No need.

The BARB figures that have just been released confirm what I suspected all along.

When a RFL press release smells like , that's because it is .

FFS.....
The claim was that the CC and RFL were getting grief for LOW ATTENDANCES and then the poster immediately used City v Chelsea as an example.....unfortunately for them, regardless of if the entire crowd were there on freebies, bussed in from the West Bank or turned up by mistake thinking they were going to an Elton John concert, the Stadium for City v Chelsea was 98.35% full......given the Hard-on on here regarding the RLWC Final that saw Old Trafford 98.33% full, I'd suggest that the CC compares terribly........

Arsenal at 99.11%....there's another poor turn out that proves it's not just the Challenge Cup



Yes, Sunderland 33%, Cardiff 63%, Sheffield United 76% and Everton 79% had empty seats......but this is the round of 8 games......let's compare the last 16 in the 2013 Challenge Cup shall we?
Hull FC 30%, London 8%, Sheffield 8%, Huddersfield 46% (let's talk cheap tickets shall we?), Catalan 24%, HKR 43%, Wire 36% and Workington 17%

I'd think the best course of action here would be for you to step away and put down the shovel.

No I think the best course of action here would be for you to grow up and actually debate an issue properly for a change.
Whether the Man City v Chelsea game was a good example or not (in fact it wasn't used as an example in that context anyway) is irrelevant to the actual issue of declining interest in domestic cup competitions.

Do you agree that top Premier League clubs have had to introduce ticketing and pricing schemes specifically to increase cup attendances?
If so, then do you agree that the presence of these schemes at the most popular clubs in the most popular sport in the country indicate a decline in interest in these competitions?
If so, do you agree that is similar to RL?

Let's!


Firstly, let's cover the context issue. Whether anyone gives a toss about the FA cup games is neither here nor there in the context of the quotes used above.
Starbug observed the banks of empty seats and The Printer followed up with an opinion regarding peoples attitudes to the FA cup. These observations are connected as one leads into the other and given the first one was in regards to actual attendances, then the attendance at the City v Chelsea game is valid. Because it doesn't suit your agenda doesn't make it any less so. Hope that clears the context issue up for you.
Now you've introduced "ticket offers" to the mix. Are you saying that cheap tickets offer no long term benefits to those who offer them? Are you saying that to offer them indicates a struggling sport?
I'd suggest you forward your concerns to Red Hall and mark them for the attention of Miss S. Bolton



The FACT is that 47,013 people did give a toss....another 60k in London cared and even 30k in Everton could be d....the comparison is flawed because the RL clubs also made offers, but less people gave a toss, cared or could be d.....by a massive amount!

And they said Richard Lewis wasn't operated on at Roswell.

Liars.

Could it simply be that the figures the RFL have provided have come directly from Sky, which are much more likely to be more accurate than BARB, hence the figure about peak viewers?

Isn't BARB based on a select panel of household calculated up to make a figure for what people watch?

As BT Sport is available on the Sky platform, they will be able to provide statistics for their share of how many people watched BT?

So you couldn't be bothered to discuss it like a grown up then?

How can the context not matter when you even say yourself that Starbug was observing attendance and Printer was discussing attitudes?



The problem is you haven't got a clue what the Premier League clubs schemes are. As I said Man Utd, you know that massive sports club that is continually either 1st or 2nd richest in the world, forces season ticket holders to buy cup match tickets.

If the attitude toward the FA Cup was the same as for the Premier League, why did Man Utd introduce this?
Why do Man City have Cup Ticket Schemes specifically designed to increase Cup match attendance?

Can you actually answer these questions?
Or will you just revert to twisting the argument in a desperate attempt to dig yourself out of the hole you're currently in because you jumped in without knowing what the feck you're on about in this case?

I said when using Man City vs Chelsea is that no one is really fussed by the result. Not that they would get a low attendance.
You've already highlighted something, games at the likes of Arsenal, Man City, also Chelsea, Liverpool, Man Utd will still get near a sell-out just based on their massive fan bases.
Funnily enough before becoming a big player at the top of the table Man City were struggling to hit the 30,000 mark for some home FA Cup games.
You'd only have to read the paper and sports pages online to see the talk was mainly about how the game would effect the Premiership, not the actual competition in question.
In your almost constant need to be on the other side of the fence regarding RL issues I don't think trying to side with the FA Cup is a great idea. Even the Aston Villa manager said this year "many Premier League clubs could do without the distraction of the FA Cup if they were being honest".....they consequently ended up getting knocked on at home by a team 2 divisions below them. Most Premiership teams put out lines-up that they would never put out in the league, goalkeepers are often 'rested' and 2nd choices are picked.

