Re: New signing. : Sun Aug 16, 2020 11:43 am  

Fuzzy Duck wrote:

You appear to be losing track of my argument, faxcar. The admission price reduction needs to be multilateral with a low championship salary cap to prevent " the better ones going elsewhere". You can't do it unilaterally, I get that, unless of course the gamble of reducing the admission doubles the crowds.

Incidentally, everyone seems to be poo pooing the last scenario I have mentioned even though it's hardly ever been trialled. But I've already mentioned our own example of letting fans in for a tenner against Whitehaven a few seasons back (when if I remember rightly the admission then was £15) which saw an usually high attendance of over 2,000. Other examples include Huddersfield getting 9,000 against Catalans.

If people think a winning team will attract lots more fans no matter what clubs charge, I'm afraid they'll be disappointed. Aka Salford recently getting to the Grand Final who still had an embarrassingly small knot of fans (albeit noisey) in attendance.

Apologies for high jacking the thread, Ilkley Fax.

I’m not losing track about anyone else’s argument FD, simply staying on track of my own alternative argument or reasoning because of the dangers involved and from the start highlighted the need to act multilaterally.

Agreed is you can’t do it unilaterally but that’s one of my points, if the club were to do it now then that’s exactly what they would be doing, the entire argument around reducing admission prices now would in fact be unilateral.

As I have said the BoD can only plan now, by looking at what is actually happening now and not on what doesn’t even exist or on what may or may not happen in the future, but if in the future things change then they may well do so.

All the examples you have mentioned were one off promotion events, there will be a number of reasons and factors involved but a common denominator is they were not intended to become the norm and all fall under the category of being loss leaders.

The Whitehaven game with 2,300 in attendance was largely down to “The Big Apple Day” initiative with someone who attended winning a trip to New York.

I attended the promotion event and they had a dark purple Statue of Liberty with the spiked head on the stage and I remember them saying that it was connected to the “tremendous promotion that had been advertised” and humorously adding that we weren’t signing Wayne Price.

The fact that these were not repeated or being used en mass by anyone in the game proves these loss leaders would only lead to loss.

PS: And if people think that watching a losing side will increase or maintain the numbers of the paying public then they will be sadly disappointed as per Bradford for example who in the modern SL era have gone from World Club Champions, record crowds and a glittering trophy cabinet to playing at Dewsbury.

Re: New signing. : Sun Aug 16, 2020 7:55 pm  

Fair enough, ilkley, that's your opinion and i respect that. However, I get the feeling the majority on here are happy to "plod along " hoping something will happen, such as a sugar daddy. But be careful what you wish for. We have already seen what's happened at leigh and Toronto with their sulky sugar daddies and look how much huddersfield owe davy. It's eye watering.

And if you think new fans will pay 19 quid even if we're winning you're living in cloud cuckoo land. If radical changes aren't made we'll be down to sub 1000 crowds on a regular basis in the next 3 seasons. As with other championship clubs.

Ps just read your post, faxcar. How do you know the whitehaven game was a loss leader? Maybe the club was hoping the "excess " fans would continue to attend at full price, if I recall we played well. The sums suggested we made more with the promotion because whitehaven matches have always been poorly attended.

Re: New signing. : Sun Aug 16, 2020 9:19 pm  

[Part quote="Fuzzy Duck"
Ps just read your post, faxcar. How do you know the whitehaven game was a loss leader? Maybe the club was hoping the "excess " fans would continue to attend at full price, if I recall we played well. The sums suggested we made more with the promotion because whitehaven matches have always been poorly attended.[/quote]

Well how do you know what the sums were, please show then to the club as concrete proof that they worked and if so i'm sure they will take a look.

However, the fact is in the 7 years since then, not this club nor any other has copied the exercise which they would have done if it had been a viable option.

In any case the Whitehaven game in line with your argument is irrelevant because the attendance went up because of the "Big Apple" prize promotion and not because the admission fee was reduced.

What are the club to do now, reduce the prices and send someone of on holiday to New York after every game?

Lets just respect each persons view and agree to disagree and leave it to the people who are running the club because by now i'm sure we are boring the pants off everyone else.

Fair enough

Re: New signing. : Mon Aug 17, 2020 7:01 am  

faxcar wrote:

1). Well how do you know what the sums were, please show then to the club as concrete proof that they worked and if so i'm sure they will take a look.

