Have Huddersfield managed to set-up the worst double header system?

[Zilla Budgie]

[Ovenden Grunt]

12 hours ago, sam4731 said:

IMG aren't just taking clubs word for attendance figures anyway. They're bringing in their own people to check on numbers.

Or if you're iconic just make the figures up!

[sheddingswasus]

Huddersfield are already one of the worse supported clubs. To pull this stunt is a total joke. To be honest, £15 to watch a women’s match is way too expensive as well. 

[Expatknight]

24 minutes ago, sheddingswasus said:

Huddersfield are already one of the worse supported clubs. To pull this stunt is a total joke. To be honest, £15 to watch a women’s match is way too expensive as well. 

That’s a bit disrespectful to the women, have you ever watched them play? They are far better value than a lot of the men’s games, at least they try to play rugby.

the Valkyrie, for one, are outstanding value for money and have some really talented players as have St Helens and Leeds, the others will catch up the more they play, they deserve our support.

[Dave T]

5 minutes ago, Expatknight said:

That’s a bit disrespectful to the women, have you ever watched them play? They are far better value than a lot of the men’s games, at least they try to play rugby.

the Valkyrie, for one, are outstanding value for money and have some really talented players as have St Helens and Leeds, the others will catch up the more they play, they deserve our support.

It's not necessarily disrespectful, I think it's a fair question around the value/going rate of Women's RL at this stage. 

Just had a quick look on Wire's Facebook and their home game was a fiver, Leeds charged a tenner (kids free). The fifteen at Hudds seems out of kilter, particularly when you are also selling a men's game at £22 that day too. 

As a comparison point, Women's football SL you can get a ticket for Man City's last game for £12.

Edited May 8 by Dave T

[sweaty craiq]

15 hours ago, RigbyLuger said:

Reads like everyone gets kicked out!

All 8 of em

[The Blues Ox]

23 minutes ago, Expatknight said:

That’s a bit disrespectful to the women, have you ever watched them play? They are far better value than a lot of the men’s games, at least they try to play rugby.

the Valkyrie, for one, are outstanding value for money and have some really talented players as have St Helens and Leeds, the others will catch up the more they play, they deserve our support.

As you know Im a huge fan of womens rugby but I would tend to agree in this instance. The game is in the early stages of its development but is growing in popularity at a rapid rate but £15 to watch a team that quite frankly has been a total disappointment this season does seem steep and it almost feels like they are trying to cash in on Wigan maybe bringing a few fans who would want to watch both games. 

For a family of 4 without a season ticket it is going to cost them nearly £100 to watch 2 games of rugby. I am not sure what planet Huddersfield are on thinking that is feasable especially in what they are calling their inclusive round.

[Wiltshire Warrior Dragon]

15 hours ago, Gav Wilson said:

15 quid to watch Valkyrie v Leeds followed by Knights v Sheffield at York on Sunday. You don't have to leave the stadium* in between games, although a lovely new lounge bar and grill has opened up next door... 

*Some York fans might actually want to!

My mate, Dave from Doncaster, and I attended your victory over the Bulls.  Perhaps we are your lucky mascots.  As such, we are available for hire by the Knights, though I understand that my requirements (1st class rail travel from and back to Salisbury, plus decent overnight accommodation [I've always thought The Judge's Lodging looks nice]) might make my suggestion almost prohibitive.

[daz39]

17 hours ago, Chrispmartha said:

That’s utterly ridiculous id be interested to know the justification for it.

Apparently it's because they have realised that it's a different set of fans for the women's team than the mens so to maximise income they want the womens fan to pay £15 and the mens fans who are season card holders can get in for £6, rather than making the womens game free eseentially, it's a ludicrous decision not to mention one that is baffling for our fans and and absolute pee take for Wigan fans wanting to watch both.

[daz39]

17 hours ago, Chrispmartha said:

 

 

 

Edited May 8 by daz39
double post

[daz39]

17 hours ago, phiggins said:

Then it makes it even stranger. Maybe a financial technicality that means income from different games need to be diverted to different entities? I don't think I've ever known a double header have this sort of arrangement.

Essentially yes, even though the womens now fall undert eh main club there finances need to be kept seperate so money from the womens games needs to go back to the womens pot if that makes sense.

[daz39]

17 hours ago, The Blues Ox said:

Is that right if you are a Wigan fan wanting to watch both games you would have to pay £15 to watch the first game then another £22 to watch the second game?

Nope, it's £25 on the day for the mens game if not bought in advance, truly awful decision by our club in my view, we are getting slaughtered for it and rightly so.

[daz39]

15 hours ago, Angelic Upstart said:

Hull KR women played Huddersfield a few weeks back prior to the mens game, fans weren't even allowed in to watch!

Yes they were but over 50% left after the womens game, this is the reasoning behind this i think, if half are going to leave then they want to maximise the income from them.

Theory is ok but the practise leaves a lot to be desired.

Edited May 8 by daz39

[daz39]

2 hours ago, Dave T said:

It's not necessarily disrespectful, I think it's a fair question around the value/going rate of Women's RL at this stage. 

