Re: The 2016 Ave club attendance : Wed Dec 14, 2016 2:27 pm  

shinymcshine wrote:

So Deloitte are lying on their own website?

https://www2.deloitte.com/uk/en/pages/press-releases/articles/70m-tickets-sold-for-uk-sports-event.html

Just accept that there might be a different methodology from the one you are using, and that each might have its own margin of error, and that within that the difference in SL attendance from last year to this is negligible.

However I see no benefit in Deloitte suggesting there was an increase if there wasn't one.

I would fully accept whether up or down 1% the difference is negligible and is within a margin of error. Though I would question why an RL total figure should suddenly change to a vague 'SL up slightly' conclusion

Either way, we know we didn't meet the 5% growth and 15 Sell outs the RFL told us we would.

Re: The 2016 Ave club attendance : Wed Dec 14, 2016 3:08 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

I would fully accept whether up or down 1% the difference is negligible and is within a margin of error. Though I would question why an RL total figure should suddenly change to a vague 'SL up slightly' conclusion

Either way, we know we didn't meet the 5% growth and 15 Sell outs the RFL told us we would.

Can you provide links to there promises made by the RFL? I'd be interested to see whether they were indeed promises or guarantees, or targets.

Re: The 2016 Ave club attendance : Wed Dec 14, 2016 4:27 pm  

DGM wrote:

Can you provide links to there promises made by the RFL? I'd be interested to see whether they were indeed promises or guarantees, or targets.

I fully expect that those running a sport turning over £100milliom+ per year, should be more than capable of planning for the next year that defining as promises, guarantees, and targets would be a distinction without a difference. If they aren't capable of that level of planning they shouldn't be implementing major changes on what you seem to think amounts to little more than a guess.

What kind of business would publish clear and specific aims and objectives only to be completely ambivalent to whether or not they were met? Besides one ran by incompetents.

Re: The 2016 Ave club attendance : Wed Dec 14, 2016 4:29 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

I fully expect that those running a sport turning over £100milliom+ per year, should be more than capable of planning for the next year that defining as promises, guarantees, and targets would be a distinction without a difference. If they aren't capable of that level of planning they shouldn't be implementing major changes on what you seem to think amounts to little more than a guess.

What kind of business would publish clear and specific aims and objectives only to be completely ambivalent to whether or not they were met? Besides one ran by incompetents.

Ahh, so they're "aims and objectives" now? They were "promises" a few days ago Smokey.

Re: The 2016 Ave club attendance : Wed Dec 14, 2016 5:18 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

Yes,

Really or did you just not realise the mistake at the time.

Smokey TA wrote:

which is why i included both. To cover both definitions of Superleague pre super 8s and post Super8s.

That article covers around 10/11 rounds, completely useless as the regular season is 23 Rounds.

Re: The 2016 Ave club attendance : Wed Dec 14, 2016 5:35 pm  

DGM wrote:

Ahh, so they're "aims and objectives" now? They were "promises" a few days ago Smokey.

Choose whichever makes you feel better about the failure to meet them . I don't think it makes the rfl look any better that they made a major structural change on the basis of a 'hopeful aspiration' no one should have any confidence in. Makes them look more incompetent if anything.

Re: The 2016 Ave club attendance : Wed Dec 14, 2016 5:38 pm  

ThePrinter wrote:

Really or did you just not realise the mistake at the time.

That article covers around 10/11 rounds, completely useless as the regular season is 23 Rounds.

Fortunately I included two options for you. -0.5% and -1.82%. Take your pick.

Re: The 2016 Ave club attendance : Wed Dec 14, 2016 6:04 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

I would fully accept whether up or down 1% the difference is negligible and is within a margin of error. Though I would question why an RL total figure should suddenly change to a vague 'SL up slightly' conclusion

Either way, we know we didn't meet the 5% growth and 15 Sell outs the RFL told us we would.

If one of your big beefs about the new system is that the RFL didn't live up to its promises/statements then I've got news for you, you're never going to like any system they introduce as they'll always make aims/claims they won't meet, even if you like personally like the new system.

Re: The 2016 Ave club attendance : Wed Dec 14, 2016 6:11 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

Fortunately I included two options for you. -0.5% and -1.82%. Take your pick.

Unfortunately you've included two useless options as one features unlike for like fixtures and the other is for only half the regular season. Any chance of numbers for the whole 23 rounds, no more no less? Might well be down too but it's the only real true comparison you can get.

Re: The 2016 Ave club attendance : Wed Dec 14, 2016 7:28 pm  

"

ThePrinter wrote:

If one of your big beefs about the new system is that the RFL didn't live up to its promises/statements then I've got news for you, you're never going to like any system they introduce as they'll always make aims/claims they won't meet, even if you like personally like the new system.

I've enjoyed watching the evolution of the arguments put forward by the RFL Cheerleaders and Defenders of The Game in General. When the system was first proposed it was obvious to anyone with half a brain that 'jeopardy' would do the square root of sod all to drive crowds, that lower league clubs would be encouraged toward boom and bust, and the return of relegation would result in short-term panic decisions depressing standards.

But no, the RFL cheerleaders and Defenders of The Game in General, led ably by Field Marshal Printer told us

"this new system is brilliant, its a great idea, the structure will ensure more games have more meaning on them and this will keep fans interested and we will see attendances go up, it will mean investment and growth in the lower leagues and the threat of relegation will drive standards"

Well Bradford and London have seen huge falls from being relegated and that hasn't been replaced with meaningful growth.

"well of course you can't include the falls we will see at Bradford and London that wouldn't be fair to include them in the comparison"

But fewer people watched an SL game in 2015 compared to 2014.

"well of course you can't compare 2014 to 2015, that's unfair. We should look at the new system on its own merits and against its own benchmarks"

But we aren't meeting the benchmarks set by the RFL

" Well of course we shouldn't judge the new systems failure to meet its own benchmarks, its only the first year, We should wait until 2016 and see the game grow then"

But we still aren't growing

"well of course we haven't seen growth from 2015 to 2016. There have been 'variables' and whatnot"

Err we STILL aren't growing, going backwards by most measures

"well of course its not a problem that new system hasn't produced an increase in crowds, no system can drive crowds"

And the lower leagues are struggling, clubs are overspending 3 out of the 4 championship clubs from the first year are already in severe financial difficulties, Bradford may be liquidated

"well of course its not a problem that clubs in the lower leagues are going bust at a precipitous rate. No system could avoid that"

And standards are falling in SL as well, we were supposed to be improving. Relegation was supposed to make the league more intense. It just isn't happening.

"well of course its not a problem that standards are falling, lets just not bother playing the WCC or international games, all it does is give the NRL fanboys something to crow about"

But the system isn't doing any of the things it was put in place to do and isn't meeting even the particularly unambitious targets the RFL set for themselves

"well of course its no problem that the system is failing to meet its own benchmarks, what are you crazy? I've got news for you, all systems ever will always fail to meet any benchmarks ever set by the RFL for some reason"


So brilliantly we now have a new system where we should never have expected any of its selling points to actually happen and there is literally no bar for success. None at all.