Why would it be good to know? What are you going to do with that information? And why would the RFL release such in-depth detail just to stop you worrying about a problem which you have made up in your head and have no evidence exists?

There are an infinite number of problems that could exist that we have no evidence for. Why are you only worried about the one you have invented and have no evidence for and not the multitude of others which could exist but we have no evidence for?

Working with the information we actually have, and ignoring the possibilities we have no evidence for, selling 40k tickets at this stage for the WC final is a good thing.

You're confusing "statement from the RFL" with "information". I think that's where you've generally been going wrong over the years.

and you have a creepy obsession with Nigel Wood and have started imagining things about him and the RFL and arguing they are real. Its disturbing.

Well, depends on what you're wanting to find out, I haven't read all 90-odd pages of the thread.


If he's looking for a trend (as I would be), he'd be quite right to be uncomfortable with just comparing with the previous year.
If, however, you want to see whether attendances are down or up this year compared to last. then fine.
But I'm not sure what that proves without at least some reference to longer-term trends anyway.



Yes, true ... but in Catalan's case you could use those numbers to say it shows an upward trend over the last few years.

For me, the jury is still out.

Learn to read, or point out where I argue that "some of these sales are not straightforward sales to punters" is not in fact a *possibility* but rather a true fact. I have no idea if they are or they aren't. But your argument that we have great new on ticket sales *does* require you to argue that the RFL's figures are *real* ( i.e. they translate to bums on seats ). Your child-like credulity doesn't make everyone else wrong.


Still confident you're going to win your bet?

exactly, you have made it up. You have no idea if they are, if they aren’t, if it is even a reasonable possibility. You have simply speculated, with no supporting evidence whatsoever, then pretended it is a credible possibility. Yes, that is correct. I haven’t made up a possibility I have no idea is true or not, I haven’t wildly speculated, I haven’t invented a scenario in my head and pretended it is reality. I have simply made the obvious conclusion from the available evidence. If the RFL state they have sold 40k tickets for the final, and nobody produces any evidence at all which casts doubt on that, why would I conclude anything other than the RFL have sold 40k tickets for the final?

That’s the fundamental difference, you are expecting your wild, baseless, un-evidenced speculation to be treated the same as a conclusion based on the available evidence. This is generally, in common parlance, described as idiocy.



very much so

He's been even more uncomfortable with the thread ever since declaring that 2013 SL attendances are on course to being the second highest in history, which probably explains why he bottled out on a bet on that outcome. The evidence thus far from 82 SL games played indicates that during the current franchised, 14 club, top 8 play-off system SL era (2009 to 2013), the attendances in SL are on course to being the lowest of the lot.


Data has now been provided on a weekly basis as a response to knee-jerk reactionaries like SmokeyTA who are uncomfortable with threads, stats, articles and news which do not portray SL or the RFL in a positive light.


Only if one is intent on focusing on just those isolated stats which portray a positive picture whilst ignoring the overall downward trend.


The jury is still out on what exactly? I merely responded to your suggestion that attendances in SL were down by over 12% this year due to the recession (the strain on people's wallets) and that reduction in SL attendances was mainly a consequence of away fans not travelling in the same numbers this year.

The answer is in the first 4 words of your question.

So the answer to [iIf the RFL state they have sold 40k tickets for the final, and nobody produces any evidence at all which casts doubt on that, why would I conclude anything other than the RFL have sold 40k tickets for the final?[/i

is [iIf the RFL state[/i

Is English your first language?

Regardless, if you want to state the RFL are lying, you should probably provide some evidence for it, otherwise its a claim no more credible than they have sold all the tickets to Nosey, the dolphin who played snowflake in Ace Ventura

Again, you don't read do you? ( Can you?)

I have not stated that the RFL are lying, and they are almost certainly not lying - why would they? What I *am* saying, is that I'd like to know what the definition of 'sale' is in this case, and I am a little skeptical ( a little, not totally, just a little ) that the RFL's definition of 'sale' is the same as yours. There are perfectly valid reasons, as others have stated, for at least raising an eyebrow at some of the numbers, but more than that, if for example, we knew that 'sale' definitely *didn't* include those which have just been bought by travel companies, that really would be excellent news.

Out of interest, what do you think? Do you think the figures include distributions to travel firms, or are you confident that each 'sale' definitely represents a bum-on-seat?

If you have some evidence of your wild speculation, provide it. If not then it can be treated with the respect it deserves and roundly ignored. As, up to this point, you have provided absolutely 0 evidence that this anything more than your imagination, I see no reason whatsoever to believe it is a realistic possibility that the ‘sales’ talked about don’t correspond to a sale of a ticket.

If some evidence is forthcoming then that standpoint can be re-addressed, until that point it is the only sensible or logical one to hold.

Indeed you did and I am less sure about my reasoning there now.

For me, the jury is still out on the reasons for this year's numbers being down (so far) and whether that decline (so far) is just a dip in a saw-tooth line on a graph (although I still think the recession is a likely reason).
It does seem that a decline in home fans' attendance is the main factor when the away team is London or Catalan, so I'm not going to press that point, but we can't be sure, it could be due to the perceived attractiveness or lack of attractiveness of fixtures involving those teams (Catalans away game attendances holding up better than London's) ... which brings us back to season tickets etc and whether the walk-ups are reduced for those games.