OOOOHHHH...an insult that is neither cutting nor warranted. Aren't you all grown up.



Go and re-read the 2 quotes as they were posted. I have collated them above for you. Starbug clearly states that there are empty seats (with no mention of attitude) and suggest that ST only fans are to the fore in the Premiership. The Printer begins his post with "EXACTLY".......

Do you not see the connection between starbug pointing out the empty seats and saying this looks like a ST only attitude in soccer and the Printer agreeing? Hmmm.


And in the context of my first post on this matter, I didn't need to. The fact that you jumped into this, introducing the prospect of "offers" is irrelevant, but I have said that regardless of whether these attendees at the FA cup games were paying full price, half price or Vincent price, they still ing turned up, whereas their counterparts in RL in the 2013 CC couldn't be bothered, regardless of the offers.
The exact nature of the offers is totally irrelevant......what is relevant is that if they exist, the work!


So? Supply and demand.....and I fail to see the relevance in regards to the attendances at either codes cup games. As I said, even if the attendees at the soccer stumbled in by accident, they attended all the same.


Again, in the context of my original post, this is irrelevant...but you cling to it like a life-belt of hope.....believing that if you keep on saying it and asking these irrelevant questions, the actual attendances for the FA cup last 16 will change...they won't


They are irrelevant.....you know it as do I, but rather than admit that I am right, you'll keep asking them anyway.



Oh the irony.

Starbug points out empty seats,
The Printer agrees and raises the "attitude" question in regards to a game
and I show a 98%+ full stadium.....

you're the one pushing the "special offer" agenda......looks like your shovel is bigger than mine here

What on earth are you on about?
The issue is about the decline of interest in domestic cup competitions.
Starbug and Printer are discussing 2 different aspects of the issue. One is attendances, which are generally lower than the Premier League equivalents. The other is attitudes towards the competition. Something which is well known in this country.

The evidence is there in both the attendances and the fact that some of the biggest sports clubs on the planet have to introduce schemes to get people there. The fact they have to do this, coming from a period where they didn't have to do this, quite clearly shows a decline in interest in the cup competitions compared to the premier league.
Or do you disagree?

The fact you call them "offers" shows how little you know about this subject. For instance Man United's is not an offer, it is a requirement.

You really need to realise you don't know what you're on about here. You've jumped in because you think the CC attendances are poor (so do I) but to pretend that the same issues don't exist in other sports and especially football is just plain wrong.

To suggest that because both sports have "offers" and it doesn't matter what those offers are is ridiculous. We, in RL, haven't reacted well enough to low cup attendances and need to do more to boost them. The fact that the Premier League clubs have, in some cases, reacted well to it doesn't prove your point, it disproves it.

Let's see if you'll actually just 2 questions (one of which is above).

If there has been no decline in interest in the cup competitions, why have Man United brought in such a requirement?

Either answer it or don't. If you don't we'll all know you're just spouting rubbish.

Nope.
Starbug made an observation regarding the attendance at and The Printer followed up with his agreement, before going on to discuss supposed levels of interest in the City v Chelsea game. The initial issue here is the attendance at Sunderland and the backing up of this observation by the second poster....this is the area that I was commenting on.

Here....have ANOTHER LOOK.


In fact....in the above 2 posts, no mention was made of special offers or fascist type demands of clubs that fans MUST buy tickets to cup games......

The important bits fro above are...



No amount of you wriggling about is going to
a/ change the fact that the first part of the exchange between SB and TP was about attendances in the FA cup followed by a mention of the Challenge Cup....
b/ make any mention of offers/discounts/3 line whips or any other form of ticket promotion appear.


Lastly....you add


Why say that? I am perfectly aware that the comparison of FA cup and Challenge Cup matches is totally misplaced, regardless of if you're talking about attendances or attitudes.

What I maybe don't fully understand is why you are continuing with the side alley distraction of sales techniques used to get fans into stadiums....specifically in a thread where the main basis of your irrelevant distraction, namely United, aren't even in the comp?

