So, they've got a very good crowd at Wrexham - the pressure certainly will be on us to get some crowds in this season, pity we start off with traditionally poorly attended fixtures in 2 of the first 3 games. Let's hope some momentum and awareness is built up in the next couple of weeks, and a good performance at HKR.

To be honest I cant see it happening, as much as I'd love to see the willows packed we cant seem to get people through the turnstiles, mainly because of prices but we dont exactly play attractive rugby either. I really worry for us this season because I think we had a stronger squad last season. I hate to say it but half of the shed last season were more worried about the beer and shouting abuse at players(even our own) than watching the team.

Fingers crossed it changes though

I just can't agree that pricing is the issue - we are bang in line with the rest of Superleague - the problems in attracting support have been extensively debated on here and elsewhere - but IMO price is NOT the problem

Hmmm. I think it is a factor - I'd argue that in terms of pricing, the rest of Superleague isn't our competition (a floating fan in say Whitefield is unlikely to travel far to sample the game - though if they went just 16 miles they'd find they could get into the shiny, all seater DW stadium to watch a team with top 4 aspirations for £16), but the rest of the things locally that compete for people's leisure time/money - a cinema ticket, a night at the pub, the chill factor, a night in with supermarket beer and Sky.

I've decided to go to Bury v Rochdale on Monday night as I live a few miles away and take a passing interest in Bury's results, but rarely go - a bit like many Salfordian's with us. When I saw that it was £18 I thought that was expensive, then remembered that's exactly the price we're expecting the floating fan to pay at Salford. I certainly won't be going to many Bury games at £18 a pop, and I'm not skint, I just have other things to spend money on.

It has been debated on here many times but I honestly think RL prices are very good.
I pay £37.00 at United and the price goes up for European games.
Added to the fact it is the same cost for FA cup games and Carling cup then Salfords ticket deals are very competitive.
Unfortunately we all have to accept that we live in a football dominated area and although people will show a passing interest in Salford they will spend there money on a football game rather than a RL game.
I am lucky I can just about afford both (probably not next season and it wont be Salford losing out)

Over 10k at Wrexham looked impressive but how many freebies attended and also how many Leeds fans.
PSG had 17k at their first game and what happened to them.
Didn't Celtic Crusaders have a high turnout first game also ?
The only way we can make our attendances look good to the T1ts in Red Hall is to do what we did in NL days.
This will probably upset people but we have to give out freebies as well, that is the only way some people will come to the game.
Out of these freebies you might get a couple who like what they see and return and pay next time.
If we dont do this for the Celtic game expect a crowd of 3.5 K tops.

Would be good if the club let people who have bought a membership get extra tickets at the discounted (£12) price for mates etc for the first game vs Celtic. Should be a decent game to bring any first timers too (we have a good chance of winning) and would help make up for the lack of away fans.

Also if the membership offer was extended to groups of mates rather than families it might tempt a few people to attend on a more regular basis. Might even please the single fans who feel the offer is no good to them as they would be able to join up with mates and get tickets at a cheaper price. The floating fans who pay £18 four or five times a season might then decide to attend the majority of games if they could get in for £12 every week with the membership offer.

True, but the pricing issue is about prestige. People have a figure in their minds of what is reasonable value for an event.

For example, you’d expect to pay more to see a play at the West End than you would to see the same play in Manchester; the reaction to the actual cost of either event is relative to amount of money you were expecting (or hoping) to pay. So I could say £60 is an expected price for a West End play, whereas £30 to see it at the Palace Theatre is top heavy.

It’s the same with Iain’s point about going to watch Bury.

I think a sports fan with a passing interest in local RL and local football would be a lot happier about paying £18 to see Salford play in Super Leauge on a Friday night (particularly against Saints, Leeds, Wigan, etc) than to pay £18 to see a Division 4 football match on a Monday evening (although I am looking forward to watching the Shakers play Dale at Gigg from the comfort of my own sofa!)

I would be concerned if Salford were charging considerably less than a 4th division football club as;
(a) this could potentially 'de-value' our game
(b) it may mean that the club were missing out on potential revenue

I personally feel that prices at the Willows will have virtually no impact on attendances.

I think they do in regards to a particular group. I wouldn’t necessarily complain about it though because it’s clear many Super League clubs are running on tight margins. But then again, I’m already a hardened rugby league fan.

I think the one major thing that stands out for me between Salford and Utd is success, it really is that simple, people want to watch/be associated/pay for success.

We've had none and Utd have had more than enough (So stop it!

) It's the same with every sporting club really. If we were challenging for honours then the price wouldn't come into it really.

Fair point, there are certain sections of our crowd who many be put off by the price increase (particularly those who have been "disillusioned" by style of play, etc and need an excuse not to come) but I still don't expect the price to have any real impact on our overall attendances.

Probably not. It’s more to do with attracting more floating support and one-off visitors.



