2024 attendance thread

[Tommygilf]

17 minutes ago, 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.

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

[Dave T]

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 May 27, 2024 by Dave T

[JonNgog]

London’s attendance was just 300 less than Salford vs Wigan…

[Archie Gordon]

23 minutes ago, JonNgog said:

London’s attendance was just 300 less than Salford vs Wigan…

No chance.

[Bring back GB]

33 minutes ago, JonNgog said:

London’s attendance was just 300 less than Salford vs Wigan…

Sorry but I don't believe London's official crowd figures.

The ground holds 9000 and it always appears less than 20% full.

[Taffy Tiger]

On 25/05/2024 at 17:47, 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.

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 .

[dboy]

7 hours ago, 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.

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

It's a nonsense metric.

The catchment score should be scrapped.

[dboy]

6 hours ago, 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.

Exactly.

Catchment points are inherently flawed in any guise.

Scrap them.

[Tommygilf]

6 minutes ago, dboy said:

Exactly.

Catchment points are inherently flawed in any guise.

Scrap them.

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

[redjonn]

25 minutes ago, 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).

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.  

 

[dboy]

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.

 

[Tommygilf]

8 minutes ago, 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.  

 

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]

10 minutes ago, 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.

 

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.

[Forever Trinity]

1572 at Whitehaven v Wakey 

[Jill Halfpenny fan]

1 hour ago, 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).

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.

[dboy]

22 minutes ago, 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.

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]

2 minutes ago, 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.

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]

1 hour ago, 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).

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]

4 minutes ago, 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.

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]

10 minutes ago, 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?

 

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

[Tommygilf]

8 minutes ago, 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!

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

[dboy]

2 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

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

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]

3 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

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

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]

Just now, 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.

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.

[Tommygilf]

Just now, 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.

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