Joined: Jan 11 2005 Posts: 3913 Location: West Hull
IF we fail miserably in the next 7 games..
Would Pearson act??? if we performed terribly, and he didnt make a change. I feel it would have a further detrimental effect on pass sales for next season..
Joined: Aug 30 2005 Posts: 3231 Location: in a cave
weaver93 wrote:IF we fail miserably in the next 7 games..
Would Pearson act??? if we performed terribly, and he didnt make a change. I feel it would have a further detrimental effect on pass sales for next season..
I think we will win 2 at most, maybe 3.
If we win 0 or 1 there will be a big black cloud hanging over the club and appeals like last year to buy passes will fall on deaf ears. Action will need to be taken, but will it?
First there was wisdom Then there was knowledge Now there is only information
Joined: Feb 09 2004 Posts: 7735 Location: Here there and everywhere
*1865* wrote:Interesting theory about the product on the pitch not being 'entertaining'. I'm pretty sure Rovers fans have been royally entertained this year, but look where it's got them? The club rode on the crest of a wave from moving in to the new stadium, to a relatively successful period from 2003-2007. That dwindled under Agar and the following years have seen a steady flow away from the club of the bandwaggoners (for want of a better word). I think it's finally levelling out and we'll struggle to get those people back until we have another period of doing well!
Its a very interesting notion about entertainment factor. Sport is about winning, if it looks good at the same time that a bonus.
Its also interesting to see some of those using the "entertainment" reasoning where also advocating the return of Brian Smith. Just to remind thos who clearly have forgotten, but Smiths tenure (1988-1991) was dower stuff. It was wins ground out with strong defence and doing the basics right. It was far from champagne / flair rugby.
Joined: Jan 11 2005 Posts: 3913 Location: West Hull
Mild mannered Janitor wrote:I know we have had our differences in the past Seb, however this is a classic chicken and egg scenario.
Fans don't attend due to poor performances. Poor performances are down to inadequate players / coaching. Difficult to change playing staff in the short term without plenty of money. Money not coming through as fans are not showing.
With dwindling resources its either going to take a miracle set of events (6 academy players are ready for the start of next season and can play like Callum Watkins / jow Burgess etc) or someone which a serious wedge who is prepared to lose a fair bit until it comes good.
That someone with a bit of coin was Adam Pearson, but its hasn't worked out. I don't quite subscribe with the notion there has been false promises, its the nature of the sports industry to big up the prospects of a club. Of course there have been mistakes, EVERY club at some point makes mistakes. But when your are without a core structure, both in the team and the set up (which the likes of Wigan, St's and Leeds already had) then every mistake is felt that much harder.
For me, in retrospect, Pearsons biggest error was the appointment of Shaun Mcrae, who it appeared squandered money left right and centre. But this is retrospective. At the time, it was not an unreasonable appointment. Former head coach, knew the set up inside out, had good contacts within the UK and AUS game.
I don't profess to know the answers, but I think the club was at a much lower ebb than any of us really knew when Pearson took over. You say Pearson is clueless, but his strategy of investing into the academy set up to get a supply line of players had to be the way forward after KH left it in such a mess. Thats not clueless, thats long term planning. I actually admire that fact he has stood by his coach and tried to show some sort of loyalty to Radford. Please don't read this that I am an advocate of Radford, I am not. I feel he should have gone at Easter.
I think we will have a new coach for next season and that Radford will still be part of the set up. Pearson is not stupid and is a business man. He should know by now that season pass sales will fall, significantly and hence hit him in the pocket. Only a change of coach will prevent this, IMO. But then we have come full circle, money is down, lack of investment, poor performances.
There is that Chicken and egg again.
Staying away is anyone's prerogative. Staying away but still moaning about it is futile. Turning up and moaning about it it probably the best form of protest.
I echo your sentiments.. chicken & egg scenario..
Turning up is endorsing Pearson's decision making, but in turn harms the club financially..
Pearson made his 'We need you' plea last pre-season, it worked .. on his last RH interview, he reiterated a similar plea, but judging by some fan's comments, I doubt it will work for him this pre-season..
I just wish Pearson would engage and listen with the fans more, he was genuinely shocked, when some fans were complaining about the quality/style of performances on show.
Joined: Feb 20 2007 Posts: 10540 Location: Hunting Gopher
*1865* wrote:So on field success isn't an important part of this? Entertaining rugby is all fine and dandy, but people will come to watch winning rugby. We weren't particularly entertaining in 2010/11/12 but still had impressive attendances.
Yes, people will watch winning rugby as well as entertaining rugby. Problem is, we're providing neither at the moment.
