Trouble in Melbourne
Stephen Doyle
Oh dear oh dear, what a shame, what a pity...
Cheers
Stephen
Will S
"Stephen Doyle" <st...@dmsystems.co.nz> wrote in message
news:hhdrrh$hlj$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
"The parties reached an impasse over funding, with the ARU unwilling to
match an annual grant of $4.2m to the existing Australian Super sides.They
initially offered A$2.1m which was upped to $3m but members of VicSuper15
say it's insufficient.The Melbourne side was set to be the first
privately-funded franchise in a departure from traditional state-owned Super
rugby teams"
If its privately funded why do they need money from the ARU ? I would assume
that the ARU should pass on a share of the broadcasting money but would that
come to $4.2 million ? Hey, maybe the Victorian Govt should step in after
all they paid a fortune for the master shagger to pay golf for one weekend
and they are always boasting that Melbourne is the King of Sports in
Australia.
You know if they went back to a Super 10 Comp it would be better quality and
it would leave plenty of time for local comps like Curry munchers cup as
well as longer tours ( means reducing tri-nations as well ).
Actually I would prefer a Super 10 Comp made up of 7 kiwi sides and 3
Australia and an annual Bledisole Cup match
Andrew Dunford
"Stephen Doyle" <st...@dmsystems.co.nz> wrote in message
news:hhdrrh$hlj$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/3198178/Melbourne-rugby-franchise-not-so-super
>
> Oh dear oh dear, what a shame, what a pity...
Leaving aside the funding problems, the 'we could have Rocky Elsom lined up'
bit is part of the reason Australia should never have been given a fifth
team in the first place. Players moving to the most recent new team in
Perth caused other teams to become weaker - there aren't enough players of
sufficient quality.
The Super rugby model is bollocks.
Andrew
Simon S-B
"Andrew Dunford" <adun...@artifax.net> wrote in message
news:7q0mtt...@mid.individual.net...
Meanwhile in the UK the game goes from strength to strength. Grounds are
expanding almost everywhere and record crowds are getting boring. The
Heineken cup gives us all the international rivalry we need, and it seems
that domestic comps throughout the NH are in rude health. It's a shame about
the international game, but I increasingly care less and less about that,
and will continue to do so until England do something that shows some sort
of thought has gone into things.
lord shineything
> "Andrew Dunford" <adunf...@artifax.net> wrote in message
>
> news:7q0mtt...@mid.individual.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Stephen Doyle" <st...@dmsystems.co.nz> wrote in message
> >news:hhdrrh$hlj$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> >> Oh dear oh dear, what a shame, what a pity...
>
> > Leaving aside the funding problems, the 'we could have Rocky Elsom lined
> > up' bit is part of the reason Australia should never have been given a
> > fifth team in the first place. Players moving to the most recent new team
> > in Perth caused other teams to become weaker - there aren't enough players
> > of sufficient quality.
>
> > The Super rugby model is bollocks.
It's a prime example of what Lord Shiney calls the 'more-is-always-
better' fallacy. In marketing-speak, it reduces the value of one's
brand, thereby 'necessitating' a further increase in quantity to
compensate for the drop in per-unit value, which then leads to a
further fall in brand value, and so on. Eventually one ends up with
an infinite supply of a product worth absolutely nothing. True, Lord
Shiney has to acknowledge that such an approach has worked elsewhere:
soccer supporters seem to thrive on it. But this simply confirms Lord
Shiney's views on the average IQ of soccer followers.
>
> > Andrew
>
> Meanwhile in the UK the game goes from strength to strength.
Except on the field.
> Grounds are
> expanding almost everywhere and record crowds are getting boring. The
> Heineken cup gives us all the international rivalry we need,
Unfortunately, it's all in the second division.
> and it seems
> that domestic comps throughout the NH are in rude health.
Except on the field.
>It's a shame about
> the international game, but I increasingly care less and less about that,
> and will continue to do so until England do something that shows some sort
> of thought has gone into things.
My, how quickly things change. It seems like only yesterday that Lord
Shiney was being repeatedly subjected to the strains of 'England uber
alles' and predictions of a thousand year domination of international
rugby.
didgerman
Didgerman senses more bollocks from Shineything.
