Never mind the Kool-Aid, I'd lay off the Coca-Cola for a bit, it's not doing your blood pressure any favours. I'm fairly sure that RL will survive Mr. Eve's 'negativity' with or without your help.

AKA - Can't think of any worthy response to the proper argument you've provided.



And my blood pressure is absolutely fine thanks, I'm only 26 so still nice and young and healthy thanks. I'm more accurately 'baffled' than 'worked-up'. And finally that is what i've been staying all along, that RL will be just fine and 'survive'.....not dooms-daying over some dropped attendances like yourself and others.

Not dooms-anything mate. Simple facts are that crowds have dropped and in most cases that willmean revenues have too.....for 14 SL clubs that lose money, that's not good.

The point is,pro sports have toengage their audience on a contnuous basis.....not run "bullmania" for a few years then expect people to keep coming..... you need to keep doing it for years and then when you are turning away 10% of potential customers due to full houses, keep doing it until fans forget why they are coming...they just know they need to.
My Brother was a CFC fan in the70's/80's....the bridge was a hole that was rarely full......5 years ago, I bought my 2 nephews tickets for a standard league match at 95 quid each







.......people have forgotten why they want togo...they just know they do!

RL needs 20 years+ of investment in marketing......no chance of that with the current pigs feeding at the trough though.

Quote ="gutterfax"Not dooms-anything mate. Simple facts are that crowds have dropped and in most cases that willmean revenues have too.....for 14 SL clubs that lose money, that's not good. The point is,pro sports have toengage their audience on a contnuous basis.....not run "bullmania" for a few years then expect people to keep coming..... you need to keep doing it for years and then when you are turning away 10% of potential customers due to full houses, keep doing it until fans forget why they are coming...they just know they need to. My Brother was a CFC fan in the70's/80's....the bridge was a poop hole that was rarely full......5 years ago, I bought my 2 nephews tickets for a standard league match at 95 quid each .......people have forgotten why they want togo...they just know they do! RL needs 20 years+ of investment in marketing......no chance of that with the current pigs feeding at the trough though.'" thats not necessarily true though is it. www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/s ... -1-5517372 as Leeds are proving. Record attendances dont necessarily result in record financial figures. The game does have a hardcore of fans, a hardcore which is growing, are attendances, on the whole, are growing. 7 rounds doesnt undo everything that has happened in the last ten years, it doesnt define what will happen next week, never mind the next ten years. Yes there are issues and challenges the game faces, but even if the game is run perfectly, with a fair wind and in an ideal world, in 10 years time, the game will still have issues and challenges as long as they are being addressed, then we are in a good position. The game is in a massively better position now than it was 5, 10, 15, 20 or 30 years ago. We have modern, quality stadiums at Hull, Wigan, Wire, Saints, Salford, Huddersfield, Widnes, We have big improvements at Leeds, Les Catalans and Hull KR and Odsal is a perfectly acceptable Stadium for Bradford. We have more amateur players and more players coming through our systems, we have more fully pro and more semi pro clubs. This isnt perfection, it is progress. And i 100% agree that the game needs 20+ years of investment in marketing, it also needs 20+years investment in youth development, sports science, facilities, and probably a million other things.

Quote ="gutterfax"Not dooms-anything mate. Simple facts are that crowds have dropped and in most cases that willmean revenues have too.....for 14 SL clubs that lose money, that's not good. The point is,pro sports have toengage their audience on a contnuous basis.....not run "bullmania" for a few years then expect people to keep coming..... you need to keep doing it for years and then when you are turning away 10% of potential customers due to full houses, keep doing it until fans forget why they are coming...they just know they need to. My Brother was a CFC fan in the70's/80's....the bridge was a poop hole that was rarely full......5 years ago, I bought my 2 nephews tickets for a standard league match at 95 quid each .......people have forgotten why they want togo...they just know they do! RL needs 20 years+ of investment in marketing......no chance of that with the current pigs feeding at the trough though.'" thats not necessarily true though is it. www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/s ... -1-5517372 as Leeds are proving. Record attendances dont necessarily result in record financial figures. The game does have a hardcore of fans, a hardcore which is growing, are attendances, on the whole, are growing. 7 rounds doesnt undo everything that has happened in the last ten years, it doesnt define what will happen next week, never mind the next ten years. Yes there are issues and challenges the game faces, but even if the game is run perfectly, with a fair wind and in an ideal world, in 10 years time, the game will still have issues and challenges as long as they are being addressed, then we are in a good position. The game is in a massively better position now than it was 5, 10, 15, 20 or 30 years ago. We have modern, quality stadiums at Hull, Wigan, Wire, Saints, Salford, Huddersfield, Widnes, We have big improvements at Leeds, Les Catalans and Hull KR and Odsal is a perfectly acceptable Stadium for Bradford. We have more amateur players and more players coming through our systems, we have more fully pro and more semi pro clubs. This isnt perfection, it is progress. And i 100% agree that the game needs 20+ years of investment in marketing, it also needs 20+years investment in youth development, sports science, facilities, and probably a million other things.