Certainly and there is no doubt Leeds Rhinos have ‘benefited’ from those who jumped ship from Leeds United. (I say benefited tentatively because I know there are some long-time Leeds Rhinos supporters that didn’t take to this influx with open arms.)

some of it is down to success but United since the war only twice have not topped the best average crowd for the season, they had the best crowd in all divisions when in Div 2, so is it success or something else, City and Newcastle get large crowds with nothing to show for it.
Even when we were League Champions in the 70's we only averaged about 5,500, so really the only times we got big crowds was in the 30's and since then Salford has only been a football city and that is what we are up against.

nothing to add! but would just like to say this has got to be the most interesting and thoughtful thread I've read on here,hopefully people from the club read this and take on, or just conceder some of the ideas.I've always enjoyed the "small family " feel of our club.But recent things(such as been kept in the dark about the stadium)makes me wonder if the club care about what the average fan wants from them

No truer words spoken, over the years when we've reached a challenge cup semi you sense the awareness visibly rack up , if we ever did reach Wembley they'd be out of the woodwork like something out of dawn of the dead. I feel the club are trying to get the development bit right:-Schools, Development Officers, Academy , Stadium but ultimately it's attractive winning rugby and wanting to associated with a club/brand that delivers that on a regular basis will ultimately be the catalyst. not everyone has Salford running through his/her blood and the stamina to see out also ran games - seasons for that ellusive victory aginst a Wigan , Leeds or St. Helen's. That feel factor needs to return ,,, and soon , we all feel this pressure and it's only going to build as teams battle for position to retain or win a franchise over the next 12 months.

Quick let's bang prices up to £50 then.

£18 is way too much for me to go regularly, I go about 3 times a season now instead of 10+.

The club would get more money out of me in total if it was cheaper as at £10 I'd go 10 times, at £18 I'll make 2 or 3 games. £100 vs. £54, and add-on the odd beer here and there.

The thing with the 70's Pev is that everyone struggled to get crowds, if you give me time I'll prove that crowds across the board in RL were, well, pretty dire. I believe had our success been in virtually any other decade especially the 60's the numbers would be different.

I have put together an article more or less ready to roll on the subject and I'll role it out soon and for me the the proof is in the reading, winning puts bums on seats.

Anyway I only really popped on to say that the pressure has eased a little.

Quins v Wakefield pulled in only 3,688 for their opening home fixture. Our first home game last year as with this year is Celtic and last year we pulled in 4,026 on Sky so I suspect a few more for this one. 5k anyone?

Your argument shows that cost of admission has little to do with attendances - you're only attending 3 games at a cost of £54 because you're annoyed at the club for raising the price of admission. If it was genuinely about cost you would attend 5/6 games that would cost the same as the 10 games you reckon you would attend at £10 a game, hence showing you can afford to spend £100.

As I said, unless we put prices up ridiculously (like the £50 you so intelligently suggested), people will attend if they want to and won't if they don't. Some who don't want to attend regularly will use the price as an excuse (as you seem to) but the fact still remains that we would struggle to fill the Willows if tickets were free.

I'm not annoyed at the club at all, it's their choice where they set the admission fee and my choice whether I am willing to pay that.

I do feel they are shooting themselves in the foot though by consistently increasing prices as my example shows that it's probable they are reducing total gate income (attendance x admission fee) as a result of crowd numbers being lower by more than the admission cost increases. Shrug.

I used the £50 example to show that people do choose their leisure pursuits based on cost, they don't just decide "I want to watch Salford" and ignore everything else. The very people who make the difference between a 3k crowd and a 6k one are the floating fans not the hardcore and they are more likely to take cost into account (as a reason, not an "excuse"icon_wink.gif.

It will be interesting to see how many Crusaders get on the ground once the novelty and promos has worn off.
Last night was the big one for them and they pulled it off .
Salford have struggled to attract big attendances at the best of times, its even more difficult at present , if we get the same numbers as last season we`ll be doing well.

I'm afraid we're just not seen as "cool". Hopefully the new stadium will alter that.

If you got the membership for £50, you could then get in for £12 every week and get free 4th round challenge cup/Murrayfield tickets thrown in as well.

Membership schemes only work when you can fill the ground. As I have stated previously the current scheme, whilst attractive to some, has served to alienate others. You have to find a balance between attracting new and casual suppporters without alienating existing hard core fans. This scheme for me ignores loyalty at the expense of the former. Hence it will prove to be counter productive. I am certainly not supporting it.

As for the freebies- once you turn fans into consumers it is about the product on the park and in Salford's case this has not been attractive over the course of the last few seasons. So I am afraid if people won't turn up to the Willows they are hardly going to travel to Murrayfield or cup games away. Hence- these are not really incentives (also the offer last year was not unique to Salford but was provided by all clubs). I am tired of people mixing the debate between being a fan, price and value for money- they are not the same thing (they overlap but they are entirely different things).

That's a very one-eyed view. You're more than welcome to your opinion but there are several factual inaccuracies in there.

I am tired of people mixing fact with narrow-sighted, self-centred opinions.