>
>> Grounds are
>> expanding almost everywhere and record crowds are getting boring. The
>> Heineken cup gives us all the international rivalry we need,
>
> Unfortunately, it's all in the second division.
>
>> and it seems
>> that domestic comps throughout the NH are in rude health.
>
> Except on the field.
Hmmm, let's see, GP teams 2, SA zero. SA 3, All Blacks zip.
But yeah, the Lord doth keep it real.
>
>> It's a shame about
>> the international game, but I increasingly care less and less about that,
>> and will continue to do so until England do something that shows some sort
>> of thought has gone into things.
>
> My, how quickly things change. It seems like only yesterday that Lord
> Shiney was being repeatedly subjected to the strains of 'England uber
> alles' and predictions of a thousand year domination of international
> rugby.
How about I subject you to your face being flushed down the toilet?
>
Simon S-B
"lord shineything" <shine...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d6991690-1a54-4f63...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Plan A failed. Plan B of robbing you of all your players is in it's infancy,
but soon the economic differences at club level are going to be so vast that
you'll simply not be able to compete. I'm glad you've been watching second
division rugby, it'll soften the blow for the 3rd division shite that's
coming real soon at a ground near you.
Mark (newsgroups)
> "Andrew Dunford" <adunf...@artifax.net> wrote in message
>
> news:7q0mtt...@mid.individual.net...
>
> > "Stephen Doyle" <st...@dmsystems.co.nz> wrote in message
> >news:hhdrrh$hlj$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> >> Oh dear oh dear, what a shame, what a pity...
>
> > Leaving aside the funding problems, the 'we could have Rocky Elsom lined
> > up' bit is part of the reason Australia should never have been given a
> > fifth team in the first place. Players moving to the most recent new team
> > in Perth caused other teams to become weaker - there aren't enough players
> > of sufficient quality.
>
> > The Super rugby model is bollocks.
>
> > Andrew
>
> Meanwhile in the UK the game goes from strength to strength. Grounds are
> expanding almost everywhere and record crowds are getting boring. The
> Heineken cup gives us all the international rivalry we need, and it seems
> that domestic comps throughout the NH are in rude health. It's a shame about
> the international game, but I increasingly care less and less about that,
> and will continue to do so until England do something that shows some sort
> of thought has gone into things.
Just 10 years ago you barely had any of this. I watched a game between
Wasps and Sale (in 1999) with maybe a couple of hundred supporters in
the stadium. So the last 10 years have seen massive growth in the NH
club rugby game, whereas the SH experienced the professional growth
era earlier, and now we're coming to a crossroads.
1) It's nothing really special that's happening, you're just playing
catchup, but with the economic clout that Europe has, naturally you'll
attract the SH players.
2) You're in the honeymoon years, you'll most likely have to deal with
the marketing geniuses fucking up the game sooner or later.
3) You also mistake us griping about the marketing geniuses with the
actual state of the SH game. Crowds are still large, and we still have
dominance of the NH in internationals.
That said, I still feel like ever increasing expansion of Super rugby
is the wrong approach.
didgerman
Mark let's be clear about this: England are, without question, the
dominant world cup side of this century.
SA and OZ can't match us at the RWC, and NZ are an irritating bogey side
between tournaments, nothing more.
Now, perhaps you'd like to amend *still* have dominance to *currently*
have dominance before I mention 53-3?
Simon S-B
"Mark (newsgroups)" <marknew...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:76d5bb08-d8a5-4f9c...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
I don't think we're in the same place you were a few seasons back, or that
there is a 'crossroads' on our horizon. I think we've already overtaken you.
> 1) It's nothing really special that's happening, you're just playing
> catchup, but with the economic clout that Europe has, naturally you'll
> attract the SH players.
>
You can console yourself with that, and assuming it's true (I don't think it
is) I'll refer you to the Industrial Revolution. The Brits pioneered many
things, then others came along and without having to go through the
pioneering pain, seized the ideas and improved upon them, overtaking us in
no time.
