I havent argued attendances are higher this year than last. Simply said we should take these 5 rounds of lower attendances in the context of over a decade of good growth.

What context should we take the figures supplied by robt for the championships between 2001/2013 ?

That is all true, and it wouldnt be entirely pointless nonsense if it werent for the fact that you have also tried to mislead us Mr Eve by slightly more as well. The reason being there is also a game missing from round 4 in 2013. The Wigan v Widnes game which I mentioned previously is the missing game from round 3 in 2011, and Leeds V Widnes is the missing game, which last season was attended 13326. A higher attendance than the 2011 missing game. So, as in all other figures we have removed the games which hadnt taken place a year ago.

What would be trying to mislead people by comparing a total for 21 2011 games to 20 2013 games, for 2011 to be the higher attended fixtures, Leeds Rhinos would need to get a home attendance of 8790, which is not only a few thousand LESS than the season tickets already sold which would include this game, and over 4000 down on last years attendance, it would be be below the SL average, it would be Leeds lowest crowd for an SL home game for more than 10 years.

this years attendances will probably get compared to last years valvoline cup so we can see how far the reserve comp has come




if i didn't laugh i'd cry...

Its one individual club in one year. More clubs, more years, more information.

I'm gobsmacked by those attendance figures back in 2001. If they don't highlight the extent to which Super League has - and continues to strangle the life out of clubs not considered SL worthy, then I don't know what does.

I would often attend lower division games on a weekend... Hunslet being the nearest and most frequent venue for me... but not any longer. I don't pay full admission prices to watch Leeds Rhinos feeder club (or any other feeder club) or Rhinos reserve team. No thanks.

The game below SL is currently being tortured prior to the final kill.

well that one individual (same word) club out performs pretty much every club in the championships this year. Obviously it'll take more than that though so tomorrow night i'll have a look through some more and post it on here. Of course i know before i even look how they'll compare to the post franchising era and i suspect even you do too

It's genuinely heartbreaking. Whats worse is no one seems to care at the top

A majority of Professional and semi professional clubs need to market their home games a lot better than thye do now.

Those of us who genuinely care about RL do care about the destruction of the pro game outside SL, but there's not much evidence that it bothers those at the top. Not enough to do something about it anyway. But once again, those of us that actually give a poop are castigated as hating the game and talking it down. The game, and the RFL, etc. are completely seperate things.

He just has a way with words, I'm a sucker for good prose.

But it shouldn't be about giving the game marks out of ten. It doesn't matter whether we grew by millions over the last decade - if only. The point is that a ten percent drop in one season ( and yes, I don't know for sure that will happen, but I'm more and more confident in that guess as rounds go by) is really alarming, no matter what position you start from. If you believe the start position was really good, then you should at least be concerned about undoing the good work. People are raising a genuine issue. Some people indeed will already have their pet preconceived idea why its an issue ( 8 teams, P&R, Nigel Wood, the price of fish ) and you can call that an agenda if you like, but what's the point of just trying to pretend there's no fall in attendance?

You want the RFL to release a press statement announcing a fall in attendances? Even you surely can't think that is good for the game, anyone would think you don't like rugby league...

The RFL aren't to blame for the drop in attendances.....that sits with the clubs and the fair weather fans IMHO.

What may be sensible, would be to identify any factors that are causing the drop and then address the problem areas.
The poster does have a personal agenda, which is well known and it's important that people read , first of all true figures and then take correct remeial action.
Certainly, Salford's position hasnt helped attendances this time around and the current state of the ecconomy will have a detrimentat effect on peoples ability to afford attending RL (and other sports)
Do we know what is happening to Football and RU attendances this year ?
It's important to look for balance and perspective, but this hasnt been done.

And Cas figures in 2007 massively outperformed those Keighley figures. Are we supposed to pretend that the structure in 2007 was fundamentally better than that in 2001 because one club, got one season of good attendances?

Didn’t Keighley get relegated, under a P+R system at the end of the 2001 season as well? Having gone into administration 2 times in the previous 5 years whilst chasing promotion. And weren’t Keighley getting sub 400 crowds back in the 80’s early 90’s

That is quite possibly be the most naive interpretation of a set of numbers I have ever seen.