Is it so hard to accept that you are wrong? It's not like its' a shooting offence when you get something wrong on here....I mean to say, I was 100k out on the RLWC attendance predictions I made.....I'm still here. I accepted I was wrong and embraced the fact that I am fallible. Is it so hard for you to accept that no amount of harping on about ticket sales tactics and the like will change the FACT that 47,013 people did give a toss, did care and did bother turning up at the not as glamorous but just as bankable FA cup match...regardless of what was said about:



47,364 people turned up in the more important Premiership a "few weeks back"......hang your hat on those 351 fans if you must. Maybe they were more fussed than the FA cup crowd.

Yes note the GOING ON bit, I'd moved on to highlight another problem with the FA Cup, I even talked about it with mention of the pre-match build up between managers in the press.




Well we'll remember that. How often have people on these boards said they've actually attended games but not been bother by the result at the end (because of the top 8 format). Did the 9,000+ that turned up at the Leeds Boxing Day game CARE about the result, did the 3,000+ at Bailey's testimonial really CARE if we beat London?

Everyone who attends a football match cares apparently, yet we hear constantly that when RL fans attend games they do so only because they're sheep and go out of force of habit.

It's just being hypocritical, if football fans turn up its because they're fussed and care, if RL fans do it's because of X amounts of downplayed reasons.

Crowds may not show it but if you follow both sports closely in this country I think RL fans are far more interested in the events of the CC than football fans are in the events of the FA Cup.

Right, so what was your point? You never did say...

Was it that the RFL made up the figures, were given incorrect figures OR that they were given correct & exact figures by Sky and some div in the press office made a mistake working out a percentage?

Seriously....47,013 people did give a toss, , tuppenybit or a flying about the game......351 les than gave a hoot a few weeks before and that is the point I was making.
No amount of blitzkrieg posting the same convoluted garbage about opinions and water-cooler moments will change this fact...saying that the FA cup is suffering from the same or even a similar decline to that we are experiencing in the CC smacks of insecurity and insanity in equal measure.

BTW I have no interest in anyone who says they attend any sporting match and say they "don't care who wins"......NEUTRAL is a gear I don't do!

The #1 difference being cited over here in regards to the Auckland 9's and the Wellington 7's is THE RUGBY! At the 9's, everyone had a team. There were fans of all the NRL teams there and at least 30% of the crowd actually watched the games.....at Wellington, nobody gives a toss about anyone except New Zealand....and other than the Final/Semi-finals, nobody...and I mean NOBODY watches the games.

That lot over at League Express appear to have rediscovered their enthusiasm for reporting on SL attendances AND viewing figures which were conspicuous by their season long absence last year.... well... apart from that [i"Toulouse for SL attendance in Toulouse"[/i

This weeks editorial speaks of a RISING TIDE of very good news on two fronts... crowds are up and TV audiences are up!

The editorial then points to a page 3 news story entitled [i"Crowds and TV audiences rising..."[/i dedicated to attendance and viewing figures. Every SL attendance is lovingly reproduced and compared to the same SL fixture last year along with appropriate percentage increases and decreases applied... (I wonder where they got that idea from, eh?)... Salford +205%... Hull KR +42%... etc... they even include championship attendances because they were all up on last season.

That dodgy 355,000 viewing figure for the Wigan/Hudds game (which is 243,000 according to the official figures on the BARB website) is also highlighted as representative of a 38% increase on the opening SL game between Leeds and Hull last year... oh dear!

Interestingly, the article also claims that Warrington V St Helens drew 270,000 viewers last Thursday whilst Hull V Catalan drew 250,000 on the Friday. There's also an @rse-covering exercise attached to those figures as they are defined as peak viewing figures! Bwahahahahaha



I eagerly await BARB's officially announced figures next week for comparison purposes

What is wrong with you?
Why can't you understand a simple point that football fans care less for the FA Cup than they do for the Premier League?
It's very well understood here. That was the point being made by both Printer and Starbug. On 2 different aspects of the same issue.

A comparison in the right context between the FA Cup and the CC isn't totally misplaced. They're both the major domestic cup competition. Both with significant history. There, a valid comparison. Of course the attendances aren't comparable. NOBODY has done that. Only you seem intent on doing so. What can be compared is a similar decrease in interest for the 2 cups in preference for the domestic league comp. In both sports they used to be of at least equal (or very close to) value compared to the league. Now that is not so.
Again, NOBODY, is saying they are worthless.