> 2) You're in the honeymoon years, you'll most likely have to deal with
> the marketing geniuses fucking up the game sooner or later.
>
What we've had to deal with is making the game profitable, which in most
cases means ground expansion/sharing to satisfy the demand. When you're
built on a decent business model, you don't need gimmicky marketing bollox.
We don't have a problem getting bums on seats or TV audiences.
> 3) You also mistake us griping about the marketing geniuses with the
> actual state of the SH game. Crowds are still large, and we still have
> dominance of the NH in internationals.
>
Come off it. Crowds may be decent enough for some games but when you can
visually see the difference between now and a few years back I'm not buying
that one. SA has not suffered as much as it won the RWC, but crowds in NZ
and AUS since 2007 look well down to me.
As for dominance over the NH, currently yes. However, I see SA as being the
only nation that can hope to continue this as the economic model in NZ and
AUS simply is not there, and they're going to start losing players younger
and younger. My old school for example has just announced two Samoan lads
and a black South African in the rugby scholarship program. This would never
have happened a few years back.
> That said, I still feel like ever increasing expansion of Super rugby
> is the wrong approach.
I think it has been for years.
Mark (newsgroups)
> "Mark (newsgroups)" <marknewsgro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:76d5bb08-d8a5-4f9c...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> > On Dec 30, 5:53 pm, "Simon S-B" <baitt...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
> >> Meanwhile in the UK the game goes from strength to strength. Grounds are
> >> expanding almost everywhere and record crowds are getting boring. The
> >> Heineken cup gives us all the international rivalry we need, and it seems
> >> that domestic comps throughout the NH are in rude health. It's a shame
> >> about
> >> the international game, but I increasingly care less and less about that,
> >> and will continue to do so until England do something that shows some
> >> sort
> >> of thought has gone into things.
>
> > Just 10 years ago you barely had any of this. I watched a game between
> > Wasps and Sale (in 1999) with maybe a couple of hundred supporters in
> > the stadium. So the last 10 years have seen massive growth in the NH
> > club rugby game, whereas the SH experienced the professional growth
> > era earlier, and now we're coming to a crossroads.
>
> I don't think we're in the same place you were a few seasons back, or that
> there is a 'crossroads' on our horizon. I think we've already overtaken you.
The crossroads is for the SH, because we've gone through the easy
years. As for overtaken us, that's a very vague statement. In what
sense? In my view, the quality of the rugby in the average S14 game is
still better than the average Euro comp game.
> > 1) It's nothing really special that's happening, you're just playing
> > catchup, but with the economic clout that Europe has, naturally you'll
> > attract the SH players.
>
> You can console yourself with that, and assuming it's true (I don't think it
> is) I'll refer you to the Industrial Revolution. The Brits pioneered many
> things, then others came along and without having to go through the
> pioneering pain, seized the ideas and improved upon them, overtaking us in
> no time.
That's a fair statement, but underneath it is still the fact that the
NH had to play catchup to get to where you are. In other words, the SH
has already been through the good years that you're experiencing now.
You might find you end up having to deal with the same problems as the
SH.
> > 2) You're in the honeymoon years, you'll most likely have to deal with
> > the marketing geniuses fucking up the game sooner or later.
>
> What we've had to deal with is making the game profitable, which in most
> cases means ground expansion/sharing to satisfy the demand. When you're
> built on a decent business model, you don't need gimmicky marketing bollox.
> We don't have a problem getting bums on seats or TV audiences.
The Super comp was/is also built on a decent business model. Btw, it's
a separate debate why Europe has an easier time putting bums on the
seats (accessibility, economics, etc).
> > 3) You also mistake us griping about the marketing geniuses with the
> > actual state of the SH game. Crowds are still large, and we still have
> > dominance of the NH in internationals.
>
> Come off it. Crowds may be decent enough for some games but when you can
> visually see the difference between now and a few years back I'm not buying
> that one.
There is a difference, and that's due to various things, but that
isn't what I said. "Crowds are still large". You are making it out
like Super rugby is virtually dead, that's not true at all. In fact,
I'm tempted to think the average crowd (as well as quality) is still
larger than the average Heineken cup crowd.
