2024 attendance thread

[Roughyed Rats]

16 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

And your attendances have gone up as have every other aspect of facilities? 

Can't see wood for the trees!

Facilities for the first fry run was assessed on the current ground. Therefore, will remain static as per 2023. However, reduction in utilisation will see Oldham score less for at least the next 2 years. This, along with the other 3 year scores, mean that Oldham will struggle to materially increase their overall score until 2027….by which time IMG will be gone or revert to closed shop franchising, as is their modus operandi.

[Roughyed Rats]

Just now, Roughyed Rats said:

Facilities for the first fry run was assessed on the current ground. Therefore, will remain static as per 2023. However, reduction in utilisation will see Oldham score less for at least the next 2 years. This, along with the other 3 year scores, mean that Oldham will struggle to materially increase their overall score until 2027….by which time IMG will be gone or revert to closed shop franchising, as is their modus operandi.

However, in the interest of returning this thread to topic, I’m sure our attendances will increase next season at least.

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Roughyed Rats said:

Facilities for the first fry run was assessed on the current ground. Therefore, will remain static as per 2023. However, reduction in utilisation will see Oldham score less for at least the next 2 years. This, along with the other 3 year scores, mean that Oldham will struggle to materially increase their overall score until 2027….by which time IMG will be gone or revert to closed shop franchising, as is their modus operandi.

I think a big part of the problem is that we probably shouldn't be judging a system by how it impacts Oldham, who last season were playing in the 3rd division with crowds as low as 361 - bemoaning that it means it may take them three years or so to make SL. I think there is a fair argument that Oldham will take a few years to grow to a place where they are challenging for a place in SL - and I'm sure you'd have agreed with that when watching your team with 360 others versus Hunslet in 2023?

I understand your concern around closed shop, and I know less about IMG's efforts in basketball than you, but I do know that the sport of RL went the other way last time and abandoned licensing after two rounds last time. 

[Tommygilf]

24 minutes ago, Roughyed Rats said:

Facilities for the first fry run was assessed on the current ground. Therefore, will remain static as per 2023. However, reduction in utilisation will see Oldham score less for at least the next 2 years. This, along with the other 3 year scores, mean that Oldham will struggle to materially increase their overall score until 2027….by which time IMG will be gone or revert to closed shop franchising, as is their modus operandi.

I don't think it should be easy for a club that was playing at a glorified park to hundreds mere months ago to get to a stage where they can get to Super League?

[Roughyed Rats]

9 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I think a big part of the problem is that we probably shouldn't be judging a system by how it impacts Oldham, who last season were playing in the 3rd division with crowds as low as 361 - bemoaning that it means it may take them three years or so to make SL. I think there is a fair argument that Oldham will take a few years to grow to a place where they are challenging for a place in SL - and I'm sure you'd have agreed with that when watching your team with 360 others versus Hunslet in 2023?

I understand your concern around closed shop, and I know less about IMG's efforts in basketball than you, but I do know that the sport of RL went the other way last time and abandoned licensing after two rounds last time. 

Appreciate your balanced comments Dave. I’m more worried about the game in general and I’m using my club by way of an example to voice those concerns. My view is that the fudged system we are now embarking on has a significant number of issues with it and I think we are in danger of the game shrinking further. My suspicion is that’s exactly what IMG want. It didn’t work last time and it won’t work if they try it again. 

[Roughyed Rats]

14 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I don't think it should be easy for a club that was playing at a glorified park to hundreds mere months ago to get to a stage where they can get to Super League?

Because it’s always been easy right?

[Harry Stottle]

3 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

It's the club that is measured not the owner. 

Without some owners we could both mention, there may not be a club to measure Tommy no matter how long they have been in the hot seat, mine for example, Hull KR for another, dare I say Mr Moran at Warrington and Mr Guasch at Catalan maybe Wakefield could have headed into the abyss if Mr Ellis had not turned up, Mr Davy at the Giants, that is half of SL without delving into the others.

[Harry Stottle]

3 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

All you are doing is making a good argument for recent averages being used.

