TheWarringtonWolve69 wrote:Which sky aren’t. That’s the point. They want out
channel 4 are doing a better job anyway. and will bring the game back to a wider audience if they market it better in a regular slot. What is not good for the sport is hordes of supporters fighting amongst themselves, bricking coaches, or those saints fans letting off flares or chucking stuff at players on the pitch eh wolfie....... you can have a go at the numbers at huddersfield but one thing you cant do is have a go at the behaviour of our fans. wakey and salford have fewer fans than huddersfield and still cant behave so you cant argue its because there are fewer.
jools wrote:channel 4 are doing a better job anyway. and will bring the game back to a wider audience if they market it better in a regular slot. What is not good for the sport is hordes of supporters fighting amongst themselves, bricking coaches, or those saints fans letting off flares or chucking stuff at players on the pitch eh wolfie....... you can have a go at the numbers at huddersfield but one thing you cant do is have a go at the behaviour of our fans. wakey and salford have fewer fans than huddersfield and still cant behave so you cant argue its because there are fewer.
The size of the ground doesnt help, renting big football grounds was trendy in the 00s but Hudds, Hull, and Wigan are now rattling around in big stadiums.
Not sure what kind of cash Ken Davy has but a 10/12k stadium with terracing would be much more likely to get fans hooked than a cowbell echoing round 20k empty seats.
UllFC wrote:The size of the ground doesnt help, renting big football grounds was trendy in the 00s but Hudds, Hull, and Wigan are now rattling around in big stadiums.
Not sure what kind of cash Ken Davy has but a 10/12k stadium with terracing would be much more likely to get fans hooked than a cowbell echoing round 20k empty seats.
He sold dbs for 75million and simply biz for about 35 million so he’s not short of a Bob or too- but why should he pay for a stadium? We wouldn’t expect him to- and kirklees council wouldn’t allow it anyway.
jools wrote:channel 4 are doing a better job anyway. and will bring the game back to a wider audience if they market it better in a regular slot. What is not good for the sport is hordes of supporters fighting amongst themselves, bricking coaches, or those saints fans letting off flares or chucking stuff at players on the pitch eh wolfie....... you can have a go at the numbers at huddersfield but one thing you cant do is have a go at the behaviour of our fans. wakey and salford have fewer fans than huddersfield and still cant behave so you cant argue its because there are fewer.
The game is reliant on SKY. No other broadcaster will pay anywhere near what SKY pay. When SKY finally pull out (Which they will), Rugby league will be a semi pro sport again
jools wrote:He sold dbs for 75million and simply biz for about 35 million so he’s not short of a Bob or too- but why should he pay for a stadium? We wouldn’t expect him to- and kirklees council wouldn’t allow it anyway.
I'm not from Huddersfield so dont know what the politics are but a smaller ground would mean tickets (for good seats at least) are in demand. I went to Hudds for the CC quarter final and the atmosphere was shocking, hard to attract fans to sit in silence like that. Ithink the John Smiths is a good stadium its just too big.
TheWarringtonWolve69 wrote:Which sky aren’t. That’s the point. They want out
I tend to agree with you, I once had a chat with one of Hull FC’s directors just before super league, he said that a terrestrial tv deal if showing games that sky did would bring in more money through sponsorship than Sky brought. Admittedly at this time there were mainly part time players (except Wigan).
TheWarringtonWolve69 wrote:Which sky aren’t. That’s the point. They want out
I tend to agree with you, I once had a chat with one of Hull FC’s directors just before super league, he said that a terrestrial tv deal if showing games that sky did would bring in more money through sponsorship than Sky brought. Admittedly at this time there were mainly part time players (except Wigan).
TheWarringtonWolve69 wrote:4000 was the attendance for a team that is 3rd in the league that is pushing for 2nd.
Once IMG take over I hope they don’t listen to false stadium promises or allow takeovers to avoid relegation.
Licensing is the way to go and there are championship clubs who will get much higher attendances in SL. This is important if we want the game of rugby league to grow in this country.
Only Bradford are really capable of drawing a crowd any better than the lower end SL clubs but, not the current mid table version. Although, they did great in the cup game v Leeds a few years back. As for franchising. Although it was excellent as far as clubs bringing young players through, it wasn't exactly successful.
Joined: Oct 12 2005 Posts: 4231 Location: Barnsley
jools wrote:channel 4 are doing a better job anyway. and will bring the game back to a wider audience if they market it better in a regular slot. What is not good for the sport is hordes of supporters fighting amongst themselves, bricking coaches, or those saints fans letting off flares or chucking stuff at players on the pitch eh wolfie....... you can have a go at the numbers at huddersfield but one thing you cant do is have a go at the behaviour of our fans. wakey and salford have fewer fans than huddersfield and still cant behave so you cant argue its because there are fewer.
Huddersfield's crowds are completely fake and propped up by super-cheap tickets and an old man pumping £2.5m per year into the club to keep it going.
That's a shame because they play nice rugby at the moment.
Users browsing this forum: karetaker and 131 guests
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
