www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/s ... -1-7651428 Im not trying to start another debate about whether we should have this system or not (we shouldnt, its a terrible worst of all worlds option) however, it is clear and apparent that the idea fans would just turn up because of some silly ideas about 'importance' has been well and truly quashed. Most sides saw a drop in averages and comparative fixtures from the regular season to the super 8s. Throughout the season comparative attendances again fell and we saw huge falls at the clubs who were relegated. It is clear that the issue our game faces werent 'clubs taking it easy during the regular season' nor was it 'that there was nothing to play for' less than 8k watched the million pound game that isnt for a million pounds and tv viewing was down again. Sky are wedded to thursdays nights, and he who pays the piper calls the tune, and Nigel Wood and his ilk at the RFL have forced through these changes against the vehement arguments of a large number of clubs and the vast vast majority of players so it isnt going to change without a coup at the rfl. So knowing we are stuck with thursday nights, and with this system, what is our solution? As Steve Gill says "we took the money and the sport now has to give it its best shot whether we agree or not" What is our 'best shot'? Do we have a way of turning around falling attendances and seeing them grow? is your club doing anything this year to improve? IS there another Leeds or Wigan or saints being built? Or are we going to get to 2020 and be looking at a game that has not only continued falling behind RU and the NRL but has continued to go backwards?

www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/s ... -1-7651428 Im not trying to start another debate about whether we should have this system or not (we shouldnt, its a terrible worst of all worlds option) however, it is clear and apparent that the idea fans would just turn up because of some silly ideas about 'importance' has been well and truly quashed. Most sides saw a drop in averages and comparative fixtures from the regular season to the super 8s. Throughout the season comparative attendances again fell and we saw huge falls at the clubs who were relegated. It is clear that the issue our game faces werent 'clubs taking it easy during the regular season' nor was it 'that there was nothing to play for' less than 8k watched the million pound game that isnt for a million pounds and tv viewing was down again. Sky are wedded to thursdays nights, and he who pays the piper calls the tune, and Nigel Wood and his ilk at the RFL have forced through these changes against the vehement arguments of a large number of clubs and the vast vast majority of players so it isnt going to change without a coup at the rfl. So knowing we are stuck with thursday nights, and with this system, what is our solution? As Steve Gill says "we took the money and the sport now has to give it its best shot whether we agree or not" What is our 'best shot'? Do we have a way of turning around falling attendances and seeing them grow? is your club doing anything this year to improve? IS there another Leeds or Wigan or saints being built? Or are we going to get to 2020 and be looking at a game that has not only continued falling behind RU and the NRL but has continued to go backwards?

The whole idea behind the Super 8s/Middle 8's is wrong and completely devalues the first 23 rounds.
We may a well go with the regular season and then have a relegation/promotion decider against the bottom SL club
and the top club in the Championship.
However unlikely the scenario is, the mere possibility that a club could be relegated from 9th in SL or, promoted from
4th in the Championship remains utterly stupid and it should never have got beyond the "ideas" "meeting".
The sport continues to look for magic remedies and quick fixes, instead of marketing and promoting the game properly
.

The article doesn't say the Super 8s lost money.

It says Cas lost money across three specific games.

Those three games being the only ones Cas had in the super 8s.

If you are looking for an example of a distinction without a difference, your post is a good one.

Given that quite a large number were unconvinced (and not entirely sure what it was) about the new system but ended up saying they enjoyed it I'd rather wait and see what the attendances are like this season when people know what to expect from it.

Also as I've always said you have to look at each club individually. Leeds were up attendance wise during the regular season because they were playing attacking entertaining and winning rugby compared to their struggles of around 3-4 years previously. Warrington on the other hand from 3-4 years ago went backwards on the field and attendances show.

What the myopic OP has posted illustrates the prblems that RL has.

Speaking without thinking!!!!

The articicle supports nothing that the OP says.

THe only thing i can determine from it is no one likes Thursday games and possibly that the constant changes in times of games affects crowds.

but that is exactly the problem with the excuses people make. We should be immune to them.

Some seasons leeds are going to be good, some they arent, some seasons Cas are going to be good, some they arent. 1 team has to finish top, and 1 team has to finish bottom. What was Warringtons loss, should be Leeds gain. So as a whole it should make little difference.