That is why this system is unfair, too heavily weighted in favour of SL clubs, not just on this criteria but also others. 

After a couple of years those clubs below SL will give up with having any ambition to reach the top, followed by their fans, and the community clubs will diminish in those towns, their pro clubs whatever you think of them are the focal point of the game in those towns. Then the conveyor belt slows down, all pro's are not the product of SL towns, they start somewhere and that is usually in their local community.

All the best gardens you observe do not come about by just planting flowers, there is hell of a lot of work put into the infrastructure to make the top happen, I fear this system is only looking at aesthetics.

Edited August 6 by Harry Stottle

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Roughyed Rats said:

Appreciate your balanced comments Dave. I’m more worried about the game in general and I’m using my club by way of an example to voice those concerns. My view is that the fudged system we are now embarking on has a significant number of issues with it and I think we are in danger of the game shrinking further. My suspicion is that’s exactly what IMG want. It didn’t work last time and it won’t work if they try it again. 

I do agree with some of your concerns. For me, the big issue is that once again the game has gone for half measures.

I'll be honest, I don't have a massive preference for either a closed shop or for P&R, I can see the appeal of both. I am a fan of criteria:minimum standards etc, but I think whatever system we use we need to fully commit to it. 

As with licensing, we've kept some form of regular P&R to please stakeholders and get this voted through. I think the P&R element of that was poor, but far better than the current one. I don't really think the current system addresses the challenges with P&R, in fact it gives more uncertainty than ever, which is a really weird outcome for a system designed with a blank canvas. 

The game has a decision to make, and if the reality is that we will never get a fully franchised/licensed league voted through, let's stop playing about with it, put demanding minimum criteria in and crack on from there. 

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

Without some owners we could both mention, there may not be a club to measure Tommy no matter how long they have been in the hot seat, mine for example, Hull KR for another, dare I say Mr Moran at Warrington and Mr Guasch at Catalan maybe Wakefield could have headed into the abyss if Mr Ellis had not turned up, Mr Davy at the Giants, that is half of SL without delving into the others.

There are always differences though. Having a rich committed owner is no guarantee of a decent club. Koukash was one of the best examples, but we've also seen plenty of other rich people not be able to make it work. 

[Tommygilf]

15 hours ago, Toby Chopra said:

Correct. The game isn't like it was 30 years ago when there was a relatively flat structure of 30 odd part time clubs. In terms of the size of the operation and what it takes to run it, the difference between full and part time is probably bigger than that between part time and top amateurs.

I understand why people want to believe "all clubs are equal" but it hasn't been the case for decades. 

 

It's a damaging narrative that hurts the game and several clubs too.

[Roughyed Rats]

12 hours ago, Dave T said:

I do agree with some of your concerns. For me, the big issue is that once again the game has gone for half measures.

I'll be honest, I don't have a massive preference for either a closed shop or for P&R, I can see the appeal of both. I am a fan of criteria:minimum standards etc, but I think whatever system we use we need to fully commit to it. 

As with licensing, we've kept some form of regular P&R to please stakeholders and get this voted through. I think the P&R element of that was poor, but far better than the current one. I don't really think the current system addresses the challenges with P&R, in fact it gives more uncertainty than ever, which is a really weird outcome for a system designed with a blank canvas. 

The game has a decision to make, and if the reality is that we will never get a fully franchised/licensed league voted through, let's stop playing about with it, put demanding minimum criteria in and crack on from there. 

As you know, I’m pro P&R but I can understand the thought process behind other methodologies. I agree with pretty much all your comments. The design and execution of this system has been extremely poor. It’s a fudged halfway house and it failed miserably when they attempted it in Basketball. Unless of course you are of the belief that it was a purposeful move always intended to justify an easier move to closed shop franchising. However, we’ve been down that road before and it failed miserably. My firm belief is that the British sports mindset is based on the hopes and dreams of the average supporter. Take that away and people will lose interest, just like they did last time. 

