How to restore the magic of the Challenge Cup (Merged Threads)

[Martyn Sadler]

On 29/04/2024 at 09:30, whatmichaelsays said:

I think there are some structural changes we can make to the CC, but so many of the ideas on Martin's list strike me as tactics without a strategy.

Many people confuse strategic and tactical issues.

The strategic change I have proposed is switching the Challenge Cup Final to the end of the season.

The other elements in my proposal are tactical points.

There is another article to be written about the aims of the change and how they could be achieved.

I would suggest that the primary aim should be to fill Wembley for the Challenge Cup Final.

On 29/04/2024 at 09:30, whatmichaelsays said:

The biggest question for me is whether we genuinely feel there is still an audience and a market for the CC. If there is, the sport needs to understand and deliver what that market wants and work a damn sight harder than it is doing to get that across. 

And if there isn't? Well, the CC doesn't have a right to live forever - no business or product does. If times and tastes have changed, the right decision may be to adapt rather than persist with something that clearly has less appeal. No amount of pre-match parades will change that. 

You're right to point this out.

What prompted me to write the piece in the first place was someone at the RFL saying to me that the Challenge Cup is now in a state of "managed decline".

If you take that view, you may as well ditch the competition. We've seen the Lord Derby Cup in France draw just over 4,000 people at the weekend and that is ultimately the fate of the Challenge Cup if we allow it to happen.

The point is that a market can be created for major events, particularly when they already exist.

Not many years ago, most people wouldn't have imagined that NFL games could come to England and sell out.

But that now happens regularly and it's because the NFL has invested resources into creating a market for its product.

My aim in writing the piece was to create a product that is capable of being marketed and sold.

[Taffy Tiger]

11 hours ago, bobbruce said:

Wouldn’t that just be leaving grading points to the luck of the draw. 

Yeah I see your point , it would be possible for 12th spot at the end of the season to be decided because a team drew a league 1 club in r1 whereas another drew Wigan . Perhaps re-structuring the points towards the later stage of the comp would be better then . I still think some kind of reward (other than the 0.25 points for winner) should be available though . Perhaps award points from qf onwards instead but under the current structure of the CC.

Edited April 30 by Taffy Tiger

[17 stone giant]

I don't know about the practicalities of it, but I like the suggestion of a Magic Weekend for Challenge Cup matches. That interests me a lot more than the current Magic weekend of league fixtures does.

I would be more inclined to stay and watch a match if it resulted in a definite outcome (someone being knocked out the cup), rather than someone getting 2pts and it not really mattering that much in terms of the league table.

[17 stone giant]

In terms of the final itself, I think it's always going to be a tough aim to fill a 90000 seater Wembley, given the size of the teams in rugby league and its limited geographical spread.

I'm guessing a final such as Leeds vs Wigan would have the largest number of fans from the clubs involved attending, but even then you'd presumably need a huge amount of people attending from other 'sources' in order to fill the stadium - be they fans from other clubs, or people like myself who follow the sport but not a certain team, or people going for the first time, etc.

I don't know what data the RFL already have, but I think you would need to have all the data on who is currently attending and why some people aren't attending, in order to make decisions on what areas you need to target, and to decide what is realistically possible to achieve.

[redjonn]

Moving the cup to another date, even to end of season, is a tactical implementation not strategic.

A strategic consideration would be to first decide what you see the CC as.  Is it as now but with certain goals, like say its a celebration of RL history with goals to achieve recognition of the CC final as a top 5 or 3 or whatever sporting event, increase existing fan engagement, increase sponsorship income, etc etc etc. Then of course take tactical Implementations/decisions on how to achieve. Like putting in programmes to enhance CC final event aspects, put in a focus to attract increased attendance from all clubs/RL communities with whatever incentives one may adopt - free/discount coaches for groups, rail vouchers, free tickets to other events in London, etc etc...

An alternative strategy may be to us the CC as a means to attract new people to watch the sport & increase awareness of the sport across other parts of the country. Thus you may play certain games in other parts of the country with a major advertisement/marketing blitz as well as magic type weekends. The goal to use CC as a means of attracting new sponsors or to increase value to existing sponsors... etc... The point being the focus is different leading to different decisions and implementations/actions.