Let me help you. We have an underlying trend of steady growth, we have done for over a decade. This is a very good thing, it is healthy and shows a sport which is growing.

In ONE of those years we saw a very big rise. The whole reason your new bromance has started this thread is retaliation (as stupid a concept as that is) to Nigel Wood using this abnormally large rise to get good PR for the game. Mr Eve didnt like that because it showed the game in a good light. It is very good that we saw this rise, it is somthing to celebrate, but there were reasons behind that. Reasons Mr Eve said at the time but was dismissed, because well what is the point of them? Something good happened why would someone who loved the game do everything they could to downplay that?

What has happened since is that in 2013, unlike 2012, we havent had two new stadiums opening. So we havent had the specifically high attendances we did when fans visited new stadiums, and they have fallen back somewhat. Bradford dont have their cheap tickets deal, they also dont have that sence of urgency which they did for obvious reasons last year. This has resulted in a slight fall back. We have fallen back, by less than we grew. Which is completely understandable, and still fits in with the long-term trend of growth in attendances.

At last. You accept that we've fallen back (your desperate bleating about the numbers was getting more ridiculous by the day). The reasons are a matter of opinion, and you're more than welcome to believe whatever gets you through the day. I look forward to your explanation of how well the Championship is doing.

And by the way, I think attendance will turn around and go up - I also think the future looks bright. This is because I'm confident that Koukash will turn Salford around, which in itself isn't going to change the world, but, both a) the required changes that he'll need, and b) the end result, will have the wider effect of waking people up to a different way, rather than the current path. Apparently, his arrival was "single-handedly" down to Nigel Wood. If that's true, well, he can chalk that one down in the positive column.

I have never, at any stage disputed that.
This isn’t my opinion, this is what the evidence shows. Relative to what?

Among the numerous other improvements the game has seen since he conducted the strategic review under Sir Rodney Walker in 2001.

Football attendances in the lower leagues are dropping. RU is attended by mostly people who are less affected by the economy etc. and is less affected.

In your opinion.

In the opinion of anyone who is able to read both words and numbers. I accept there is a possibility this excludes you.

Don't worry Im sure Mr Eve will be here soon to put together a cogent sentence and you can cheer it from the sidelines.

An interpretation of "what the evidence shows" can only be an opinion. By definition. Get yourself a dictionary and thesaurus, clown.

To say there is a clear correlation between a new stadium and increased attendances is not an opinion. It is what the numbers show
To say there is a clear correlation between a cheap ticket deal and increased attendances is not an opinion. It is what the numbers show.
To say Salford had a new stadium and increased attendances is not an opinion. It is what the numbers and evidence shows.
To say St Helens had a new stadium and increase attendances is not an opinion. It is what the numbers and evidence shows.
To say Bradford had a cheap ticket deal and increased attendances is not an opinion. It is what the numbers and evidence shows.

When we have a clear correlation between two factors, there is a point at which causality is proven and when those factors are present in subsequent datasets and the correlation continues, it is down to the previously established causality, we don’t have to establish the causality again and again and again. It is established as fact.

For example: there is a clear correlation between objects being dropped from a height and hitting the floor. It has previously been established the cause of this is the force of gravity. If I were to take an object, and drop it from a height, and it were to hit the floor. I can put that down to gravity. I don’t need to prove Newtons Universal law of Gravitation and Einstein’s theory of general relativity again.

If we establish that there is a causal link between new stadiums and cheap ticket deals and increased attendances, and we subsequently see a correlation in a dataset between new stadiums and cheap ticket deals and an increase in attendances, we can rely on the previously established causal link. We don’t need to establish it all over again.

If you think that any interpretation of evidence is an expression of opinion, then I think you need much more help than a dictionary, thesaurus, or even a clown could give you. Maybe some sort of cognative behavioral therapist? Because i dont know how you are getting through the day.

Ah, philosophy. You know nobody has ever produced a convincing justification for the principle of induction, despite it seeming 'obvious'? But anyway, diversions aside, I'm afraid you need much stronger evidence than that to establish causation. I hope you're not in medical research.