Edited August 7 by Roughyed Rats

[Ainley Top]

14 hours ago, Roughyed Rats said:

Appreciate your balanced comments Dave. I’m more worried about the game in general and I’m using my club by way of an example to voice those concerns. My view is that the fudged system we are now embarking on has a significant number of issues with it and I think we are in danger of the game shrinking further. My suspicion is that’s exactly what IMG want. It didn’t work last time and it won’t work if they try it again. 

IMG absolutely want fewer clubs and don't have the foggiest about what will happen if they succeed in their aims. How anyone can't, or won't see that,  is beyond me. It's already happening in front of our eyes but as usually is the case, the have's care not about the have nots. 

[Toby Chopra]

13 hours ago, Dave T said:

I do agree with some of your concerns. For me, the big issue is that once again the game has gone for half measures.

I'll be honest, I don't have a massive preference for either a closed shop or for P&R, I can see the appeal of both. I am a fan of criteria:minimum standards etc, but I think whatever system we use we need to fully commit to it. 

As with licensing, we've kept some form of regular P&R to please stakeholders and get this voted through. I think the P&R element of that was poor, but far better than the current one. I don't really think the current system addresses the challenges with P&R, in fact it gives more uncertainty than ever, which is a really weird outcome for a system designed with a blank canvas. 

The game has a decision to make, and if the reality is that we will never get a fully franchised/licensed league voted through, let's stop playing about with it, put demanding minimum criteria in and crack on from there. 

I think you've answered your own (sort of) question Dave with your description of the situation. If we had 12 financially strong clubs with good infrastructure - or even 10 - then I think we would move to a franchised flagship competition, with a regional part-time competition alongside it. I think with the right plan enough clubs could vote for it and it doesn't have to be the death knell for clubs outside the franchised league.

But we don't have enough strong clubs, so then you have to either dumb down the standards to have enough teams, or turn a blind eye to them like we did in licensing.

The new plan - which is not without its faults - is a necessary hybrid of strong/less strong until we get to the point it can float on its own. That could be years off and there's a risk that the angst continues for years - but I hope it will settle down after this season.

I'd also add the regular reminder that this structure debate isn't the end of the process - it's a means to an end, giving IMG a stable group of clubs and players which it can build up storylines and content about to improve the perception and value of British rugby league.

For me, the legitimate questions are around that: what is a realistic timeline for achieving outcomes here, and what does success here look like? The debate usually gets bogged down in structure and rarely makes it this far.

[Roughyed Rats]

15 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

I think you've answered your own (sort of) question Dave with your description of the situation. If we had 12 financially strong clubs with good infrastructure - or even 10 - then I think we would move to a franchised flagship competition, with a regional part-time competition alongside it. I think with the right plan enough clubs could vote for it and it doesn't have to be the death knell for clubs outside the franchised league.

But we don't have enough strong clubs, so then you have to either dumb down the standards to have enough teams, or turn a blind eye to them like we did in licensing.

The new plan - which is not without its faults - is a necessary hybrid of strong/less strong until we get to the point it can float on its own. That could be years off and there's a risk that the angst continues for years - but I hope it will settle down after this season.

I'd also add the regular reminder that this structure debate isn't the end of the process - it's a means to an end, giving IMG a stable group of clubs and players which it can build up storylines and content about to improve the perception and value of British rugby league.

For me, the legitimate questions are around that: what is a realistic timeline for achieving outcomes here, and what does success here look like? The debate usually gets bogged down in structure and rarely makes it this far.

I’d be happy with a part-time competition but it can’t survive ‘on the side’. I’d move it back to winter, which would give it a better chance of securing sponsorship, tv coverage and attract SL supporters in their off season. It would at least be a step up from spreadsheet league.

[dkw]

1 hour ago, Ainley Top said:

IMG absolutely want fewer clubs and don't have the foggiest about what will happen if they succeed in their aims. How anyone can't, or won't see that,  is beyond me. It's already happening in front of our eyes but as usually is the case, the have's care not about the have nots. 

What utter nonsense, at no point has there been any claim for less clubs, and as for no idea what will happen, they have a fully justified document showing exactly what they are aiming for, go read it.