And the interesting thing is, look at the figures for those years you mention. They actually show a general pattern of declining gates despite improving results. We went from 12th in 2009 to 6th in 2010. Know what that did to our average home gate? It increased by 19. 19. And on the back of that much improved season, how did we take that forward into 2011? Gates went down by 1,587. Still, we managed the top 8 again and got a new owner and coach, so the next season we managed to... decrease gates by a further 771.
So whilst you point out that attendances were better then without particularly entertaining rugby because we were winning, that misses the point that actually increasing amounts of people were deciding not to watch a side even though they were starting to win more often. What does that say?
*1865* wrote:Again, i'm not sure i'd be happy with watching the likes of Halifax and Sheffield in the name of entertainment.
Where this argument falls down is how it seems to suggest that it's one or the other, entertaining rugby meaning losses and winning rugby needing to be dull. That's not the case (or doesn't have to be).
Absolutely no reason why we can't finish above both Cas & Catalan this year. 6th and QF of the Challenge Cup (being knocked out by the best team in the comp) isn't a poor season by anyone's standard. In the last 3 months (Wakey away aside) we've only lost games to Wigan, Saints, Leeds & Catalan away. Again, hardly the end of the world.
Finishing 6th is a possibility, we've beaten 5 of the other 7 at least once this year! I just don't see the need for the negativity.
carl_spackler wrote:Yes, people will watch winning rugby as well as entertaining rugby. Problem is, we're providing neither at the moment.
And the interesting thing is, look at the figures for those years you mention. They actually show a general pattern of declining gates despite improving results. We went from 12th in 2009 to 6th in 2010. Know what that did to our average home gate? It increased by 19. 19. And on the back of that much improved season, how did we take that forward into 2011? Gates went down by 1,587. Still, we managed the top 8 again and got a new owner and coach, so the next season we managed to... decrease gates by a further 771.
So whilst you point out that attendances were better then without particularly entertaining rugby because we were winning, that misses the point that actually increasing amounts of people were deciding not to watch a side even though they were starting to win more often. What does that say?
Where this argument falls down is how it seems to suggest that it's one or the other, entertaining rugby meaning losses and winning rugby needing to be dull. That's not the case (or doesn't have to be).
Personal preference I suppose, i'd rather see winning rugby than entertaining rugby. The point I was making was that some people seem to think the entertainment value served on the pitch is the key to our long term success, it isn't. There's also people that think that simply changing coach would transform us! Well I think they'd be very disappointed. If we write off last year as a clear out/transition year, we've seen a lot of improvement from that team, wouldn't you agree? This season hasn't finished yet and as I said we could still finish 6th. I'm relatively confident (not ecstatic though) about the progress being made.
Joined: Feb 09 2004 Posts: 7735 Location: Here there and everywhere
carl_spackler wrote:Yes, people will watch winning rugby as well as entertaining rugby. Problem is, we're providing neither at the moment.
And the interesting thing is, look at the figures for those years you mention. They actually show a general pattern of declining gates despite improving results. We went from 12th in 2009 to 6th in 2010. Know what that did to our average home gate? It increased by 19. 19. And on the back of that much improved season, how did we take that forward into 2011? Gates went down by 1,587. Still, we managed the top 8 again and got a new owner and coach, so the next season we managed to... decrease gates by a further 771.
So whilst you point out that attendances were better then without particularly entertaining rugby because we were winning, that misses the point that actually increasing amounts of people were deciding not to watch a side even though they were starting to win more often. What does that say?
Where this argument falls down is how it seems to suggest that it's one or the other, entertaining rugby meaning losses and winning rugby needing to be dull. That's not the case (or doesn't have to be).
I have not looked at this in detail, but if we had 2 home games against rovers that significantly impacts on our average attendance.
carl_spackler wrote:So whilst you point out that attendances were better then without particularly entertaining rugby because we were winning, that misses the point that actually increasing amounts of people were deciding not to watch a side even though they were starting to win more often. What does that say?
Mainly that there's factors outside of Rugby League that have contributed.
Joined: Feb 20 2007 Posts: 10540 Location: Hunting Gopher
Mild mannered Janitor wrote:Its a very interesting notion about entertainment factor. Sport is about winning, if it looks good at the same time that a bonus.
Its also interesting to see some of those using the "entertainment" reasoning where also advocating the return of Brian Smith. Just to remind thos who clearly have forgotten, but Smiths tenure (1988-1991) was dower stuff. It was wins ground out with strong defence and doing the basics right. It was far from champagne / flair rugby.
Crowd grew because we are a winning team.
Whilst that's true, it has limitations. If you rely on winning to be your way of getting fans in, you're likely only going to keep a lot of those fans for as long as you're winning. Winning cannot be maintained indefinitely, so you need something for fans to hang onto and believe in in the lean periods. That's what we've lost IMO.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