I just note the above two to try and differ between a tactical and strategic approach. One you are just tinkering the another is a change of focus/ambition.

I am not saying the above are good idea;s just highlighting and trying all-be-it not very well to illustrate a strategic change of approach.

[Anita Bath]

They went from having a competition where 30 teams entered together on a fairly level playing field (all part time) together with two outside amateur teams living their dreams to the current grossly unlevel playing field of part time and amateur clubs playing off to qualify for four spots in a competition of highly paid full time finely tuned professionals.

And you wonder what happened to the magic of the cup?

Why would folks from up north not involved with one of the participating clubs incur the expense of travelling to wembley to see two teams play each other for the third or fourth time in a season when they could nip along to see the same two teams play each other a few stops along the M62.

In the 32 team competition each team didnt play each other in the league each season so often the final might be a roses battle between two teams who otherwise didnt meet. My first final was 1967…15th place Barrow v 19th place Featherstone. Barrow beat Whitehaven (27th) Liverpool City (28th) Hull (9th) and Dewsbury (19th) to reach the final. Featherstone beat Bradford (5th) Wakefield (3rd) Castleford (8th) and Leeds (1st). That was the magic of the cup.

If you want an example of neglect look no further than the challenge cup.

[Tommygilf]

2 hours ago, Anita Bath said:

If you want an example of neglect look no further than the challenge cup.

That was a lovely lamentation for days gone by and a panacea of part time professionalism. Proper rose tinted stuff.

In the decade(s) following that final what happened to the game? It nearly collapsed. In the mid 90s the game was fiscally on its knees. The world changed - just as it did in the decades before where national leagues became possible.

Nowadays nobody would watch a semi pro top flight. Not a chance it would be taken seriously and the sport would recede even further. 

I agree a lot of the problems with the cup stem from the fact that in Rugby League,  amateurs and semi pros cannot compete with professionals - its seen in the world cup too. That problem isn't solved by lamenting that the top of the sport brings in enough revenue to sustain a full time competition. Remove the full time teams and nobody would watch - so do the current semi pros up their game and strive to be full time?

Even away from the fully pro game, young men now are so fit, and the sport so cruel and uncompromising, that relatively even teams get smashed from time to time. I don't think that trend can ever be reversed. Coming up against pros only exacerbates that.

The Cup is a competition any Super League club can genuinely aspire to win - 7 different winners in the past 7 years and every single club bar London having been in a final in that time too iirc? That genuinely is the magic of the cup atm.

[17 stone giant]

2 hours ago, Anita Bath said:

Why would folks from up north not involved with one of the participating clubs incur the expense of travelling to wembley to see two teams play each other for the third or fourth time in a season when they could nip along to see the same two teams play each other a few stops along the M62.

Even if it was for the first time that season, would they want to bother? Once you've ticked off visiting London and the 'New' Wembley, would you want to keep going when your team isn't playing?

Equally, why would people (e.g. Londoners) who don't have much (if anything) to do with RL, want to go along to a final that they don't have any real connection with?

Are you then left with only needing a stadium to accommodate the fans from the two finalists, with a small number of neutrals? A 30000 capacity, perhaps?

[bobbruce]

3 hours ago, 17 stone giant said:

Even if it was for the first time that season, would they want to bother? Once you've ticked off visiting London and the 'New' Wembley, would you want to keep going when your team isn't playing?

Equally, why would people (e.g. Londoners) who don't have much (if anything) to do with RL, want to go along to a final that they don't have any real connection with?

Are you then left with only needing a stadium to accommodate the fans from the two finalists, with a small number of neutrals? A 30000 capacity, perhaps?

Why would you move an event that gets 60 odd thousand to a 30k stadium. That seems like madness. 

[RigbyLuger]

4 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

Why would you move an event that gets 60 odd thousand to a 30k stadium. That seems like madness. 

As soon as you move it, it's over. On a lesser level, moving the Northern Rail Cup from somewhere different to Halifax was a key for how it lost an "special" feeling.

 

I saw someone moaning that no-one would be in the stadium for the 1895 Cup Final earlier, because it's on last, and that is should be played "in the North." There's a great lack of understanding or awareness of why some things are as they are.