What are you on about "side alley distraction" of sales techniques? That's the whole point, these sales techniques didn't used to exist and aren't necessary for the Premier League games. They are now necessary in order to keep attendances up for the cup games.

This is the whole point. These techniques aren't needed for Premier League games. The comp is highly valued by both fans and clubs. If the Cup was equally valued and attendances would be equally as high, why would these techniques be used?

I'll try once again and see if you'll answer a simple question -
If the Cup hasn't declined in interest, why do Man Utd now force season ticket holders to buy tickets to it?


I'm not sure why Man Utd being beaten in this years cup has any relevance? Can you tell me?

You can continue to push the notion that the FA Cup is just as important to clubs and fans if you want, you'll just look very silly and as though you jumped into a discussion about a sport you know little about.

Remember NOBODY is saying that the cup is worthless, just that it has declined in interest from what it used to be. To most people that would seem a reasonable statement.

But then that would rob you of another opportunity to pretend to know the solution to every problem within rugby league.

Can you answer the question I posed? I've asked it several times now.

No chance, you'll just get a load of totally unrelated "facts" and made up stats before he moves on to something completely different (after insulting you once or twice of course) to try and divert you from the fact that he's ****** up yet again.

... from Red Hall?

Indeed, I agree.

Any advance on 355,000?

I don't know why you're starting to include Australian sport in this as this different countries have different attitudes towards sport. No quoting one large fan-based team (especially when they couldn't reach 30,000 in the FA Cup at home a few years ago when they were pretenders) will change what is an obvious and probably bigger decline in interest in their domestic cup. You've even pointed out the less well supported teams suffered from more empty stadiums.

Truth is the FA Cup has followed a very similar path to the CC in terms of importance. The 70's, 80's, early 90's it was known as FA Cup Final Day with that being the sole attraction and attention.....in 2011 Man City won the cup on the very same day Man Utd had a lunchtime kickoff that claimed that seasons title for them. If that's not a true example of where that competition stands then I don't know what is.

League titles decided on the same day, change in traditional kick off times, managers saying they'd rather not be involved in the competition. No diverting off to the Auckland 9's will change that. Oh, and for 4 years in the early to mid 00's the FA Cup had no main title sponsor.

Now we're getting somewhere. So your original point was that the RFL definitely and purposely "made up" the figures?

Fair enough. BTW, I'd steer clear of calling the events I named "Australian" when discussing them with a proper Kiwi





I did point out lesser % in sold seats at other stadiums, but Sunderland at 33% was the worst. Even Brighton on a foul Monday Night got 70% of their seats shifted......compared to the workmanlike efforts at last years CC with a few 46%ers and London and Sheffield at 8%.....it would seem the comparison with soccer is flawed.


Really? The Truth?
All I can see are stadiums that are 99% 98% 79% 76% 70% 63% and 33% full...compared to 46%, 43%, 36% 30% 24% 17% 8% and 8%...that's the truth as I see it. 64% at the soccer....27% at the Rugby League.....hardly "close" is it?


That's an example of TV scheduling......unless I am mistaken, 88k were there and 8 million watched it on TV.......again, the comparison is flawed.



...yep, but 47,013 did bother with, could be d and patently gave a toss about the City Chelsea game enough to pay to go.....which is what we were talking about before I got an abridged history of the FA Cup.

......nope,but neither will it change the fact that 47,013 people cared enough to pay for tickets and attend the City Chelsea cup tie.....

.....ah, at last, a comparison that might have some legs in it......then again, I'd hazard a guess that the asking price was a tad higher than the CC.......[urlhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26087337[/url

That figure....just once more...for non caring, couldn't give a toss, why bother it's a pointless game, it's pointless game between City and Chelsea.....47,013.......regardless of your opinion of what people were talking about prior to the event!

Hey there now now,

We were discussing the
FA Cup - 1st held in 1871-72
CC - 1st held in 1896-97

And how the tradition of these long held events were not the same anymore, that's why it was completely logical for him to start going on about......

Wellington 7's - 1st held 2000
Auckland 9's - 1st held in 2014

point to these 2 cities out on an ATLAS........

Trademark.