2). In any case the Whitehaven game in line with your argument is irrelevant because the attendance went up because of the "Big Apple" prize promotion and not because the admission fee was reduced.

3). Lets just respect each persons view and agree to disagree and leave it to the people who are running the club because by now i'm sure we are boring the pants off everyone else.

4). Fair enough .

Point 1 - I've no idea what the sums were, faxcar, but it was a "calculated guess" that the attendance x fee > than usual. You "sweepingly" claimed that the game was a loss leader using no factual evidence whatsoever. I just disagreed with you.

Point 2 - Again, how do you know the extra attendees were there because of the promotion and not because they've rugby league fans who wanted to go cut price?

Point 3 - I do respect other peoples' opinions! As for leaving the running of the club to the directors, that's what I'm doing! I'm not criticising their efforts, just debating what I think the problems we have in the sport as a whole, not just at club level. And I'm sure we're not boring the pants of folk ........... this is the feistiest debate we've had on here all season!

Point 4 -

PS - Another example of how people don't attend at higher prices was when Nigel Wood raised the attendance fee for a game against Bradford and 6 thousand turned up rather than the usual derby day 9 thousand round about that time.

PPS - Great to see the latest trio sign. I do want the club to do well, you know!

Re: New signing. : Mon Aug 17, 2020 8:02 am  

Fuzzy Duck wrote: Point 1 - I've no idea what the sums were, faxcar, but it was a "calculated guess" that the attendance x fee > than usual. You "sweepingly" claimed that the game was a loss leader using no factual evidence whatsoever. I just disagreed with you. Point 2 - Again, how do you know the extra attendees were there because of the promotion and not because they've rugby league fans who wanted to go cut price? Point 3 - I do respect other peoples' opinions! As for leaving the running of the club to the directors, that's what I'm doing! I'm not criticising their efforts, just debating what I think the problems we have in the sport as a whole, not just at club level. And I'm sure we're not boring the pants of folk ........... this is the feistiest debate we've had on here all season! Point 4 - PS - Another example of how people don't attend at higher prices was when Nigel Wood raised the attendance fee for a game against Bradford and 6 thousand turned up rather than the usual derby day 9 thousand round about that time. PPS - Great to see the latest trio sign. I do want the club to do well, you know! Okay. Let the debate continue. Point 1.So you stated this about the Whitehaven game "The sums suggested we made more with the promotion because whitehaven matches have always been poorly attended.[/quote] Yet you now say "I've no idea what the sums were, but it was a "calculated guess" that the attendance x fee > than usual. How can you calculate anything if you don't know the sums? Basing something on pure guesswork is hardly using the factual evidence you ask from others is it? Point 2. So which was it, the "Big Apple Promotion" or the reduction in price at the gate on the day, were the prices for that game even reduced? Answer. It was the New York promotion. Here's the factual proof quoting in part from a Mr Fax item that Pete Mac had been asked to produce. "Narrow wins over Hunslet and Dewsbury were followed by a convincing dispatch of Whitehaven in front of over 2,300 people, largely down to the ‘Big Apple Day’ which offered one lucky attendee a trip to New York, saw Fax confidently regain momentum." The full item is here. https://halifaxrlfc.wordpress.com/tag/halifax-rlfc/ As before, for a fact it hasn't been done since by anyone so it can't be a good long term idea. The loss leader comments has been taken out of context because you originally included Giants vs Cats in your examples of how it had worked when in fact, for that game the entrance fee was free to celebrate the appointment of Simon Woolford. Here's the factual evidence. https://www.familiesonline.co.uk/local/ ... v-catalans Thankfully our BoD are not planning the clubs future based on having no idea about the sums involved, guess work, free admission when we appoint a new coach, taking a unilateral step when it’s a multilateral step that’s required or trips to New York as some would "sweepingly" claim to be the way forward.