[gingerjon]

We have a slogan

[Anita Bath]

4 hours ago, 17 stone giant said:

Even if it was for the first time that season, would they want to bother? Once you've ticked off visiting London and the 'New' Wembley, would you want to keep going when your team isn't playing?

Equally, why would people (e.g. Londoners) who don't have much (if anything) to do with RL, want to go along to a final that they don't have any real connection with?

Are you then left with only needing a stadium to accommodate the fans from the two finalists, with a small number of neutrals? A 30000 capacity, perhaps?

Well they did bother going when it was a true cup competition …all 76,290 including her majesty the queen in 1967.

[Tommygilf]

17 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

We have a slogan

Too late with your barrow! Mentioned many weeks ago!

Its a cracking visualisation, added by the fact that Cas, KR, Huddersfield and Salford have also been in the final in that time too. The cup does have a lot going for it certainly.

[Anita Bath]

5 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

That was a lovely lamentation for days gone by and a panacea of part time professionalism. Proper rose tinted stuff.

In the decade(s) following that final what happened to the game? It nearly collapsed. In the mid 90s the game was fiscally on its knees. The world changed - just as it did in the decades before where national leagues became possible.

Nowadays nobody would watch a semi pro top flight. Not a chance it would be taken seriously and the sport would recede even further. 

I agree a lot of the problems with the cup stem from the fact that in Rugby League,  amateurs and semi pros cannot compete with professionals - its seen in the world cup too. That problem isn't solved by lamenting that the top of the sport brings in enough revenue to sustain a full time competition. Remove the full time teams and nobody would watch - so do the current semi pros up their game and strive to be full time?

Even away from the fully pro game, young men now are so fit, and the sport so cruel and uncompromising, that relatively even teams get smashed from time to time. I don't think that trend can ever be reversed. Coming up against pros only exacerbates that.

The Cup is a competition any Super League club can genuinely aspire to win - 7 different winners in the past 7 years and every single club bar London having been in a final in that time too iirc? That genuinely is the magic of the cup atm.

Yes 11 different finalists in those 7 years. only two of the finalists in those years were from outside the top 6 in super league. Its like having two separate play offs for the top teams in super league….one were games are based on final position, the other were games are based on an open draw.

Nostalgia aint what it used to be

[Father Ted]

The C Cup rounds are all pay games.

With everyone attending having to pay and no concessions for season ticket holders this aspect does need to be considered.

Perhaps one way around that is to play each round of the C Cup on the first weekend of the month. Most people (not everyone) are paid at the end of the month so why not play the games within days of pay day?

Equally so on the day the C Cup matches are concluded the draw is made for the following round. So fans would know their opponents and be able financially to buy their tickets for the next round.  

The debate does appear to be led by journal and RL people who don't pay to watch so they don't seem to appreciate the financial realities of taking and paying for two, three or more people to a game.

 

[redjonn]

33 minutes ago, Father Ted said:

The C Cup rounds are all pay games.

With everyone attending having to pay and no concessions for season ticket holders this aspect does need to be considered.

Perhaps one way around that is to play each round of the C Cup on the first weekend of the month. Most people (not everyone) are paid at the end of the month so why not play the games within days of pay day?

Equally so on the day the C Cup matches are concluded the draw is made for the following round. So fans would know their opponents and be able financially to buy their tickets for the next round.  

The debate does appear to be led by journal and RL people who don't pay to watch so they don't seem to appreciate the financial realities of taking and paying for two, three or more people to a game.

 

I would agree with the last sentence... plus to add for a reasonable size business getting approval for sponsorship or hospitality for a number of people.

[17 stone giant]

2 hours ago, bobbruce said:

Why would you move an event that gets 60 odd thousand to a 30k stadium. That seems like madness. 

Yeah, sorry, I wasn't advocating moving it right now. I was commentating more on what its so called managed decline might end up looking like. I agree that if you're getting 60000 it makes sense to keep it at Wembley.

[Tommygilf]

3 hours ago, Anita Bath said:

Yes 11 different finalists in those 7 years. only two of the finalists in those years were from outside the top 6 in super league. Its like having two separate play offs for the top teams in super league….one were games are based on final position, the other were games are based on an open draw.

Nostalgia aint what it used to be

Shockingly as sport becomes more professional and not blokes having a run out after work leads to the better sides winning more things in a given season...

