leeds v batley got a lower attendance than the last time England played Scotland or Ireland and only got a couple of hundred more than the last time England played france. In France. this despite being included on the season tickets.p

Yes and as pointed out that Ireland game was a World Cup game, wouldn't get anywhere near that number outside of World Cup and Scotland game was a double header with Aus vs NZ. So very inaccurate portrayal of what those games would get played in the time period suggested previously.

so what your saying is that international attendances for well planned, well marketed international competitions far outstrip all SL attendances and massively outstrip the crappy 8s attendances.

I agree. More well planned, well marketed international games is a great idea. we don't need the poorly planned, barely marketed international games in some northern backwater or the atrocious 8's like some idiot said earlier

I'm not interested in seeing England play Scotland, Ireland or Wales. I would like to see us play some proper matches against France if they could get their act together. Playing them in France initially on an evening under the floodlights with a hostile French crowd would probably help make them a bit more interesting/competitive.
Part of the problem is like us and Australia. We need to play them more to get used to laying them and scrape a few wins.
France need to play us more but the games would get boring before they get the win unless they pull their socks up sharpish.
If we could have regular competitive internationals with France I'd definitely be interested.
Unfortunately I think the only think that might kick start it is if in 5 years Canada has managed to get some local based players at Toronto and also other SL and NRL clubs.

Nope what I'm saying is major events like a World Cup attract bigger attendances. Beating Ireland on the way to hopeful World Cup glory means something....beating them in June in a single match wouldn't mean anything and you couldn't market it to convince fans otherwise.

And just getting better than some SL games or the Middle 8's games isn't a measure of success.....internationals should be getting way way way more. England RU don't play Australia at Twickenham in front of 80,000 one week and then play Ireland in front of 8,000 at Twickenham Stoop the next.

Yes there is a big difference between well organised and marketed meaningful international competition and the half-d one off in some parochial backwater that was suggested earlier.

I agree more well marketed, well planned meaningful internationals are the way forward.

better than pretty much all SL games. But yes you're right being better than the ty 8s is no barometer of success. Leigh couldn't even give away as many tickets as we're sold in avignon.

but you know what the biggest difference between international RU and international RL is? in RU they actually play both Australia and Ireland. Whatever we get in a match versus Ireland is infinitely better than the 0 we get when we don't play them.

No it's not if you're splashing out lots of money on players having central contracts, this super dooper world class marketing and going to bigger venues with increased costs and not getting the suitable money back in ticket sales.

England RU can play both Australia AND Ireland because both are proper contests. Everyone knows England vs Ireland at RL wouldn't be and just because you keep saying "proper marketing" doesn't mean you'd be able to shift tickets to fans for this game.

All RL clubs have that problem. Not even our wonderful Leeds Rhinos can survive on ticket sales alone. in fact very very few sports clubs of any persuasion can survive on ticket sales alone. it's so rare it seem moronic to bring such a possibility up. Fortunately there are other revenue streams such as sponsorship (are there many RL clubs sponsored by bigger companies than Gillette) TV revenues. not only that but there are other benefits besides money such as visibility and exposure which is far far far far larger for any international than Leeds V Batley.
Ireland have beaten new Zealand in RU once in their entire history. Scotland RL has a better record against NZ than Scotland RU.

we have sold 25k tickets for a game between England and Ireland. just because you don't like and want to disregard it doesn't make it any less true.

I'm not disregarding it, I'm pointing out it had the luxury of being a World Cup fixture, something it won't have mid season. Only in Smokey dream world can World Cup game do the same or even similar business as a potential mid season game. Even you can't be ridiculous enough to think the attendance number wouldn't be seriously depleted. That you tried comparing Ireland RU's competitiveness to its RL counterpart suggest otherwise.

I don't know if it's because there isn't a decent RU team around but I was brought up watching RU internationals and with RL league games. The figures you produce for the well attended international league games are when there is no club rugby. If league did a similar thing I would have zero interest in the internaonals would prefer to watch leeds.
I think the difference between League and RU take a six nations for example. There is no competition you can tell the result of who will win without playing, it's pointless. When I watch a RU international the atmosphere is amazing when I watch a league one the empty stadium is embarrasing

10k fewer people watch England v Ireland in WC2000 than in WC2013. 15k fewer people watched Fiji v England. The correlation isnt between the world cup and the crowds. Its the quality of the organisation, planning and marketing.

In 1992 GB toured Australasia in June and July and got good crowds, in October (which was mid-season) 73k watched Australia v GB at Wembley.

Record numbers watched the 1990 Australia tour, played in October and November, which was mid-season, that record was broken in 1994, which was again played mid-season.

Two points.

1. Forgive me if this sounds harsh, but not everything is about you. Or people like you. There are literally millions of people who will watch an international game on TV, but not bother watching a club game on TV. There are tens of thousands of fans who will go to a final, or WCC, or 'tentpole' game that wont bother going most weeks. There are a hell of a lot of fans, casual fans and new fans to go at outside of the 15k who go watch Leeds every week.

2. You watch the 6 nations. You will watch mid-season international rugby. Your barrier to sale isnt mid-season international rugby. Its that you think it will be poor quality a poor quality, poorly attended game. Thats our issue and the only way of getting around that is by playing more well planned, well attended games and the quality will shine through.

