My point is these grounds don’t get good enough attendances to hold internationals, 17k and 5k is not acceptable.

We should hold games in London and Elland Road where we can get 30k+ 40k+ attendances.

I agree with Sir Kevin Sinfield on this. 17k at hull is an embarrassment. Coventry, Milton Keynes or Isle of Man would get more

Yet more trolling

It's not even subtle.....



Hull have consistently delivered good crowds for England Internationals and FC have the 2nd Highest Average Attendance in SL. The last decade has now seen 4 England games played at the KC with the average being in excess of 22,000. The poor crowd this year is more a statement of how poorly the RFL marketed this series than anything else, with the failure to half fill Anfield a shocking effort......I was there for the first ever SL game at the KC and rate it as one of the best stadiums to watch Rugby I have ever been to, whilst Elland road is a dated soccer stadium that delivers poor views and cramp in equal measure.

Of course you do, you are more than likely the same person

You seem to contradict yourself. 17k or a 22k average is good, but 27k isn’t

Not at all....both posts lay the blame for poor attendances this year at the feet of the RFL.....you on the other hand want to blame Hull FC and Leigh RLFC, neither of whom own the stadiums in question.......because you're a troll

17,000 in Hull, 27,000 in Liverpool and 30,000+ in Leeds. All three of these games have been organised and marketed by the RFL, that is a constant. It cannot be the reason the attendance at the 1st test was so poor compared to the 2nd and 3rd test.

I don’t blame specifically Hull FC, I blame the whole city, and wouldn’t take an international back there. If we have another 3 match series games should be held in, Leeds, London then Manchester or Liverpool.

The crowd in Hull was disapointing and I won’t shy away from that, but the Leeds game in particular has benefited from two good quality tests being played before it on the BBC to a big TV audience, the general public are far more aware that England are playing than they were 3 weeks ago. Liverpool also benefited from being the only west of the Pennines fixture.

So, in Liverpool, you have 4 SL clubs in fairly close proximity to Anfield, including 3 of the "big 4" and in Hull you have 2, with the next nearest clubs being 65 miles away ?
There is also a decent track record for previous internationals at Hull but, you are so worldly wise that you think Hull shouldn't stage another game.
Nothing to do with poor promotion / advertising ??
From the people near us, many have chosen to attend Leeds, due to its close proximity and their "fondness for Elland Road", although personally, I prefer either Anfield or the KCOM.
There probably should have been a game in London, which actually may have helped with publicity etc as neither Hull, Leigh and Liverpool have the same "pull".
Anyway, series won and Elland Road should be a celebration although, for ticket sales, it may have been handy if the series stood at 1 - 1.

7,937 empty seats in Hull
27,840 empty seats in Anfield
But yeah, let's rush back to Anfield

Quite possibly, the most stupid post I’ve read on here recently and given the wakefield fans ejaculation about the speed bump that’s saying something!

Insightful as ever.

Using that logic we should play at the Wedding Venue London Broncos use, we’d be guaranteed a full house even for England v France on a Wednesday night.

Oh it's the cities fault. I thought it was an England international not a Hull International game. I didn't realise we had to provide all the spectators for the game and they couldn't be drawn from all over England.

I thought Anfield was a great success in everything accept the mediocre crowd, I enjoyed it, reckon a test match against the Aussies would be close to capacity, it's a venue I would like to see use more, lots of casual Rl fans in the soccer city of Liverpool.

What is the "speed bump", I presume it's the KCOM ??

Without doubt the best ground for any SL side.

The Bit I bolded and enlarged in the last post shows how often more than not, threads on here become slagging matches with little context as to the thread topic.......the OP was decrying the venues at Hull and Leigh for their lack of attendance but Rollin thunder has totally missed this and gone ahead with praising anfield except for the attendance



......while the Ruune fella who tried to catch bites last week by praising England v SA at union is just a cast iron wind up merchant....used to call them trolls but apparently they aren't, they just have a different opinion.....



If you're going to book Anfield, then fill it, but slagging off Hull for having 25% of their seats not filled whilst praising anfield for having 50% empty is nowt more than trying to get a bite from hull fans....trolling as we used to know it

So you must think it’s wrong to use Wembley for the Challenge Cup Final as we don’t fill that. Where would you like to see it moved to?

Leigh. That way you wouldn't be going.

2012 - 79k
2013 - 78k
2014 - 78k
2015 - 81k
2016 - 77k

Only stadium outside Wembley in uk that would hold those attendances is Twickenham, so your point is invalid.

You really have the cheek to call someone else a troll, just because they do not agree with your opinion,

Firstly I simply praised the choice of venue and the match day experience, and as the attentence was 10k more than the one at then RL mad city of Hull, then the fact is Liverpool a soccer mad city should be looked at again as a future test venue.

Secondly Hull blew their chances of future tests due to a lacklustre crowd. Elland road today will have over 30k so Leeds as a venue is secured. Liverpool should be given another chance, the 3rd/4th city for future test/trinations is now up for grabs.

This is not Hull bashing this is simply the way it is, the fact the the kcom by far the smallest capacity produced the smallest crowd, by some distance, Hull should now not be considered a test venue.

Or as one poster would put it
2012 - 11k + club Wembley empty seats
2013 -12k + club Wembley empty seats
2014 - 12k + club Wembley empty seats
2015 - 9k + club Wembley empty seats
2016 - 13k + club Wembley empty seats
2017 - 22k empty seats
2018 - 39k empty seats

This. Well said. I’d be considering the following grounds for the likely series against Australia in 2020 (England’s next games). Elland Road, City of Manchester Stadium, Old Trafford, Anfield, London Olympic Stadium and Wembley

look forward to those 30000 plus empty seats at these bigger stadia!

I called Ruune a troll because of his comments after the first test match about how it was rubbish and him "thanking god for England v South Africa at Union, which was better".....not because I disagree with him.......because he was trolling!

As for Sir Kevin. He has a track record of slagging off both Wakefield and Leigh in the hope of getting a nibble....given he is a Leeds fans, who has fewer than 4% of his posts on the Leeds boards, it's pretty fair to assume that if it walks like a duck and quacks like one, then it's probably what it walks and talks like.....he started this thread and felt the need to include the attendance at an England B fixture because it was having a pop at leigh.....ask Leigh fans if he's a troll!

I didn't call you a troll, I just pointed out the hypocrisy of slagging off Hull with 25% unsold seats whilst applauding Anfield with 50% unsold.......

5,700 unsold seats at Elland Road. A stadium spitting distance from SL sides Leeds, Castleford, Wakefield and Huddersfield as well as Championship heavyweights Bradford and Halifax....hardly awe inspiring.

76,069 over 3 games, down from 92,660 3 years ago......I'd say that rather than slag off the venues, the people responsible for marketing this vastly reduced gate(18%) should be taken to task. You don't have to agree with my stance and if you don't, it won't make you a troll, just someone happy to lay blame where it isn't deserved.