Sell-out Crowds as part of the SL Criteria? : Sat Mar 07, 2009 1:03 pm  

Was thinking about this the other day and I think there MAY be some merit in it (obviously there may not be too!).

We often harp on about how we love to see big crowds in SL, and don't like seeing half-empty stadiums. I assume this is why we have the 40% capacity rule for crowds in SL, but is this missing the point? The ground is still half-empty, so why do they need a ground that big?

I think maybe we should have something in the criteria that allows for a club to justify having a ground so huge. Should clubs have to justify their capacity by getting a capacity crowd at least once in a season? Would having to justify a capacity crowd make clubs try harder to market their big games? Would this make attractive fixtures even more attractive/event-like?

From a personal point of view, before Rovers were in SL it used to annoy me that we couldn't fill the ground (or even nearly fill it) for big games such as Leeds, Bradford, Saints and Wigan. I remember once in 2003 when we had a big marketing push to get a big crowd for Bradford and got just under 20k which was excellent, but didn't seem to do anything else after that. If clubs HAD to fill the ground at least once to meet criteria, would they do it? It's not like it would be much more of a push for some clubs that aren't there already...

Bradford - Leeds used to fill, but no longer. Do they need that extra push?
Castleford - Leeds normally fills it. Does/could Wakey/Bradford fill it?
Catalans - Filled it a few times, but it was only a small capacity then. Sure they could sell a few out.
Celtic - We don't know yet. Could they market for a sell-out against Saints/Wigan?
Harlequins - Never been anywhere near full apart from the DH with the union. One big marketing push for a game against one of the big clubs may fill it (or at least come close).
Huddersfield - Leeds/Bradford usually get big crowds there. One big push?
Hull FC - Rovers. Enough said.
Hull KR - FC. Enough said.
Leeds - Bradford fills. I think Saints normally does too.
Salford - Leeds/Saints usually brings 'em in. Wigan not too far off. Big push for a big crowd?
Saints - Wigan, and sometimes Wire.
Wakefield - Bradford/Leeds/Cas normally fills them up there.
Warrington - Wigan and Saints.
Wigan - Saints.

So most are pretty close anyway. Would this in the criteria give them that push needed to fill the ground?

And it's ammendable, too. If clubs start filling their grounds you can target 2 sell-outs a year (target a new club).

We've got some very attractive fixtures in SL. But unfortunately not many of them are played in front of the crowds they should be.

Thoughts?

: Sat Mar 07, 2009 2:53 pm  

It's a fair enough comment, but the games is now "EYES ON THE BOX" and very little to do with "bums on seats".

Take away the Sky cash and honestly (and I don't know the answer but could guess) how many clubs could survive on income from the terraces only and be really competitive.

It's a mute question anyway because the game provides what TV wants, excitement, and the viewers/subscribers and that is what now drives this sport as well as the others.

If proof be seen look at cricket coverage on Sky and see how many are at some games, if there actually is anybody, yet they carry on with the coverage.

Re: Sell-out Crowds as part of the SL Criteria? : Sat Mar 07, 2009 2:56 pm  

Wellsy13 wrote:

Was thinking about this the other day and I think there MAY be some merit in it (obviously there may not be too!).

We often harp on about how we love to see big crowds in SL, and don't like seeing half-empty stadiums. I assume this is why we have the 40% capacity rule for crowds in SL, but is this missing the point? The ground is still half-empty, so why do they need a ground that big?

That is a brilliant argument, far better than the usual 'grassy knoll' rubbish from Leigh and Widnes fans, especially as more clubs play in what are essentialy soccer stadiums.

Perhaps the new criteria should be based on gate increase over the last three years as it is all about building growing businesses.

Re: Sell-out Crowds as part of the SL Criteria? : Sat Mar 07, 2009 3:00 pm  

Glenn Morangie wrote:

That is a brilliant argument, far better than the usual 'grassy knoll' rubbish from Leigh and Widnes fans, especially as more clubs play in what are essentialy soccer stadiums.

Perhaps the new criteria should be based on gate increase over the last three years as it is all about building growing businesses.

Here we go again!

: Sat Mar 07, 2009 3:01 pm  

Problem with the idea is that to reach the criteria teams could just have a 'free' day and would do if a franchise point was on the line.
Slightly OT Hudds' crowd last night was pretty decent.

: Sat Mar 07, 2009 3:03 pm  

Dico wrote:

Problem with the idea is that to reach the criteria teams could just have a 'free' day and would do if a franchise point was on the line.
Slightly OT Hudds' crowd last night was pretty decent.

I wouldn't care if there was a 'free day' as it would indicate potential market. You could have free days and get contact details for example.

: Sat Mar 07, 2009 3:06 pm  

ahh good shout tbf, didnt think of that.
However I wouldn't base a franchise point on it, think it's too trivial in the grand scheme of things.

: Sat Mar 07, 2009 3:10 pm  

Dico wrote:

However I wouldn't base a franchise point on it, think it's too trivial in the grand scheme of things.

Neither would I. It would, by definition, be in the public domain if it was a 'free day' and these should not be counted towards any increase figures. However it should be given weight on any potential market figures.

: Sat Mar 07, 2009 3:15 pm  

The franchise point about averaging 10,000 is sufficient at this point I think.
If every club got to 10,000 as businesses they'd be a lot healthier as discussed in the SL money thread and barring Celtic and Quins I think it's achievable.

: Sat Mar 07, 2009 3:24 pm  

Dico wrote:

The franchise point about averaging 10,000 is sufficient at this point I think.

I don't I think increase is far better. Otherwise you could go from 16k to 14k to 12k and still pass that criteria, just ask Bradford...