I would think hull fc lost revenue, we had hardly any paying walk ups during our 3 home games, yes our position of just making the numbers up didn't help either

Worth a note on Thursday games that our corporate hospitality was way down too

So you are adding your own conclusion now rather than going by the article which proves my point.

I'd suggest the Thursday games reduced the attendances but that doesn't mean money was lost. Depends on the Sky payment for TV.
It certainly doesn't mean it was a failure.

I'd say middle 8 attendances were up. But of course I'm using the same 'feeling' logic you are for your attendance facts.

Yes I know, but someone asked how the Super 8 home games for Leeds compared to London and Bradford games.....not just some of the Super 8 games you wanted to pick or avoid included.

It says nothing of the sort - if you actually read it rather than following your prejudice and going off on one, they didn't lose money their income was down £100k compared to the corresponding league games.

Thursdays are interesting. They obviously have a negative effect, but are you aware of any attempts to really minimise it? Each Club should only have 2 in the first part of the year, is there nothing to be done? I can easily understand why the corporates might be difficult, but for the junior clubs, for schools, youth organisations isnt it much easier?

Thursdays are kind of exactly what im talking about, people seem to just accept thursdays are rubbish and its all big bad sky's fault, but what are clubs doing to counteract it?

Ahh, so they didnt lose it, they just never got it in the first place.

another important distinction.

You have to wonder why pedants are so keen on making these distinctions without differences, to somehow try and argue there isnt a loss but ignore the fact the article literally says “It is a substantial loss for a club like ourselves"

There is no comparable game with the St's play off game, because we were eliminated in 2014 before a comparable game was played sweetie

Similarly one of the super 8s games would have to be left out because there is a variable number of home games to be played in each season

Strictly speaking its the Cas game that should be left out as it was the 4th home game, the results are back in and lo and behold, there wasnt a great deal of difference between Warrington (13k) and Wigan (15k) or saints (16k) all on season tickets and London (12.5k) and Bradford (16k) and Les Catalans 8k* all pay.

middle 8 attendances up on what? far harder comparison to make.

Im not adding any conclusion, im simply stating the fact that by and large, comparable attendances were lower in the super 8s and by the same logic that Steve Gill quantified it as a loss, quantified that as a loss.

ill readily admit that to judge the whole system change, and its effect on the whole league structure is more complex than lower super 8 attendance means overall loss. But in isolation of any other factors, the drop and loss from regular season to super 8s can be addressed and changed.

I stopped reading that article as soon as I read "new-fangled system"



The article is about Castleford, who "lost" £100k. That doesn't mean other clubs lost money and certainly doesn't mean the Super8s games lost money overall. Does that £100k include Sky TV money, sponsorship revenue and ALL other incomes? Probably not.

Anyway, using Smokey's own logic (search his posts from last season) then we/he can't really make any claims about the success of the Super 8s until the end of next season. 2015 was year one, we have nothing to compare against so calling it a failure because Cas took their eye off the ball is just silly. But then it's Smokey we're talking about....

Crap thread.

you have entirely made that up.

It's a loss of income, not a loss of profit - how hard is that to understand for you?

Can you show me anywhere i have said any different?

im simply questioning the use of that distinction to us. What importance does it have to the discussion?

to be fair though, we do seem to have got a pretty clear answer.

Clubs are doing f'ck all but if we all cross our fingers the super smashing great new system will sort everything out and with a bit of luck and a fair wind in just 6 short years we will manage to get back to where we were a couple of years ago.

Would you like to make a very large bet? let me know and i'll more than happy to go back and quote your posts from some of the early season attendance threads...

Well done on ignoring the rest of my post too.

Oh and please, we'd all love it if you could provide proof at some point of how the Super 8s lost money.

I meant the comparison to apply to Cas's games, not Leeds'. After all, they are the subject of the article linked in the OP.

pretty simple to provide that evidence. We can compare the attendances between regular season fixtures and the super 8s. By and large they lower in the super 8s. If you have confused Steve Gills use of the word loss to describe comparatively lower income with something else, take that up with him.

Aahh, far easier. Cas got 7.2k v Bradford, 5.2k v London, and 6.2k in the playoff. An average of 6.2k

in the super 8s, they got 5.2 v Wire, 5.2k v Saints, 6.7k v Hull, An average 5.7k.

There's no comparable game in 2015 to the Catalans playoff game yet you chose to include it in the 2014 numbers to help bump it's total up.

Bradford and London games getting Leeds less than 30,000 at Headingley or 60,000+ for the Super 8 games......wonder which one did better for Leeds financially.

erm, yes there was. It was specifically asked for.

Look, here

You know, because it would dumb to compare 4 games against 2 games.

No it wouldn't if you were GENUINELY concerned about the finances of SL club. You're whinging about the new system yet it guarantees clubs more home games and thus the chance to make more money (you know the thing you're 'concerned' about)

"Super 8s lose money" is not the same as "Super 8s led to loss of income vs 2014".

You've basically created a Daily Mail-type click bait title when all it needed to say was "Cas had lower attendances LY vs. 2014".

Yes, yes it would.

No it wouldn't. Absolute totals are just as important as averages. Without knowing how an individual clubs overheads can be accounted for (I can see arguments for them to be both yearly and per game) you can't rule one indicator more important than the other.

I don't track Castlefords attendances - but Saints overall figures show Saints yoy average is down 0.1% (11540 compared to 11531) but total ticket sales were up 19.9% (173100 compared to 207553). If we assume Saints outgoings are fixed, Saints profit goes up despite averages going down.

What on earth are you talking about now, are you drunk? You just contradict yourself with every new post.

Nothing to do with Steve Gill. YOUR thread is called "Super 8's lose money" and you've done nothing to back up that claim apart from post a link to some badly written YEP artice about ONE club, followed up with contradiction upon contradiction to what you said earlier in the season when people were posting positive news stories regarding attendance figures. Or have you now forgotten that?

Are you still claiming i've made this up....

You highlight a lot of perceived problems, what solutions do you propose to these problems?

Very misleading thread title too!