Its crazy as a game, or individual clubs to rely on on field success for our growth because by definition its transient and limited to a small amount of clubs.

Similarly the idea people should 'expect' something from the system just isnt true. It just isnt true for three reasons A) there isnt the correlation you assume between meaning and attendance. ABout 1k fewer Cas fans watched Cas v Saints with Cas's season entirely on the line, than had done just three weeks earlier without that 'meaning' on it.

B) we arent always going to have that finish, for every season we have 4 teams in with winning the LLS we will have a seasons with a round or two of dead rubbers. Even last year had leeds not being going for the treble, we were playing the last two rounds for home field advantage

and C) similar to the point above, 4 teams being in with a chance of 1st meant 4 teams had nothing to play for. There were 6 points between 4th and 5th, 14 between 8th and 5th

perhaps if you read the article and not the articicle you would be able to find something other than 'waah waah thursday'


btw we had had thursdays for more than three years now, it doesnt explain year on year falls.

It's too early to say whether or not the super 8's have been a success having only been in place 1 year and we certainly can't draw any conclusions from 3 of cas's fixtures.

I had more interest in the championship than any previous year.

Tbf, I thought it worked reasonably well.

It has some weaknesses, and it is always easier to attack than defend a system. 1 up and 1 down had the yo-yo club problem, no P&R offered stability that was effectively stasis. Both had over long and complicated play-off systems.

Under all these systems, At the top end of the table, since the Grand Final became (again) the big prize, most of the season is a competition for a prize nobody is that fussed about. The Premiership might have been a post-season addendum, but it was viewed as being worth more than the LLS is, even though it was a much shorter competition.

Yeah looking at the problems from several aspects is wrong and making excuses.....what will really do the trick is you once again whinging about a system you've never liked and trying to discreetly (unsuccessfully btw) throw all the fault on that.

For a guy that said the old system needed longer it's massively hypocritical that you've had the knives out for this system even before the first year of it ended.

The ridiclous thing to do is to think (especially given RL's history) that a new system would go all smoothly in its first year without flaws that will need to be worked on moving forward, especially considering the damage the old system did to disinterest supporters in the first place.

The Super 8's will usually see a drop due to the short notice nature of the format, the CC semi and final coming into thinking for some clubs and that regardless of the tag line some teams will inevitably have little or nothing to play for with a few rounds remaining. The true judge of this system in terms of attendance isn't whether the Super 8 games match the regular season games, it's whether the attendances for both of those periods of games increases year upon year but that would actually require patience if you can manage that.

I wonder if this is what the Wakefield chairman was alluding too on twitter

The new tv deal or the new format of the silly 8s

He tweeted that he wish he could go back 2 years and side with the rebel 6 which at the time I think we're wigan, Warrington, saints, fc, kr and salford

We dont need to draw it just from Cas, we can draw it from pretty much all clubs. Where comparable attendances exist, they were by and large down in the super 8s.

Look at Leeds, 4 games we had at home in the super 8s. all 4 were down on the regular season. 3 of them very substantially, 4k from the wire gate, 3k from the saints and Wigan gates.

again my point isnt that the concepts are rubbish (they are) or that the structure should be changed (though it should) my point is on the idea that if we say this game means this, or this games means that and give every team 'something to play for' attendances will rise. If nothing else this season should have have proven that was rubbish.

Put simply, 1k people who went to watch Cas v Saints mid season, chose not to when Cas's season was on the line. 4k fans who went to watch Leeds v Warrington chose not to go to that same game in the super 8s. This straight correlation between 'importance' of the game and attendance simply doesnt exist. So im asking what else can be done, and what else is being done.

How did the 8s attendances compare with ones against Bradford, London and the early play off rounds of 2014? After all, those were the fixtures that were effectively scrapped to make way for the new system, hence the ones with which any logical comparison should be made.

You arent looking at a problem from several aspects, you were making excuses and i explained why. Which is why you only responded to one line rather than your usual line by line. Because you couldnt respond to the rest. So you wanted to change the argument.
thats just absolute nonsense. The true judge of any systems success is whether or not the games are maximising their attendance and providing a stable and economic environment for clubs to grow and fulfil their potential, around 300k fewer fans watched SL last year than 2012.

If the super 8s have lower attendances because of the CC semi and Final, and the short notice nature of the format, then implementing a format which gives short notice for fixture around the CC semi and Final was a pretty stupid idea. For you its excuse for poor performance.