> As for dominance over the NH, currently yes. However, I see SA as being the
> only nation that can hope to continue this as the economic model in NZ and
> AUS simply is not there, and they're going to start losing players younger
> and younger. My old school for example has just announced two Samoan lads
> and a black South African in the rugby scholarship program. This would never
> have happened a few years back.
That is going to happen for the same reasons as soccer. Economics. I
am not so sure about SA, there are still major issues to overcome. I
think the SH (especially NZ) will continue to have success over the NH
for some time, whatever the crowds or money taken at European club
games might be.
> > That said, I still feel like ever increasing expansion of Super rugby
> > is the wrong approach.
>
> I think it has been for years.
We can't compete with Europe in terms of club competition money
taking. You have the currency and close proximity as two massive
advantages. I don't think the SH should be trying to compete on those
terms. The advantage we need to pursue is getting back to consistent,
high quality, open rugby.
Mark (newsgroups)
> Mark (newsgroups) wrote:
> > 3) You also mistake us griping about the marketing geniuses with the
> > actual state of the SH game. Crowds are still large, and we still have
> > dominance of the NH in internationals.
>
> Mark let's be clear about this: England are, without question, the
> dominant world cup side of this century.
> SA and OZ can't match us at the RWC, and NZ are an irritating bogey side
> between tournaments, nothing more.
> Now, perhaps you'd like to amend *still* have dominance to *currently*
> have dominance before I mention 53-3?
No problem didge. All is right with English rugby. You betcha.
Simon S-B
"Mark (newsgroups)" <marknew...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5e9d2a75-efb9-4131...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
I'd agree on the quality front but the gap is decreasing pretty fast. We'll
never know of course because much as we'd all love a slugout between the top
HC sides and the top S14 sides, we'll never see it. By overtaken you, I was
referring purely to the success of the structure. You're forever messing
with S14 and your domestic comps, whereas here they seem to have stabilised.
If we can get better arrangements so that our top players are not flogged as
much, then I think we'll see us become competitive internationally.
>> > 1) It's nothing really special that's happening, you're just playing
>> > catchup, but with the economic clout that Europe has, naturally you'll
>> > attract the SH players.
>>
>> You can console yourself with that, and assuming it's true (I don't think
>> it
>> is) I'll refer you to the Industrial Revolution. The Brits pioneered many
>> things, then others came along and without having to go through the
>> pioneering pain, seized the ideas and improved upon them, overtaking us
>> in
>> no time.
>
> That's a fair statement, but underneath it is still the fact that the
> NH had to play catchup to get to where you are. In other words, the SH
> has already been through the good years that you're experiencing now.
> You might find you end up having to deal with the same problems as the
> SH.
>
Your good years were always limited geography and population, so I don't
agree we're even in the good years. I think where we are is that the game is
becoming more commercially viable for the owners, and with investment comes
fans. Saints have been full for a few years now, so it's hard to get extra
cash without sticking up ticket prices. They've increased their funds purely
from merchandise, which in the last 3 years has doubled. Walk around
Northampton at any time and see how many people are in Saints shirts, have
car stickers, scarves etc. The local football side would kill for that
following, which is a complete reversal from years back and is down to the
investment in the ground and the courting of families.
>> > 2) You're in the honeymoon years, you'll most likely have to deal with
>> > the marketing geniuses fucking up the game sooner or later.
>>
>> What we've had to deal with is making the game profitable, which in most
>> cases means ground expansion/sharing to satisfy the demand. When you're
>> built on a decent business model, you don't need gimmicky marketing
>> bollox.
>> We don't have a problem getting bums on seats or TV audiences.
>
> The Super comp was/is also built on a decent business model. Btw, it's
> a separate debate why Europe has an easier time putting bums on the
> seats (accessibility, economics, etc).
>
>> > 3) You also mistake us griping about the marketing geniuses with the
>> > actual state of the SH game. Crowds are still large, and we still have
>> > dominance of the NH in internationals.
