You now want to reward them for having a big catchment that they fail to develop.

dboy

dboy

Posted
Posted
  On 27/05/2024 at 16:59, Tommygilf said:

Point being, the council support them, others don't as much.

Expand  

IMG want all our clubs to be self-sufficient businesses. Quite right too.

Needing to be propped up by local government and it's taxpayers is not desirable.

It should not be rewarded under any IMG pillar.

Tommygilf

Tommygilf

Posted
Posted
  On 27/05/2024 at 17:02, dboy said:

No, they'll continue to get the full scores they already do for those pillars.

You now want to reward them for having a big catchment that they fail to develop.

Expand  

They already get them because they are either doing well, or by being in a big market means they don't have to do as well. Easy peasy really? Why would the sport want to make it hard for itself?

I don't want a "tried really hard" award.

  • Confused 1
Tommygilf

Tommygilf

Posted
Posted
  On 27/05/2024 at 17:04, dboy said:

IMG want all our clubs to be self-sufficient businesses. Quite right too.

Needing to be propped up by local government and it's taxpayers is not desirable.

It should not be rewarded under any IMG pillar.

Expand  

It is because its a good thing. If other clubs had supportive councils it would be great.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.