Put it another way, if you thought that there was a good chance that England v France played in front of a packed ground at Anfield, or Elland road, would be of the quality we saw from NZ v Scotland last year, would you still have zero interest?

You're still talking about Wotld Cups and Australia ( the main attraction opposition).

Tell me what the attendances were for the tri nations between England-France-Wales a few years ago?

The hastily arranged after Australia took the year off Autumn International Series is not the template for a well organised, well marketed, well planned international competition.

You argued England wouldnt get good crowds against 2nd tier nations. I have proven they can.
You argued that it being the world cup was the reason those games were a success. I proven to you that being a world game isnt the reason they were successful.
You argued that games played mid-season wouldnt be succesful. I have proven to you that mid-season International RL can be successful.

Did you think pointing out i used the World Cup and Australia to prove that was an argument in your favour?

As an aside, from memory looking at Aussie sports teams a few years ago ticket sales were about one third of revenue, TV deal another third and sponsorship the rest. In the NRL at least the TV revenue has gone through the roof and so would be a bigger slice, but if you want to understand the economics of sports, its very important not to over-emphasise the importance of ticket revenue.

RU has a much bigger overall TV deal (including internationals), more ticket revenue from internationals, and far bigger sponsors (internationals and from what I can see clubs also) than SL. Even if SL clubs filled their grounds every week we'd be way behind RU clubs in total revenue - as is reflected in the salary caps of the two codes.

You haven't proven anything, as per usual you've stuck your fingers in your ears and gone "lah lah lah I'm not listening". Where's this well planned, well marketed dream world you live in that suddenly RL would be able to do an amazing job marketing of mid season internationals in today's world (not the early 90's). You can say that tri nations isn't the template but I fancy the organisation would look much more like that event than it would the World Cup.

it's certainly convenient for your argument for you to believe that we would have to do a terrible job and the things we did before we cannot do again because of vague nondescript differences between the 90s and now that haven't effected any other sports.

Don't think I ever said it's all about me or "people like me"

In my opinion you can have your mid season well planned well organised match against Scotland, Wales or Ireland and the quality won't shine through as there is no quality to be seen. It's a meaningless game with no stakes and always will be in the Northern Hemesphere at least

What I meant was that not everything is to be sold to you, the hard-core fan. That you wouldn't be interested doesn't tell us a lot.

Firstly I haven't suggested those are the only teams we could play. We don't play them this year. Secondly NZ v Scotland was a great game last year, England v Scotland was a decent game too.

Quite hypocritical of you to say it's convenient for me to say we'll do a bad job. Your whole argument is based on marketing and organising 'we'll just do it well' as if it's that simple. If RL in this country did marketing, organising and planning really well then the VT wouldn't be full of constant threads slagging them off for nearly everything they do with yourself being one of the chief culprits, note your criticism of the Johnny Vegas ad.....if only you were in the room to tell the marketers to "do it well".

The difference with your games from the 90's is that they're against Australia....never said we'd struggle to get good crowds for that but as I pointed out early in the thread you can't just play them over and over. You've cut and shut two different things together in a World Cup game vs Ireland and a mid season game vs Australia to try and construct some flimsy evidence that therefore Ireland mid season would do great numbers.

We haven't even gotten on to the very tricky subject of NRL teams releasing players not just for us but the ones who help make up the other home nations sides. I suppose in your world it'll just be as simple as saying "we'll make them".

:3ir1y3jbif you think that is hypocrisy, I can only assume you don't know what the word means.

that you think because of previous struggles in those areas we shouldn't expect improvement seems, well, sad to me. It doesn't seem like the outlook of a happy, optimistic, successful person.

Yeah, they would never do that. We definitely won't see it happen. definitely.

No it just means I'm realistic and don't have my head in the clouds like yourself.



You really haven't no matter how many times you want to tell yourself otherwise.











The f**king irony of you of all people writing the above. That above quote could be your f**king epitaph.

Every sad sack cynic will tell you they are a realist

Yes I have. I have conclusively shown that non australia games can get good crowds and that mid season games can get good crowds. you even admitted so in your last post.



I think I broke him. Brilliant. it's like watching a cat try and fight himself in the mirror.

I have to say though, I do like the near constant frequency with which you think people are telling you things ironically (though I fear, like hypocrisy, irony is a word you use which you do not understand)

Seen as my argument was England playing northern hemisphere teams in mid season let's look at the most recent example, which Smokey is convientely not mentioning in favour of non comparable games....

2010 - England vs France
60-6
Att - 7,951

Wonder why he isn't using the most recent like for like comparison

Here you are again. Contorting to find and argument you can win rather than addressing the arguments that were made.

The argument was that central contracts would allow leverage for more internationals to be played. As you have dug and scrapped and twisted and turned, bent and stretched to find and point you think you can score on, you have now redefined the argument to your strawman of only England playing only northern hemisphere sides mid-season and the only comparable example is the poorly planned, poorly marketed friendly game against France in a northern backwater in 2010.

Of course England could only play northern hemisphere sides. Try could never play southern hemisphere sides, could only play in England, could never get the NRL to release players, and wouldn't bother with midseason games anyway. We definitely definitely won't see anything that breaks ThePrinter's obvious, well thought out and clearly true and correct rhetorical parameters. Nope, never. Not theses days. it's 2017 and not 1990