>>
>> Come off it. Crowds may be decent enough for some games but when you can
>> visually see the difference between now and a few years back I'm not
>> buying
>> that one.
>
> There is a difference, and that's due to various things, but that
> isn't what I said. "Crowds are still large". You are making it out
> like Super rugby is virtually dead, that's not true at all. In fact,
> I'm tempted to think the average crowd (as well as quality) is still
> larger than the average Heineken cup crowd.
>
Yet we get 75k for a local derby. HC crowds are often limited by stadium
size - most games are sold out.
>> As for dominance over the NH, currently yes. However, I see SA as being
>> the
>> only nation that can hope to continue this as the economic model in NZ
>> and
>> AUS simply is not there, and they're going to start losing players
>> younger
>> and younger. My old school for example has just announced two Samoan lads
>> and a black South African in the rugby scholarship program. This would
>> never
>> have happened a few years back.
>
> That is going to happen for the same reasons as soccer. Economics. I
> am not so sure about SA, there are still major issues to overcome. I
> think the SH (especially NZ) will continue to have success over the NH
> for some time, whatever the crowds or money taken at European club
> games might be.
>
Whereas I think NZ will slide but survive, but Aus could be in real danger.
>> > That said, I still feel like ever increasing expansion of Super rugby
>> > is the wrong approach.
>>
>> I think it has been for years.
>
> We can't compete with Europe in terms of club competition money
> taking. You have the currency and close proximity as two massive
> advantages. I don't think the SH should be trying to compete on those
> terms. The advantage we need to pursue is getting back to consistent,
> high quality, open rugby.
My point is economics has already started to lead to you losing quality
players, and this continuing trend will mean that ultimately your comps will
suffer.
I've always thought if England could utilise it's population we'd be so much
better. I admire what Friday has done in the 7s and trawled inner-city
basketball teams for players, dangling the olympic carrot. The problem has
always been the dominance of other sports here, and as rugby comes more to
the fore not only will we steal the best islanders at schoolboy age, but
we'll start to get some players from football. This is a large part of the
reason I am so critical of the current England management, who are doing
their best to display to those who have not yet given it a go what a dull
and boring game rugby is. Right now we need to be exciting people so we can
kick on from there.
Simon S-B
"Mark (newsgroups)" <marknew...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3192837d-0e84-447d...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
Club rugby. Internationally we're a clusterfuck.
Andrew Dunford
"didgerman" <didg...@rfu.com> wrote in message
news:hhgm62$8s5$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Even at New Year nobody would be stupid enough to fall for this pre-school
logic.
<snip>
Andrew
Dave (SA)
> "Andrew Dunford" <adunf...@artifax.net> wrote in message
>
> news:7q0mtt...@mid.individual.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Stephen Doyle" <st...@dmsystems.co.nz> wrote in message
> >news:hhdrrh$hlj$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> >> Oh dear oh dear, what a shame, what a pity...
>
> > Leaving aside the funding problems, the 'we could have Rocky Elsom lined
> > up' bit is part of the reason Australia should never have been given a
> > fifth team in the first place. Players moving to the most recent new team
> > in Perth caused other teams to become weaker - there aren't enough players
> > of sufficient quality.
>
> > The Super rugby model is bollocks.
>
> > Andrew
>
> Meanwhile in the UK the game goes from strength to strength. Grounds are
> expanding almost everywhere and record crowds are getting boring. The
> Heineken cup gives us all the international rivalry we need, and it seems
> that domestic comps throughout the NH are in rude health. It's a shame about
> the international game, but I increasingly care less and less about that,
> and will continue to do so until England do something that shows some sort
> of thought has gone into things.
The trouble is Simon what you, Andrew and I may interpret as a game
going in the right direction we do not share the same view as our
administrators.
The 15th side in Melbourne added a lot of money to the pot and thats
what the administrators want to see.
SANZAR make an absolute fortune out of Super Rugby. So they would
consider that to be healthy,
The Melbourne finances don't stack up though.
SA had their finances sorted but it added less money to the pot so
they got gonged.
Of course the solution was not to add the 15th side at all. 14 is too
many.