I think there are a number of reasons for the decline in SL attendances this season and the recession is likely to be one of them, though bear in mind we were in recession last year too which recorded the highest SL attendances during the current 14 team era. Other reasons are new stadia at St Helens and Salford but that novelty has worn off with both sets of supporters (Saints fans in particular) not liking their new home at all as it lacks atmosphere. And some SL clubs have started to charge more realistic prices for their season tickets as opposed to the heavily discounted ones - this may account for the huge fall in attendances at Bradford and Huddersfield. I suspect there's been a decline not only in season ticket sales at clubs across the board but also a decline in fans paying on the day. Most SL fans do not value the SL product at the prices charged at the turnstiles, as evidenced by the shocking attendances recorded at SL play-off games and CC rounds in recent years.

I have my own reasons for not attending SL games very often these days... the decline in playing standards, the lack of genuine competition, the unimportance of the regular rounds, the rewarding of mediocrity via licensing, top 8 play-off system and the lack of P&R.

Attendances at the 4th Round (last 32) stage of the Challenge Cup this year are 13.86% down on the same round last year... 28.22% down compared to 2011... 36.74% down compared to 2010... and 42.98% down compared to 2009.

[uChallenge Cup Round 4 total attendances comparison (2009 to 2013)[/u
[uYear....... Total Att... Avg [/u
=#FF0000CC:2013... 38,953... 2,435
CC:2012... 45,219... 2,826
CC:2011... 54,265... 3,392
CC:2010... 61,577... 3,849
CC:2009... 68,315... 4,270

[uCC 2013 % decrease in attendances[/u
V CC 2012 = -13.86%
V CC 2011 = -28.22%
V CC 2010 = -36.74%
V CC 2009 = -42.98%

the other factor is the lack of big name overseas imports IMO. While it is good for the game in the long-term to have teams filled with homegrown players...you can't deny that the big name overseas players helped get people through the turnstiles. HullFC have sold thousands of season tickets over the years on the back of overseas big names who were going to come in and change our fortunes.

It's not overseas players per-se IMO, just 'big-name' players. Of course, these have often tended to be from overseas. This reality - that big names are what puts bums on seats - isn't accepted by defenders of the cap (some who want to see it reduced even further!) They delude themselves that money is 'better spent on marketing'. What they forget is that signing a big name IS money spent on marketing. I'm far more likely to go and watch a team because SBW has signed for them than because I saw a nice poster.

Completely agree with the last two posts. Big names drive the sport forward. We get one sky sports news more, maybe even a mention the the BBC news and boost the name of the sport.

Instead what is actually happening is the big name players are leaving. Look at Wigan alone. In the past couple of years Hoffman, Finch, Lima, Leuluai and Tomkins (Joel) have all left the league, with Mossop, Hock, Tomkins (Sam) rumored to be ready to leave, and others will im sure follow.

Each one of those players is a top notch player. Aussie international, Kiwi International, SoO caps, England Caps and the rest.

This team would be to bad would it, im sure we would all pay money to watch them


1. Sam Tomkins
2. Eastmond
3. Setaimata Sa
4. Joel Tomkins
5. Matt King
6. Finch
7. Tommy L
8. Lima
9. Scott Moore
10. Graham
11. Hoffman
12. Mossop
13. Hock

but we cant afford to have these players stay in our competition.

(before anyone pops up trying to discredit the team saying things like 'scott moore could have stayed' it is just a example of a team of players who on the whole have left/will leave because we couldnt afford them any more, apart from Moore i think that is the case for all those players)

the solution is maybe to do what Soccer did in America when Beckham went there, and allow a designated player to be counted outside of the salary cap...but I suppose the critics would say that SL clubs are already getting themselves in enough debt without adding an expensive player to their ranks.

Clubs should be allowed 1 player off cap...whilst the RFL can advise on "best practice" and "living within their means", if a club wants to go for broke and ends up going bust,then it's hardly the RFL's fault.

I suspect Leeds, Wigan, FC, Wire and maybe a couple of others would be interested in this option, but I doubt their benefactors or CEO's would be happy unless the star signing paid for himself in bums on seats either....I doubt Ian Lenegan would be happy paying a player 500k if he didn't bring at least that back in increased ticket sales...about 2,000 a home game by my reckoning.

Meanwhile, London, Wakey, Castleford etc will have to focus on getting their business models right.....ie, attracting an average of over 10k minimum to home games.

***

UPDATE...
[uSL Round 13 attendances - comparison to same fixtures last year[/u

London V St Helens in 2013 = 2,839
London V St Helens in 2012 = 4,924
% decrease = -42.34%

Catalan V Huddersfield in 2013 = 8,549
Catalan V Huddersfield in 2012 = 10,684
% decrease = -19.98%

Salford V Castleford in 2013 = 2,306
Salford V Castleford in 2012 = 5,242
% decrease = -56.01%

68 out of 87 SL fixtures in 2013 have now registered a fall in attendance compared to the same fixtures between the same teams last year.

Attendances in SL in 2013 are now over 107,000 down in total compared to the same fixtures between the same teams last year.

Total SL attendance for 87 SL fixtures in 2013 = 733,030 (Avg: 8,426)
Total SL attendance for same 87 SL fixtures in 2012 = 840,400 (Avg: 9,660)
% decrease = -12.78%
Total SL attendance for same 87 SL fixtures in 2011 = 782,962 (Avg: 9,000)=#FF0000**
% decrease = -6.38%

=#FF0000** Widnes fixtures for SL 2011 replaced by equivalent Crusaders fixtures against same opposition.

What do you do for fun?

This, apparently!

Great thread this.