During the current franchised, 14 club, top 8 play-off system SL era... the total attendances in SL to date are the lowest we have ever witnessed! Not even the replacement of the poorly-supported Crusaders with the better-supported Widnes or the establishment of 2 new stadia can prevent the 2013 SL attendances from being the worst on record so far.

[uSL Rounds 1 to 7 total attendances comparison (2009 to 2013)[/u
=#FF0000SL 2013 - 413,407 from 48 fixtures.
SL 2012 - 461,061 from the same 48 fixtures.
SL 2011 - 428,564 from the same 48 fixtures, except replace Widnes with Crusaders.
SL 2010 - 423,536 from the same 48 fixtures, except replace Widnes with Crusaders.
SL 2009 - 426,126 from the same 48 fixtures, except replace Widnes with Crusaders.

How much did you expect Huddersfield's attendances to drop this season considering they've already dropped by 21.21% so far?

The question remains... what will happen when Wakefield stop selling heavily discounted season tickets in order to boost attendances where the cost of a SL game works out at less than £10 for adults, and in some cases less than £5? Bradford (attendances down by 22.16%) and Huddersfield (attendances down by 21.21%) suggest a similar reduction at Wakefield is inevitable.

Any idea how many 16 to 25 year old's took up the offer of a £100 season ticket at Wakefield once the original hugely discounted season ticket offers had elapsed?

Except, as you say, they arent the same 48 fixtures. Which is why you have to fudge them. We will have the complete set of figures. It makes no sense to pay attention to the incomplete set.

But even the cherry picked, incomplete figures you are using, still only show a difference between 2013 and 2011 of a huge 315 per game drop. I havent missed a figure out there, just in case you were actually worried, thats three hundred and fifteen. Phew, everyone can probably put away the shovels, stop building the fallout shelter in the basement, get rid of the stockpile of tinned food and potable water and tell the preppers thanks but no thanks. Fortunately it seems the world isnt ending.

The Hull game was televised on a Saturday this year compared to a hot sunday afternoon last year, but that was a disappointment. The other 2 crowds were very similar to last years.

I'm not the one claiming SL attendances in 2013 are the second highest attendances in the history of the game, therefore you are going to have to do so much better than that by providing the requisite evidence to back up your assertion.

What I am claiming is that SL attendances in 2013 to date are currently the worst during the modern SL era of franchising, 14 clubs and the 8 team play-off system.


[uTranslation[/u: My assertion that SL attendances in 2013 are the second highest attendances in the history of the game was erroneous all along and based upon no evidence apart from nonsense cherry picked from my incompletely creative imagination.

going to be. Thats what i said. As you are aware. And they were a few weeks back. When you are using such a small sample size, one or a few outlying results can change the picture quite dramatically. Which is why only a moron, or a troll, would try to use such a small sample size. You can choose which one you are. I dont mind.

[uTranslation[/u: I cant find a way to spin that stat to look worse. I cant find a way of saying that an increase of a whole 157 per game over the rest of the year would result in the 2nd best attended season in the history of the game is something to worry about. So ill ignore it and talk about something else. Some way that my nonsense cherry picked incomplete stats can unimaginatively, be used to troll with.

Then when the weather improves and attendances rise, you can anounce " I told you so "

To be honest, i dont think anyone would even really notice would they? 157? Its well within what I would expect the margin of error to be, so i doubt we would ever even know if it ever really happened either way.