Fuzzy Duck wrote: Point 1 - I've no idea what the sums were, faxcar, but it was a "calculated guess" that the attendance x fee > than usual. You "sweepingly" claimed that the game was a loss leader using no factual evidence whatsoever. I just disagreed with you. Point 2 - Again, how do you know the extra attendees were there because of the promotion and not because they've rugby league fans who wanted to go cut price? Point 3 - I do respect other peoples' opinions! As for leaving the running of the club to the directors, that's what I'm doing! I'm not criticising their efforts, just debating what I think the problems we have in the sport as a whole, not just at club level. And I'm sure we're not boring the pants of folk ........... this is the feistiest debate we've had on here all season! Point 4 - PS - Another example of how people don't attend at higher prices was when Nigel Wood raised the attendance fee for a game against Bradford and 6 thousand turned up rather than the usual derby day 9 thousand round about that time. PPS - Great to see the latest trio sign. I do want the club to do well, you know! Okay. Let the debate continue. Point 1.So you stated this about the Whitehaven game "The sums suggested we made more with the promotion because whitehaven matches have always been poorly attended.[/quote] Yet you now say "I've no idea what the sums were, but it was a "calculated guess" that the attendance x fee > than usual. How can you calculate anything if you don't know the sums? Basing something on pure guesswork is hardly using the factual evidence you ask from others is it? Point 2. So which was it, the "Big Apple Promotion" or the reduction in price at the gate on the day, were the prices for that game even reduced? Answer. It was the New York promotion. Here's the factual proof quoting in part from a Mr Fax item that Pete Mac had been asked to produce. "Narrow wins over Hunslet and Dewsbury were followed by a convincing dispatch of Whitehaven in front of over 2,300 people, largely down to the ‘Big Apple Day’ which offered one lucky attendee a trip to New York, saw Fax confidently regain momentum." The full item is here. https://halifaxrlfc.wordpress.com/tag/halifax-rlfc/ As before, for a fact it hasn't been done since by anyone so it can't be a good long term idea. The loss leader comments has been taken out of context because you originally included Giants vs Cats in your examples of how it had worked when in fact, for that game the entrance fee was free to celebrate the appointment of Simon Woolford. Here's the factual evidence. https://www.familiesonline.co.uk/local/ ... v-catalans Thankfully our BoD are not planning the clubs future based on having no idea about the sums involved, guess work, free admission when we appoint a new coach, taking a unilateral step when it’s a multilateral step that’s required or trips to New York as some would "sweepingly" claim to be the way forward.

Re: New signing. : Mon Aug 17, 2020 8:28 am  

faxcar wrote:

Point 2. So which was it, the "Big Apple Promotion" or the reduction in price at the gate on the day, were the prices for that game even reduced?

Answer.
It was the New York promotion.

So why reduce the admission if the attendance was purely down to the Big Apple promotion? You're saying the higher attendance had nothing to do with the reduced attendance fee! Really? And also strange that despite its success the promotion wasn't tried again because ......... it was considered it wouldn't be a success. Confused.com

Hey let's just plod along eh? And we'll have the same old people on here in a few seasons time scratching their heads saying "I wonder why we only had 800 against Fev? Can't be anything to do with it being £22 to get in. Nah!!"

Re: New signing. : Mon Aug 17, 2020 9:25 am  

Fuzzy Duck wrote:

So why reduce the admission if the attendance was purely down to the Big Apple promotion? You're saying the higher attendance had nothing to do with the reduced attendance fee! Really? And also strange that despite its success the promotion wasn't tried again because ......... it was considered it wouldn't be a success. Confused.com

Hey let's just plod along eh? And we'll have the same old people on here in a few seasons time scratching their heads saying "I wonder why we only had 800 against Fev? Can't be anything to do with it being £22 to get in. Nah!!"

Point 1. I honestly can't remember the gate price being reduced for that game and can't find any reference or factual proof, can you?

In any case, even if it was, lets say it was, "The Mr Fax" article tells us the main reason why people attended, which was not any reduction in admission prices, it was the promotion, they said so not me, and they would have closely looked at it, it was after all their idea.
You asked for factual evidence and Iv'e given it from the source.

Point 2. It increased the crowds for that one game largely because of the promotion.
If it had been a financial success on the day or it gave any indication that it would work longer term then they and other clubs would have repeated the exercise, fact is it wasn't and hasn't been, was it an overall success, no, is it relevant for today 7 years on to be used as an example sound business strategy as you propose, no.
No confusion at all.

How to get bums on seats which includes the correct set point for admission prices is a conundrum as old as the game and something every club looks at very closely, it's a main income stream but we've covered it a dozen times and it's hard to see a change until the game at our level changes.
FWIW, and without any evidence based on just looking at the state of the game I do think there will have to be changes and some will be forced and it's a case of watch this space.

Plodding.
No one at this club, at every level including the BoD are plodding along, they are putting their hard earned cash in and working their butts off hour after hour looking at every detail doing their best for the club and for us based on the factual reality of the game as it is at present and anyone who infers they are plodding along are 100% wrong IMHO.

