Re: Not yet agreed terms : Wed Jul 15, 2020 8:08 am  

Ruddy Duck wrote:

Not all supporters these days where money is tighter due to the pandemic situation are as loyal as you seemed to think

Most I suspect have not only asked for refunds, but also are not happy at all about their clubs having to play on neutral grounds instead of playing home and away games which they consider to be unfair, especially for the smaller clubs. A situation which may make many supporters of all the clubs in the Super League think about buying a season ticket etc in the future and even future support of the game.

Why do you think that with the reduction in the ticket office staff as a result of the Latic's going into administration, the club has appealed for supporters to be patient in contacting the ticket office.

We have all been supporters who have followed the club no matter where and when they play, but as you go older, especially when you get a family and money gets tighter, the majority end up just watching the home games.

You asked a question about why would SL and the clubs play the games at neutral venues.
I reply it will be because of cost, H&S etc for Clubs/SL and then you reply about supporters not having enough money.

you then state "Most" will ask for their money back, but yet I guess you have no evidence that they will or they wont? But again that's not what you originally asked.
Even if most do it once again backs up the reason why it is important for all clubs to keep their costs down etc.

You say that "Most fans will not be happy about having to play neutral games instead of home and away, you sure? What poll or evidence is there for that?
Why would they be upset when they wont be attending and considering people will acknowledge that given cost/H&S issues it makes total sense?

You then say :-
"Why do you think that with the reduction in the ticket office staff as a result of the Latic's going into administration, the club has appealed for supporters to be patient in contacting the ticket office."

I think they've asked because, there will be less people manning the ticket office because most have lost their jobs (inc people I know) quite simple really.
And once again supports why clubs will have to keep costs down.

As for getting older and only watching home games, I would say that's 50/50, I felt more pressure when i was in my 30s and kids growing up than i do 15 years later.
But even so, has SL/the clubs/Wigan stated that when games can be attended y fans they will continue at neutral venues? I've not heard that?
Because if they haven't then it irrelevant.

Whatever the decision later on I the season (second spike and all that could have a big bearing) it still applies.

Clubs have to cut their cloth accordingly
Fans have to be patient
Some will want their money back, some wont
It may discourage some from attending next year in case they're worried about a 2nd spike and wasting money, some it wont and they may be lucky enough or committed enough to buy one.

Uncertain times, but the decision to play at neutral grounds for half a dozen or so games when fans cant attend anyway is way down on the lsot of reasons why clubs should be worried about next season and moving on.

Re: Not yet agreed terms : Wed Jul 15, 2020 8:09 am  

jonh wrote:

Quote from Michael Carter today saying that only 5% of Wakefield Trinity season ticket holders have asked for a rebate which I personally think is amazing.

Everyone’s situations are different and there is no right or wrong in exceptional times like this.

As a sport we have always tended to come together and look after our own. Despite the many many issues with our game it is probably what we do better than any other sport.

I’d love for those figures or somewhere near to be replicated across the board.

Bingo!

Re: Not yet agreed terms : Wed Jul 15, 2020 7:34 pm  

Rogues Gallery wrote:

I think the six clubs who are due to play on that 1st day (2nd August) were the ones under most pressure to get the deals sorted quickly. As for Bateman as I said that money will be from players leaving at the end of this season so any wage cuts are irrelevant imo of course.

Then of course we have the Leeds situation whereby they are claiming it is unfair for them to have to travel to Catalan because they are allowed to have a crowd (up to 5,000 I believe) in attendance which according to GH will put Leeds at a disadvantage and they would rather Catalan travel to the U.K. and play the game behind closed doors at a neutral venue?

If Leeds had gone there when they should have instead of pretending that they had covid symptoms then they wouldn’t have to go now.

Re: Not yet agreed terms : Thu Jul 16, 2020 11:32 am  

JonnyBroad wrote:

If Leeds had gone there when they should have instead of pretending that they had covid symptoms then they wouldn’t have to go now.

Great conspiracy theory seeing how Joe Greenwood was the player in question

Re: Not yet agreed terms : Thu Jul 16, 2020 7:19 pm  

ploinerrhino wrote:

Great conspiracy theory seeing how Joe Greenwood was the player in question

Not a conspiracy theory, its a fact. Leeds should have been punished for refusing to play and used a loan player as a scape goat.

Re: Not yet agreed terms : Thu Jul 16, 2020 8:12 pm  

JonnyBroad wrote:

Not a conspiracy theory, its a fact. Leeds should have been punished for refusing to play and used a loan player as a scape goat.

I have inside knowledge of this one. The return flights were cancelled and Spain (where the flights go from and to) went into a state of emergency by the time the game should have been played. The game should have been canned and Leeds did the right thing. I'll wager they stopped a lot of people getting COVID by forcing the cancellation of the game.

Re: Not yet agreed terms : Mon Jul 20, 2020 7:42 am  

JonnyBroad wrote:

Not a conspiracy theory, its a fact. Leeds should have been punished for refusing to play and used a loan player as a scape goat.

The fact is he was showing symptoms similar to those of the virus hence why they didn`t travel.
Had his symptoms developed into the virus and they traveled a fair few more might have been infected.
The airlines were already shutting down so whilst it was a bold decision it was the right one at the time.
Do you really think they had to use a loan player as a scapegoat!?
I`m sure Greenwood would have been really pleased to take on that role to save a team he wasn`t even contracted to