They will if you remind them of it in October

As long as you are correct

It was played on April 9th Easter Monday last year which, given the quick turnaround from the Good Friday fixtures only 3 days earlier, is a notorious round for poorer attendances comparatively speaking. The weather was also described as [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/apr/09/huddersfield-giants-hull-super-league[usteady drizzle[/u[/url according to Andy Wilson. Only one Huddersfield attendance this year has been similar to last year... the other three have been well down on last year. The home attendance against Hull this season was almost half as much as the attendance way back in 2009 for the same fixture... ouch!

[uHuddersfield home attendances[/u
[uFixture... 2013... 2012... %loss/gain[/u
V London... 5273... 6019... -12.39%
V Wigan... 8023... 10123... -20.74%
V Bradford... 7616... 7477... +1.86
V Hull... 5536... 9950... -44.36%

TOTAL... 26448... 33569... -21.21%

[uHuddersfield home attendances V Hull[/u
2013 = 5536
2012 = 9950
2011 = 8822
2010 = 7939
2009 = 10459

Thats a long time for me to remember. I dont make spreadsheets of stuff like this like Mr Eve.

Hopefully ill be celebrating another GF victory in october, plus there is the world cup. There will be better things to do.

So what exactly are you worried about? , ignore the thread

Unless of course you like most other intelligent people realise that attendances are and will be down, for a variety of reasons

Also you point of Leeds income not suffering despite attendances being down was quite ridiculous, then again you are good at that

Where is the logic in that?

I've no doubt attendances would be down on 2012, i thought that pretty much obvious. It would be an outstanding achievement for them to be up or at the same level as last year. Dont think they will be down on 2011 though. Im not sure why anyone other than those pushing their bitter agenda would do.

Why was it ridiculous. Leeds attendances were down, their profitability grew, ergo attendances are not directly correlated to profit. What is ridiculous about pointing that out?

Because if attendances had risen, so would their profits

As to the rest, the usual ' Waffle '

Clearly not. 2011 had higher attendances but lower profits. 2012 lower attendances and higher profits. You have been unequivocally shown to be wrong.

I believe you actually said... [i"on course to be"[/i... despite the evidence available so far failing to indicate that particular favourable course. It was still an assertion on your part nonetheless which requires evidence to back it up.


That sample size is getting bigger every week... exciting, innit?



However, at what point does the sample size become no longer moronic? And how moronic were the RFL's press announcements on attendances last year, given they were gobbing off about them with a miniscule Round 1 sample size and loaded comparison, quickly followed by a bizarre Round 2 to 5 sample size which didn't even add up or make much sense?


How exactly does comparing this years SL attendances with the exact same fixtures between the exact same teams last year amount to a troll?

What goes into the P&L in any one year could be complex with all kinds of timing issues. If you choose a narrow time window then its easy to say that attenadances don't correlate with profit. But the fact remains ( and only an absolute idiot couldn't see this - not that that gives me hope in your case ), an extra ticket sold for an empty seat is more or less pure profit. There are very tiny extra operating costs on the day per extra person ( more stewards, etc.)

Are you a complete idiot? , you are suggesting that if more people had attended, you wouldnt have taken more income therefore made more profits on a fixed cost event

Your posts are becoming more and more ridiculous day by day

Yes, well done on noticing that 'going to be' and 'on course to be' are pretty much the same thing. Its pretty much the first thing someone hasnt had to correct you on.
not really.

The sample size will no longer be moronic when we actually have a full and valid comparison. When our comparison is no longer needing qualifying statements, and fixtures being taken out and added in. When we have actually had the fixtures would probably be the best starting point.

And yes the RFL did make statements showing the game in a positive light and using positive news as a positive. Yes The RFL did come out with statements saying that the games had good attendances when they did even if the comparison wasn’t 100% complete. Yet the RFL get paid lots of money to show the game in a positive light, they get paid to sell it and present a positive image of it in the media, to talk about it positively? No-one is paying you to do the opposite, I can again, only question why you would want to go so far out of your way to do so?

They arent the exact same fixtures, there may be the same teams playing but they are playing at different times of the year, under different circumstances with different things affecting them. These things are generally smoothed out over the course of the year. Thats why we dont only look at rouynd 18 in 2011 for instance, we look at the entire season, because the entire season is a larger sample size giving us more accurate results.

HTH