Just had a quick look on Wire's Facebook and their home game was a fiver, Leeds charged a tenner (kids free). The fifteen at Hudds seems out of kilter, particularly when you are also selling a men's game at £22 that day too. 

As a comparison point, Women's football SL you can get a ticket for Man City's last game for £12.

It's normally £6 for the women at Laund Hill stadium, that's what makes this even more baffling why they have added £9 on because it's at the John smith's.

£15 is probably excessive for the top teams so god knows why our decision maker(s) decided our young, inexperienced team is worth £15.

[gingerjon]

17 hours ago, phiggins said:

Then it makes it even stranger. Maybe a financial technicality that means income from different games need to be diverted to different entities? I don't think I've ever known a double header have this sort of arrangement.

The only equivalent I can think of is in US baseball where there is a distinction between the (rare) genuine double header where you get to games for one ticket and the alternative, a rained off game is rescheduled to be played in the afternoon before a scheduled evening game between the same teams but as two separate tickets so fans have to leave and (re) enter. The latter happens a few times each year but is always looked at as a negative experience, it's certainly not one to copy.

Please be advised though that double headers are not a good idea at the best of times.

[Expatknight]

On reflection , I should have worded my response differently, my point was that the women do provide good entertaining rugby and as a stand alone fixture, certainly at York I think they are pretty good value, what is ridiculous is where you have a double header and expect people to pay twice, the wqhole point of the double header is to try and encourage more fans to watch the women and grow support. 

[Chrispmartha]

27 minutes ago, daz39 said:

Apparently it's because they have realised that it's a different set of fans for the women's team than the mens so to maximise income they want the womens fan to pay £15 and the mens fans who are season card holders can get in for £6, rather than making the womens game free eseentially, it's a ludicrous decision not to mention one that is baffling for our fans and and absolute pee take for Wigan fans wanting to watch both.

Shouldn't they be trying to get the separate Women's and to watch the Men's then?

 

It makes zero sense.

[sheddingswasus]

I am not sure why they are charging to watch what are ostensibly amateur players, albeit tied to a pro club. A far better approach would have have been not to charge and get fans in early to use the facilities and maximise income t go at way. If I was a Wigan fan I would watch it on telly!

[Lowdesert]

2 hours ago, The Blues Ox said:

As you know Im a huge fan of womens rugby but I would tend to agree in this instance. The game is in the early stages of its development but is growing in popularity at a rapid rate but £15 to watch a team that quite frankly has been a total disappointment this season does seem steep and it almost feels like they are trying to cash in on Wigan maybe bringing a few fans who would want to watch both games. 

For a family of 4 without a season ticket it is going to cost them nearly £100 to watch 2 games of rugby. I am not sure what planet Huddersfield are on thinking that is feasable especially in what they are calling their inclusive round.

I went to see the Valkyrie play Saints a couple of weeks ago.  It was an invite but I paid £20 into their office anyway and would willingly pay it again for that standard.
 

 I think the standard of rugby is where some get hung up on.  The upper levels of the womens game is very good value, even more so when you see the effort they put.

[overtheborder]

Just seen the FAQs article on the Huddersfield website - on the reasoning behind it I don't necessarily disagree with the notion of wanting the two games to be treated as events in their own right, but I think the reaction as to how they've done it speaks for itself. It wouldn't surprise me if the club revert to the "normal" double header model given the reaction they've had off the back of this - fair play to them if they do.

Edited May 8 by overtheborder
Mistype

[RigbyLuger]

32 minutes ago, sheddingswasus said:

I am not sure why they are charging to watch what are ostensibly amateur players, albeit tied to a pro club. 

Huddersfield made a bit of a thing of them being "professional" going into this season, when, obviously, they are not. This is just a nonsense, and, as has been said above, you're more likely to get fans of the men coming back to watch the women if they catch them before a mens game, than in one of their usual fixtures on a glorified park pitch.

[The Blues Ox]

2 hours ago, Lowdesert said:

I went to see the Valkyrie play Saints a couple of weeks ago.  It was an invite but I paid £20 into their office anyway and would willingly pay it again for that standard.
 

 I think the standard of rugby is where some get hung up on.  The upper levels of the womens game is very good value, even more so when you see the effort they put.

Yeah too much comparison rather than enjoying it for what it is. I tried to say that in my last post but I guess it kicked off and because of what SC said and that got deleted as well.

[phiggins]

3 hours ago, daz39 said:

Essentially yes, even though the womens now fall undert eh main club there finances need to be kept seperate so money from the womens games needs to go back to the womens pot if that makes sense.

Makes sense, but it is still passing on the faff onto the fans, rather then dealing with it themselves. Must be able to get an idea of how many scanned in through the turnstile ahead of the women's game and use that data to divvy up the ticket money.

[OriginalMrC]

Come on everyone it's not that complicated. 2x single headers = a double header. Simple 

[Angelic Upstart]

5 hours ago, daz39 said:

Yes they were but over 50% left after the womens game, this is the reasoning behind this i think, if half are going to leave then they want to maximise the income from them.

Theory is ok but the practise leaves a lot to be desired.

Maybe Huddersfield fans were but Rovers definitely weren't. The turnstiles weren't open.