[Tommygilf]

2 hours ago, Father Ted said:

The debate does appear to be led by journal and RL people who don't pay to watch so they don't seem to appreciate the financial realities of taking and paying for two, three or more people to a game

I've said it loads on Challenge Cup decline related threads but I'll say it again, pre semi final Cup games, in whatever format, need to be on season tickets.

The cup used to be a major event. Most people engaged with their club through one off cup games. 

Nowadays, we have developed a good culture of season ticket memberships. One off payments for matches are rare for most fans, especially at home grounds. Leeds vs Saints in the cup drew thousands fewer at the same ground in similar if not better conditions than the league game the week before this season alone.

This, in conjunction with the total lack of competitiveness between the majority of 2nd division and lower sides with Super League clubs, and the desire to "get rid" of loop fixtures, is why I think the Challenge Cup will be reorganised into a 16 team group stage then finals comp in the near future.

[gingerjon]

11 hours ago, Father Ted said:

The debate does appear to be led by journal and RL people who don't pay to watch so they don't seem to appreciate the financial realities of taking and paying for two, three or more people to a game.

This applies in spades to the final itself where the ticket price is likely to be the cheapest thing on the day for anyone actually travelling into London.

[Gerrumonside ref]

I don’t get this desire to have group fixtures to ‘weed out’ the lower division teams once and for all without a chance of progression further.

Why are we copying a Champions League format from football that even they have binned off and changed from next season?

We would be removing any chance of knockout drama and will inevitably have dead rubber fixtures between top and bottom of the groups near the end of the group fixtures that will be absolutely meaningless (as often seen in the Champions League incidentally).

It’s not simple or clear how we can rekindle interest in the Challenge Cup since really the inception of both Magic Weekend and creating the Super League Grand Final.

But if we are not careful we could really ‘fix’ the Challenge Cup until it is fully broken.

 

Edited May 2 by Gerrumonside ref

[gingerjon]

17 minutes ago, Gerrumonside ref said:

Why are we copying a Champions League format from football that even they have binned off and changed from next season?

They're moving to a league format at the start rather than groups but it's essentially still a filtering stage.

[Gerrumonside ref]

5 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

They're moving to a league format at the start rather than groups but it's essentially still a filtering stage.

They’ve done it essentially to both provide more games for the bigger European clubs (to fulfil their lobbying), but also to remove the dead rubbers which blighted the CL even when they started chucking the third placed group teams in the Europa League.

[north yorks trinity]

14 hours ago, Father Ted said:

The C Cup rounds are all pay games.

With everyone attending having to pay and no concessions for season ticket holders this aspect does need to be considered.

Perhaps one way around that is to play each round of the C Cup on the first weekend of the month. Most people (not everyone) are paid at the end of the month so why not play the games within days of pay day?

Equally so on the day the C Cup matches are concluded the draw is made for the following round. So fans would know their opponents and be able financially to buy their tickets for the next round.  

The debate does appear to be led by journal and RL people who don't pay to watch so they don't seem to appreciate the financial realities of taking and paying for two, three or more people to a game.

 

Why does it only seem to be rugby league where cost is mooted as such a major factor? Yes I know that RL is played primarily in poorer areas but the millennials I work with in West Yorkshire (who are far from rich) regularly pay what I call silly money to attend events, albeit generally not sporting events. Also football clubs across the RL heartlands appear to have little trouble attracting huge numbers of people to pay inflated ticket prices. 

I suspect it is the perception of RL that needs improving not the cost that needs reducing. This requires a consistent vision and a good and consistent marketing strategy which, even if you don't agree with my first paragraph, I suspect all will agree are areas in which RL has been consistently woeful.

Edited May 2 by north yorks trinity

[Tommygilf]

52 minutes ago, Gerrumonside ref said:

I don’t get this desire to have group fixtures to ‘weed out’ the lower division teams once and for all without a chance of progression further.

1. It will allow matches to be on Season tickets. Its no great exaggeration that attendances for many matches will double - no more Leeds vs Saints losing thousands of fans in a week, no more 2000 watching Warrington vs Wakefield. Instantly the competition looks healthier and the demand on fans to pay for one off matches is reduced.

2. We already weed out all but 4 non super league clubs anyway.