But my argument here isnt scrap the super 8s (even though we should) its a question as to what we are doing as a sport to reverse that because all the evidence we have available tells us the context under a game is played in relation to the competition has very little effect on attendances. Your answer it seems, is nothing, there is no need, this silver bullet of a new system will get everyone watching despite all evidence that the system itself is a secondary factor (at best)

Why? is that our benchmark? The answer, sadly, is about the same. 16k for bradford, 12.5k london v 15k Cas and 13k Wire. (the other game was 15k v Wigan on a season ticket v 8k all ticket v Les Catalans) (we would also need to take in to account the attendances at Bradford and London which have cratered)

Surely the logical benchmark for what we can get is what we have got for those matches, and not games against other sides in a format nobody wanted?

I agree that Thursday night games are a bad idea because it is an inconvenience for people to get down there but it is another game on tv so there is a positive there and seen as there isn't much other sport happening on Thursday then our game will be in the spotlight at least a little more.

I don't agree that the attendance for the million pound game was a negative. It was approximately 7,200 which was up there as one of the highest for either of the two teams last season. I think that is even more positive when it was just hosted at wakefield's ground. It would have been different if it was made more significant with it being hosted at a neutral ground with an air of a cup final around it. Then if there was only that many and maybe a half empty ground we could be concerned but I thought it looked pretty good on tv.

If you aren't satisfied with the system then just stick it out for 3 more years. This is the RFL we are talking about so it will be changed soon.

Why are you asking "what are we going to do?"....whose we? We aren't the guys in charge of the clubs or the competition. You should be asking them IF you REALLY want answers. Any answer given on here is redundant really because we aren't the people in charge and thus you can just shoot down because in reality you aren't really interested in the answers, you just want to knock the system again.

Message the RFL, message Castleford, message Leeds.....ask them what they're going to do address your concerns IF you REALLY want answers.

the stakeholders of rugby league. On a message board to discuss rugby league. Did you mistake this, or us, for something else? Or did you run out of rabbit holes to chase yourself down and wanted an out with a little dignity? Its ok, you got it, no one noticed

So the Super 8's game vs Saints and the playoff game vs Saints both at Headingley don't convientley count?

No I asked because you're putting up a pretence that you are actually open to hearing peoples ideas on the subject when we all know you aren't and just want to AGAIN rip into this system (for about the seventh time this year).

The comment you made in a previous post about a system "maximising their attendances" can't be taken seriously because you wanted to keep the old system which showed a continued slide in attendances (not just based on a single year) so it's really obvious to see through that mask of pretend concern.

we played 2 more home games in 2015 than 2014 sweetpea

It may be a new experience for you, but if an idea ever does stumble in to your head, I have conveniently created a thread for you to voice it.

Between 2009 to 2012 attendance rose. Over 1.9m people watched SL in 2012, before the end of the 2013 season franchising had been dumped. 2013 had superior attendances to both 2014 (a system nobody wanted) and 2015. Close to 1.5m people watched SL in 2015. The RFL themselves do not expect to reach 2012 levels until 2021. So your premise here is entirely wrong.

On the systems performance this year

SL's own not particularly ambitious targets for this year were 10 sell outs (we got 4) increased TV figures (we got worse) to sell out internationals (we sold out 1) We are expected to grow 5% a year from 2015. Did we even reach our 2015 baseline figure?

already they have rowed back the target from 15 sell outs next year to 10.

You are continuing Blake Solly's mistake, and how he set himself up for a fall. The system was never going to produce 10 sell outs, it was never going to produce an attendance rise. It was never going to do anything because systems dont produce good bad or indifferent attendances. Systems are not primary factors in attendances. Marketing produces sell outs, smart thinking produces good attendances, investment produces growth, and that is the question i asked. What are clubs doing differently? what marketing are they doing to produce 10 sell outs next year? or what should they be doing? What investments are they making that will see growth? or what should they be investing in? Have you seen smart thinking from a club that will produce good attendances, do you have any ideas yourself?

Or are clubs like you, waiting for the hoards to come watch our super, smashing, great, new system.

The difference being this says Cas lost money, not Super 8s lost money like the title says.

It says Cas lost money because of lower attendances in the super 8s, something replicated by and large throughout the league.