[Roughyed Rats]

3 minutes ago, dkw said:

What utter nonsense, at no point has there been any claim for less clubs, and as for no idea what will happen, they have a fully justified document showing exactly what they are aiming for, go read it.

I’m sure they had a nice document for Basketball before they scrapped grading for franchising  

[dkw]

2 minutes ago, Roughyed Rats said:

I’m sure they had a nice document for Basketball before they scrapped grading for franchising  

Why do you keep bringing this kind of thing up, its totally meaningless. Do you think companies have just one way of working and do things exactly the same everytime? 

[Exiled Wiganer]

Am I alone in wondering how the name of this thread relates to its content?

[Roughyed Rats]

3 minutes ago, dkw said:

Why do you keep bringing this kind of thing up, its totally meaningless. Do you think companies have just one way of working and do things exactly the same everytime? 

Because it’s fact. Do I think that companies repeat ways of working that have proven to be successful for them? Of course they do. After initially signing a pretty identical contract with European Basketball, they went on to make significant profits from franchising, so seems logical for them to think they could do the same with RL.

[JM2010]

2 minutes ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

Am I alone in wondering how the name of this thread relates to its content?

Yeah think a new attendance thread needs to be created. I’m not sure why those who have detailed the thread couldn’t have just said all this on the IMG one??

[Toby Chopra]

10 minutes ago, JM2010 said:

Yeah think a new attendance thread needs to be created. I’m not sure why those who have detailed the thread couldn’t have just said all this on the IMG one??

Apologies, I didn't even realise I was in the attendance thread! Will continue this elsewhere 

[Harry Stottle]

2 hours ago, Ainley Top said:

IMG absolutely want fewer clubs and don't have the foggiest about what will happen if they succeed in their aims. How anyone can't, or won't see that,  is beyond me. It's already happening in front of our eyes but as usually is the case, the have's care not about the have nots. 

It's called 'Culpable Ignorance' Ainley, meaning being to entrenched in what may happen completely obliterates any other thought process of 'what if'.

So I will try it:-

To all the advocates of the IMG system, 'what if' the consequences of it's mechanic's and introduction weakens the game below SL to such a degree that we see clubs ceasing to exist, fans walking away from the sport, and in time community clubs following.

Does that:-

A, Bother you in the slightest if it does happen.

B, We can't afford them any way, keep all the money in SL we earn it anyway - this was quite a common theme not that long ago by many fans of SL clubs, and also some notable Chairmen.

C, Well they are holding up progress of the sport.

D, It was going to happen eventually may be a good thing to speed up the process.

[Harry Stottle]

2 hours ago, Toby Chopra said:

I think with the right plan enough clubs could vote for it and it doesn't have to be the death knell for clubs outside the franchised league.

You don't need to think Toby, I can tell you It will.

I don't know who you support to such a degree that you are a regular attendee, I am one of those and let me say in my expierience the 'closed shop' years were the worst to be a fan of a club below SL that I have ever known, the attendances hit rock bottom and there was a good deal of apathy from those who did attend, clubs didn't or couldn't invest in anything due to falling finances.

How did it get turned round, easy in 2015 after 6 long years from 2009 P&R was reintroduced by way of the 8's, clubs below SL had something to aim for instead of being in a dead end one way street they had something to aim for and ambition came back, crowds rose, competition rose, finances rose, Championship clubs and fans were going to get the opportunity to see teams in the flesh that were only names on League ladder, it was good times, then there was a scare that Leeds and then Warrington could be drawn into the abyss so it got scrapped, but we didn't go the whole hog we still kept with P&R and that maintained ambition.

Revert back to a closed shop Toby, and the process will start all over again, but this time the consequences will be much more severe for clubs below SL.

Edited August 7 by Harry Stottle

[Harry Stottle]

2 hours ago, dkw said:

What utter nonsense, at no point has there been any claim for less clubs, and as for no idea what will happen, they have a fully justified document showing exactly what they are aiming for, go read it.

 

I am still trying to get my head around your phrase 'they have a fully justified document' quite obviously that is your personal interpretation.

But never the less, please tell me what buisness does not 'fully justify' it's offer whether it be a product or service that they are selling?