Re: Albert Kelly : Thu Sep 22, 2016 9:55 pm  

DGM wrote:

As I said, purely from a business point of view, all things considered (not just the gate receipts), Rovers in SL doesn't benefit Hull FC. Rovers compete with us for the same finite resources in an area not exactly rich in those resources (players, new fans, corporates, sponsors). From that business point of view, they're better in the Championship and staying there.

And it's exactly the same the other way round.

As a fan, I want them in SL. It makes for a more interesting season.


As for the £100k gate receipts the bloke writing gibberish is going on about, that we'd lose if Rovers went down, it could be easily be made up by Hull's gates going up by around 400 on average, easily achievable. Even the Warrington game this weekend will be a good 5/6k above our average, there's a 100k right there - battling at the top of SL would far outweigh any loss from Rovers going down.

As per my other post, I don't agree.

Based upon a Derby generating a crowd of 18,000 v 10,000 (v other M8 opponent - not Leeds) then we immediately lose 8,000 fans per season which equates to 571 fans per game (based upon 14 guaranteed home games). So immediately our avearge crowd is down.

Increasing crowds is not 'easily' achievable. Tomorrow night's game is an exception. We have not played a match for the League title since 1983. That crowd is also being swelled because Warrington will bring an above average following to the KC than others would do for a league match (Rovers/Leeds excepted), in addition we also have the feel good factor from our Wembley win.

Hull's crowds have been in a slight, gradual decline for a few seasons despite Adam's constant efforts to maintain interest and attendance.

Yes, I'm sure this season's achievements will help increase our season tickets and attendances for next season. However, this average will be c571 higher if Rovers are also in the Super League.

That ain't gibberish, that's just maths.

Re: Albert Kelly : Thu Sep 22, 2016 10:11 pm  

Jake the Peg wrote:

Are you a maths teacher? Only your maths seems to be on a par with the idiot who teaches my son

No Jake, I am not a Maths teacher, but do commercials as part of my job.

Check the KC Derby crowds if you like. Can't recall many Derbies below 18,000 and some have been over 20,000.

Typically Hull v Huddersfield or Salford would get a crowd of just over 10,000.

Therefore, a Derby uplift of 8,000 X £23 average match day admission = £184k plus other match day spend = c£200k

£200k is double £100k (LLS prize money)

I'm happy with my Maths and assumptions. Perhaps there is nothing wrong with your son's maths teacher after all.... maybe it's just his Dad.

Re: Albert Kelly : Thu Sep 22, 2016 10:37 pm  

Rugby Raider wrote:

No Jake, I am not a Maths teacher, but do commercials as part of my job.

Check the KC Derby crowds if you like. Can't recall many Derbies below 18,000 and some have been over 20,000.

Typically Hull v Huddersfield or Salford would get a crowd of just over 10,000.

Therefore, a Derby uplift of 8,000 X £23 average match day admission = £184k plus other match day spend = c£200k

£200k is double £100k (LLS prize money)

I'm happy with my Maths and assumptions. Perhaps there is nothing wrong with your son's maths teacher after all.... maybe it's just his Dad.

Some things to consider in those workings:

The average ticket price won't be anywhere near £23. The most expensive ticket available to Warrington fans tomorrow for example is an adult at £21. Kids are £10, or free if they have a season ticket.

Also, with most people buying through their own club, their club get a kick back, which knocks that average down further.

We get nothing from the food/drink sales, and how many people bother to buy programmes these days with everything being available on the Internet?

Then there's the biggy, the deal with the SMC taking a huge bite out of your £200k. I'd estimate it to be nearer £65-£70k taking all that into account. Not a small amount by any means, but that wasn't the point I was making originally. There are many other factors to consider when figuring out if we really benefit from Rovers being in SL from a business point of view (and visa versa). This is one of the benefits definitely, but plenty of negatives too.

Re: Albert Kelly : Thu Sep 22, 2016 11:13 pm  

DGM wrote:

Some things to consider in those workings:

The average ticket price won't be anywhere near £23. The most expensive ticket available to Warrington fans tomorrow for example is an adult at £21. Kids are £10, or free if they have a season ticket.

Also, with most people buying through their own club, their club get a kick back, which knocks that average down further.

We get nothing from the food/drink sales, and how many people bother to buy programmes these days with everything being available on the Internet?

Then there's the biggy, the deal with the SMC taking a huge bite out of your £200k. I'd estimate it to be nearer £65-£70k taking all that into account. Not a small amount by any means, but that wasn't the point I was making originally. There are many other factors to consider when figuring out if we really benefit from Rovers being in SL from a business point of view (and visa versa). This is one of the benefits definitely, but plenty of negatives too.

Some fair points.

I used the average match day Adult/Concession price, but appreciate that some match offers are sometimes in place.

Forgot about the SMC deal, which I think still takes 50% of any gate over our original pre-KC average.