* Our travel distances are a bit of a bugger. This issue should not be
underestimated.
* The countries don't have enough players to support extra teams.
Maybe the addition of the Argies to 3N will help player pools in the
S15
* But most important the Super 15 compromises the rugby we love the
most. NZs NPC and SA Currie Cup has been compromised. Imagine the HC
causing your Premiership to never field its stars. SA fought this
battle but lost.
In SA anyway our crowds have been good. Remember we have always had
decent size crowds so growing the crowds is a lot harder. Growing from
20 or 30 k per game is tougher than growing from 5k per game
Dave (SA)
Yeah Didge, you sound like the English soccer supporters talking about
1966.
No argument from 2001 to 2004 you had the wood over us. 2005 and 2009
we never played
But since then see below. I see a 58-10, 36-0 and 42-6 (at Twickers no
less)
18 Nov 2006 Lose: 21-23 Twickenham, London
25 Nov 2006 Win: 25-14 Twickenham, London
26 May 2007 Win: 58-10 Free State Stadium, Bloemfontein
02 Jun 2007 Win: 55-22 Loftus Versfeld, Pretoria
14 Sep 2007 Win: 36-0 Stade de France, Paris
20 Oct 2007 Win: 15-6 Stade de France, Paris
22 Nov 2008 Win: 42-6 Twickenham, London
I still like the 15-6 one.
But yes Super Rugby is the wrong approach.
Everyone except those running the game agree.
DC
> In SA anyway our crowds have been good. Remember we have always had
> decent size crowds so growing the crowds is a lot harder. Growing from
> 20 or 30 k per game is tougher than growing from 5k per game
Any official stats on averarge (top division) CC crowds last year? Or
on S14 crowds for games played in SA?
According to this
http://www.oocities.com/worldfootballrankings2004/Top125Leagues.html
the average CC crowd in 2004 was 11.4k, and it was down 19% from 2002.
But who knows were they get their stats and whether it includes all 14
CC teams, or just top division. Crowds for Boland or SWD is probably a
lot different than for WP or Natal. (*)
Do you think crowds would have increased since 2004?
GP crowds are now averaging 10k, so maybe CC (across all 14 teams) and
GP crowdss are converging.
According to this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attendance_figures_at_domestic_professional_sports_leagues
the average S14 attendance was 21k (no reference cited), which may be
closer to average for top CC division?
(*) I'm not living in the past, I just prefer using geographic rather
than nick names (marketing names) in a worldwide forum, since there are
at least 2 professional rugby teams called "Sharks".
DC
> Dave (SA) wrote:
>
>> In SA anyway our crowds have been good. Remember we have always had
>> decent size crowds so growing the crowds is a lot harder. Growing from
>> 20 or 30 k per game is tougher than growing from 5k per game
>
> Any official stats on averarge (top division) CC crowds last year? Or
> on S14 crowds for games played in SA?
>
> According to this
> http://www.oocities.com/worldfootballrankings2004/Top125Leagues.html
> the average CC crowd in 2004 was 11.4k, and it was down 19% from 2002.
>
> But who knows were they get their stats and whether it includes all 14
> CC teams, or just top division. Crowds for Boland or SWD is probably a
> lot different than for WP or Natal. (*)
>
> Do you think crowds would have increased since 2004?
This site http://wapedia.mobi/en/2009_Currie_Cup_Premier_Division
lists attendance for many but not all 2009 CC Premier Division games,
and there are early round matches with attendance of 850 or 1000. Up to
round 6 highest attendance is about 24k, and a quick guestimate
indicates an average of 10k wouldn't be far off.
From round 8 it picks up (eg. Sharks-WP, 28k; WP-Bulls, 43k) -- I guess
that was when the Springboks returned from the 3N?
But even then, from the figures shown, it appears the big stadia never
sold out during the group stages -- would that be a correct assessment?
So to get back to SS-B's original points, if Leicester, Wasps,
Gloucester, Northampton or Bath played regular matches in 30k+ stadia,
then the GP attendance would probably get a considerable boost -- even
though they might not sell out each week, just like Newlands or Loftus
does not sell out. (And I don't believe London Irish or Saracens sell
out their 21/23k stadia.)