Personally, I'm not plodding, I'm trusting them and running with the club the best i can as it is for me now.

PS. The Nigel Wood - Bradford example was a protest, quite rightly on principle by many supporters of both clubs against the blatant attempt by Tank to making a killing and exploit people as much about the amount.
It was deeply embarrassingly wrong never to be repeated again and offers nothing to the current debate or situation of the club in 2020 / 2021.

Re: New signing. : Mon Aug 17, 2020 10:29 am  

faxcar wrote:

I honestly can't remember the gate price being reduced for that game and can't find any reference or factual proof, can you?

The only proof I've got is in my head, faxcar. I have a brilliant memory. I even remember the score: 50-18 to Fax which flattered us because we didn't shake them off until the last 20 minutes. It was the 7th July 2013 and it was a scorching hot day. After the match I watched Andy Murray win at Wimbledon on TV in the Pump Room.

Alas, I think we should agree to disagree on the admission fee subject because we're just going round in circles.

Let's digress. I'm assuming SKY have lost an awful lot of money this season on the soccer and rugby (both league and union) with cancelled / paused customer subscriptions and lost advertising revenue, even accounting for claw backs.

SKY needs soccer, but doesn't need Rugby League. In view of the above, do you think the next TV deal will be significantly reduced with the RL having no choice but to accept anything offered, no matter how poor? We should never have sold our souls to SKY. We're now stuck with unsustainable vastly inflated player salaries (which have indirectly filtered down to the championship - see previous discussion).

PS - In "real life" I'm not a miserable doom monger as some as my posts might portray. In fact I'm a jolly nice chap who always has a smile on his face

Re: New signing. : Mon Aug 17, 2020 11:37 am  

I can't believe that Fuzzy Duck has solved the club's problems! Simply drop the entrance price to £10 - £15 and we'll be laughing our way to Super League.

Thanks Fuzzy Duck, you're a very intelligent hero.

Re: New signing. : Mon Aug 17, 2020 11:58 am  

Fuzzy Duck wrote:

The only proof I've got is in my head, faxcar. I have a brilliant memory. I even remember the score: 50-18 to Fax which flattered us because we didn't shake them off until the last 20 minutes. It was the 7th July 2013 and it was a scorching hot day. After the match I watched Andy Murray win at Wimbledon on TV in the Pump Room.

Alas, I think we should agree to disagree on the admission fee subject because we're just going round in circles.

Let's digress. I'm assuming SKY have lost an awful lot of money this season on the soccer and rugby (both league and union) with cancelled / paused customer subscriptions and lost advertising revenue, even accounting for claw backs.

SKY needs soccer, but doesn't need Rugby League. In view of the above, do you think the next TV deal will be significantly reduced with the RL having no choice but to accept anything offered, no matter how poor? We should never have sold our souls to SKY. We're now stuck with unsustainable vastly inflated player salaries (which have indirectly filtered down to the championship - see previous discussion).

PS - In "real life" I'm not a miserable doom monger as some as my posts might portray. In fact I'm a jolly nice chap who always has a smile on his face

We do actually agree on the admission prices ironically even on the source of the debate .......... £22 or £19 which is extortionate and to solve it needs a multilateral approach.

I only have the Sky Sports subscription and only because both the missus and me watch rugby league but I was never offered a refund or a cancellation option, just a suspension which, with not knowing how long the lockdown would last and then the NRL starting up would last I never got round to going down the refund route so Sky never lost any of my money, can’t speak for anyone else.

IMHO.
Sky have got the game of Rugby League by the proverbial and will offer the least amount they can get away with.

SL have got the RFL, Championship and Championship 1 clubs by the proverbial and will offer the least amount they can get away with.

For a fact, Sky funding to the game is being reduced.

Central funding to the Champ and Champ 1 clubs is being reduced and as I have mentioned before Ian Lenagen and his SL buddies have shown what they think about clubs such as Fax by saying regarding the distribution of the finances.

“ Super League are the flagship completion and should get the bulk of the money” adding, “ who cares about the Championship anyway?”

Pretty certain all clubs will have less finances coming in and even before Covid some were struggling to survive and in that case there was talk in the RL press that Champ and Champ 1 would merge to form one larger comp.

I dread to think what will happen if we haven’t beaten Covid.
We’ll soon be in September just a few short months from the pre season start and the comp just after.

Just have to wait and see what the future holds when all the dust settles.