Other match day spend will still benefit. Know we get nothing from the food, but programmes still sell and shop sales must also benefit on Derby day.

Personally never felt that Hull have had to compete with Rovers for sponsorship, players etc. Historically, Hull have had the bigger support and since the KC was built, better facilities with more corporate potential.

As for players, I can't think of a local player Rovers have had over the past 10 years that I wish had played for Hull. As for non local players, it's a Super League market. For example, a few years ago we wanted Dobson, but lost out to Rovers, however we could just have easily lost out to Warrington, Castleford or Huddersfield.

Re: Albert Kelly : Fri Sep 23, 2016 8:41 am  

Rugby Raider wrote:

Personally never felt that Hull have had to compete with Rovers for sponsorship, players etc. Historically, Hull have had the bigger support and since the KC was built, better facilities with more corporate potential.

As for players, I can't think of a local player Rovers have had over the past 10 years that I wish had played for Hull. As for non local players, it's a Super League market. For example, a few years ago we wanted Dobson, but lost out to Rovers, however we could just have easily lost out to Warrington, Castleford or Huddersfield.

I see the laws of supply and demand applying. For example:

Player x is a youngster in Hull looking to sign his first professional contract. If both Hull clubs want him, it'll inflate what he's worth. If there was just one club he'd likely take whatever offer was on the table even if it was pretty low. Good examples of this are the likes of Dean and Tyson-Wilson, reportedly on £35kish contracts each. Compare this to a comment made by McDermott at the start of the year about Lilley & Sutcliffe being on a combined £35k, and they have a lot more first team experience. Of course, that player could leave to join Leeds or whoever too, but I imagine most would want to stay in the city if possible. Therefore, costs go up.

Scott Taylor would be an example of a player we would've had for 6/7 seasons by now. Instead, during that time we were paying a premium to bring in props from elsewhere. It just so happens he found his way 'home'.

For non-local players, as you say it's a competitive market amongst all SL clubs, however, with Rovers being so close and being a lot easier for a player to switch to (like Cooke, Briscoe, Paea, Watts, McDonnell did for example), it makes them a more realistic threat than say Warrington or Wigan etc, as the player would have to move home 120miles away. The mere threat of it would be enough for agents to hike up salaries. Costs go up.


Sponsorship - the level of sponsorship is on a similar level to Rovers (predominantly local businesses), so we're competing with Rovers for the limited marketing budgets available in the city. You no longer get exclusivity when sponsoring a SL club in Hull, there's twice as much supply, therefore bringing price down with it. A main shirt sponsor will be seen by pretty much the same audiences over the course of a season, so the difference between the two is minimal, particularly if both the teams are floating around mid-table like they were for 10years. Revenue goes down.


Corporates - whilst the facilities on offer at the KCOM will be better, there's still a corporate market there to be competed for. Again, with Rovers in SL the supply of corporate boxes/hospitality has gone up, but the demand for it hasn't, it's probably actually gone down due to the economy in recent years and companies wanting to cut costs. So, the price will go down, and revenue with it.


From the clubs point of view, all of this is out of their control anyway, but any company should do the necessary risk/opportunities analysis on external factors, another SL club on the doorstep being one of them.

Re: Albert Kelly : Fri Sep 23, 2016 9:39 am  

You are SmokeyTA and I claim my $5

Re: Albert Kelly : Fri Sep 23, 2016 9:51 am  

craig hkr wrote:

You are SmokeyTA and I claim my $5

Just a debate Craig, feel free to contribute if it's not all gone over your head.

Re: Albert Kelly : Fri Sep 23, 2016 10:59 am  

Wasn't sure how it was relevant to the Albert Kelly topic?Rugby Raider has had you on toast .quite an enjoyable read.As for Kelly still no official club comments after the meeting Peacock spoke of on bbc.Must be complicated situation?

Re: Albert Kelly : Fri Sep 23, 2016 11:10 am  

craig hkr wrote:

Wasn't sure how it was relevant to the Albert Kelly topic?Rugby Raider has had you on toast .quite an enjoyable read.As for Kelly still no official club comments after the meeting Peacock spoke of on bbc.Must be complicated situation?

Glad you enjoyed the read at least.

Sometimes threads 'evolve' & go off on tangents. This one's a pretty big tangent admittedly, but there's only so many things that can be written about Kelly & what has/hasn't gone on I suppose.

I hope in the long run Kelly sorts himself out and returns to SL in 2017 the player we call know he's capable of being, whether for Rovers of anyone else. On his day he's great to watch.

Re: Albert Kelly : Fri Sep 23, 2016 11:39 am  

No real fan of either side would really want to see there biggest rivals go down the derbies are to enjoyable depending who wins of course I'd like us both to mirror saints and wigan and be fighting it out for trophies like we were in the 80s