Simon S-B
"DC" <---@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:LA00n.9951$Ma2....@newsfe04.ams2...
Don't forget TV revenue's either. When was the last time you saw an NPC/ANZ
game on TV here? It used to be shown all the time. Currie cup is another one
that is hardly broadcast here these days.
Andrew Dunford
"Simon S-B" <bait...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hhqf7o$4ei$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
It's the summer - we have an off-season down here.
Andrew
Simon S-B
"Andrew Dunford" <adun...@artifax.net> wrote in message
news:7qi56l...@mid.individual.net...
Lol - yes I know, but my guess would be that SH fans over here will have
noticed a reduction in the game coverage even before our season started.
Mark (newsgroups)
> "Andrew Dunford" <adunf...@artifax.net> wrote in message
>
> news:7qi56l...@mid.individual.net...
> > "Simon S-B" <baitt...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:hhqf7o$4ei$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
[...]
> >> Don't forget TV revenue's either. When was the last time you saw an
> >> NPC/ANZ game on TV here? It used to be shown all the time. Currie cup is
> >> another one that is hardly broadcast here these days.
>
> > It's the summer - we have an off-season down here.
>
> > Andrew
>
> Lol - yes I know, but my guess would be that SH fans over here will have
> noticed a reduction in the game coverage even before our season started.
Yes, and it pisses me off. They had ice hockey on Sky Sports 2 instead
of a big Currie Cup game in 2009. Ice Hockey for good sake.
Two Dogs
wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HSrwGULOjo
Two Dogs
Brent Hadley
> "DC" <-...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:LA00n.9951$Ma2....@newsfe04.ams2...
>
>
>
>
>
> > DC wrote:
> >> Dave (SA) wrote:
>
> >>> In SA anyway our crowds have been good. Remember we have always had
> >>> decent size crowds so growing the crowds is a lot harder. Growing from
> >>> 20 or 30 k per game is tougher than growing from 5k per game
>
> >> Any official stats on averarge (top division) CC crowds last year? Or on
> >> S14 crowds for games played in SA?
>
> >> According to this
> >>http://www.oocities.com/worldfootballrankings2004/Top125Leagues.html
> >> the average CC crowd in 2004 was 11.4k, and it was down 19% from 2002.
>
> >> But who knows were they get their stats and whether it includes all 14 CC
> >> teams, or just top division. Crowds for Boland or SWD is probably a lot
> >> different than for WP or Natal. (*)
>
> >> Do you think crowds would have increased since 2004?
>
> > lists attendance for many but not all 2009 CC Premier Division games, and
> > there are early round matches with attendance of 850 or 1000. Up to round
> > 6 highest attendance is about 24k, and a quick guestimate indicates an
> > average of 10k wouldn't be far off.
>
> > From round 8 it picks up (eg. Sharks-WP, 28k; WP-Bulls, 43k) -- I guess
> > that was when the Springboks returned from the 3N?
>
> > But even then, from the figures shown, it appears the big stadia never
> > sold out during the group stages -- would that be a correct assessment?
>
> > So to get back to SS-B's original points, if Leicester, Wasps, Gloucester,
> > Northampton or Bath played regular matches in 30k+ stadia, then the GP
> > attendance would probably get a considerable boost -- even though they
> > might not sell out each week, just like Newlands or Loftus does not sell
> > out. (And I don't believe London Irish or Saracens sell out their 21/23k
> > stadia.)
>
> Don't forget TV revenue's either. When was the last time you saw an NPC/ANZ
> game on TV here? It used to be shown all the time. Currie cup is another one
> that is hardly broadcast here these days.
The big problem with the ANZ cup is they keep showing whatever the
live Saturday night game is, even if it is crap (and it usually was).
So I imagine the forgettable nature of the rugby made it worse than
you think; there was always at least one game on a Saturday morning
this season just gone as far as I know.
Cheers
Brent
Esra Sdrawkcab
Boxing on ice, this is what we want! (well you can't play rugby in this
weather).
--
Nuns! Reverse!