Not necessarily faxcar!

Going back to my argument about slashing the overall wage bill and going part time .......... would it not be better seeing an even dual between 2 very good part timers, like wingers robbo and sharpy for example, rather than throwing the likes of Liam kay in the mix who probably spends all week sprint training?

It's all about getting parity.

As I say, start by savagely slashing the championship wage bill then the entrance fee. No players paid over a certain amount permitted. There are some very good part time players who could keep us entertained at a reasonable cost.

Ps Don't agree with your calculation regarding significantly reducing the gate receipts to that extent. Hopefully a reduced entrance will see a few more attending (that's the point!) although admittedly not making the full reduction, but that should be more than offset by a halved wage bill.

Well I did first mention a move towards parity and the clubs coming together and setting a reduced players “going rate” and you didn’t think they would act multilaterally and do so.

Anyway basic accounting, fully agree, you must reduce the outgoing costs before reducing the incoming cost such as reducing gate receipts to balance the books, the fact that so many clubs including Fax on multiple occasions regularly run into financial difficulties prove it’s harder said than done.

On skill levels and entertainment the better you do something the more you entertain.

On average anyone doing something full time will do it better than someone doing it part time and the odd part time player who defies the norm will soon become full time when he’s picked up by one of the big clubs.

That leaves the likes of Fax vying for the rest and from those regardless of whether they are full time or part time each club will go for the best of the rest which currently involves paying more for them.

Until if and when anything changes, to show some ambition and build a competitive side the club and BoD have to work with the above reality as opposed to some currently future non existent ideas that no club has even proposed yet.

(On admission prices, in the example used of 1000 fans, for every £1 knocked of it’s £13,000 grand, for a £5 it’s £65,000.
It would have to be closer to the £5 to make any meaningful difference to those paying.)

PS: You can’t ban full time players from playing in the Championship for one thing it could be restraint of trade and illegal and you can’t ban clubs from having full time players if it serves their ambitions and purpose.

Impossible to quantify in advance, and difficult even in retrospect, but you do need to consider how many of those 1000 fans attending a game may stop attending games dependent on the entrance price. Keeping entrance at £19 might mean that 1000 becomes 900, then becomes 800?

£14/£15 feels a more appropriate level, but of course even that's a big chunk out of some folk's weekly disposable spend (especially for couples/families). On the other hand, £19 is probably "loose change" to some (albeit a small minority).

Looks like just me and thee having this debate, faxcar, even though I'd like to think others are looking in either nodding their head in approval or shaking their head in disagreement.

You come up with some very valid and interesting points, and even though I disagree with some of them, I fully respect your opinions therefore I'm not "retorting" with a scowl on my face.

I did say I don't think the clubs "will" work together multilaterally, but I think they "should". As you have gathered (!) I feel VERY strongly about having to reduce the admission. I know it will be extremely difficult in getting ALL the clubs to do this, but it just has to be done. Maybe carry out some kind of survey asking ex fax fans and potential fax followers for a SENSIBLE price they would pay to resume watching again, then take it from there. A survey carried out through email shots, the Courier or some geezer stood at the entrance of the Piece Hall. We need to be proactive about this and not just sit on our hands expecting people to continue to turn up and/or there to be a sudden interest surging out of the blue.

As for your point regarding "banning" full time players being illegal. A low salary cap restriction (a salary cap is legal remember) will prevent clubs from being able to employ full time players to a certain extent. So the Championship will essentially be part time which MUST be the case, we cannot afford to be anything else. We have to accept our league won't be as entertaining as full time Super League (which incidentally isn't always the case anyway, I've seen some awful one sided matches in that league, even though it was funny seeing big prop Walmsley running 50 yards through Leeds' full time defence

). Part time rugby can still be entertaining, you know. RL as a whole coped very well in the "old days" before the advent of over hyped Super League.

PS - Just seen your post, Hxsparky. Personally I'm basing my own tenner suggestion as being inline with salaries inflation over the past 25 years. £19 now is a commitment rather than what used to be loose change. From my own personal view point, the cost of going to a match never used to be an issue 30 years ago (I went to all home and away matches) but now it is an issue - I won't attend away matches because of the admission price (and I'm not short of a few bob, I just think it's bad value for money).

I’m not sure if you have discussed this already but the gate money is not just for paying players wages. Has electric, washing kit, purchasing kit, paying rent for the ground, medical cover, insurance and on and on. There is so much financial out put even before the budget for playing staff. As we all know our own utility bills go up every year as does council fax and I am sure our wages never go up by the percentage of that increase.
So the club have all those problems and increases to balance Year on year Yet the admission price has bee Around the same for several years. I don’t have a solution, if I did I’d be on the board! If we want the club to survive we, like the directors, player and commercial sponsors, have to put our money into the club. Either buying a season ticket or paying what is asked at the turnstiles.

Agree, faxlore, but my argument is that the admission has got well ahead of itself and needs to be redressed along with the players' wages.

Season tickets are also becoming less appealing, and not just because of what's happened this season, which incidentally could have serious repercussions gong forward in season ticket sales. Which in turn could see even more fans getting out of the habit of going as they might pick and choose their matches. Maybe other ideas could include a £15 admission with a £5 off voucher for the next game?

FWIW I think admittance should be cheaper but also FWIW I don not think that by lowering the price we will get more people, or at least not enough to make the difference, through the gate.

I wonder what the cost of admission was in 1998 when we finished third. Unfortunately my brain cannot recall that. It would be interesting, as a few minutes research shows that the median wage in Calderdale has risen by 70% between then and 2019.
I hardly watch SL anymore as I found it tedious and much prefer the competitive Championship where most teams can beat any other. The skill levels are pretty good just at a slightly lower pace and with smaller athletes than SL . I think the Championship is value for money.
I realise that the cost for a family can add up but the club do deals for families. Never forget if a supporter pays £19 the Vat man takes 20% of this to pay for NHS etc.

We're all just exchanging views FD all with good intentions and trying to think of a way forward and there's bound to be different views.
Again £19 is a lot of money and I would love to see it at a tenner or £15, just saying the clubs are caught in the dilemma of pricing people out or reducing it and running at a loss.
We have mentioned "on the gate" a lot but it would also have to be implemented pro rata across the season ticket prices as well.

I'm sure the club have a better vantage point to see the overall picture over me for example and must have considered it.

I remember standing down at the Shay next to a former director during a game and saying to him "you look tense, we're winning and playing great what's up with yer."

He replied yes that bit is great but I spend more time these days worrying about how many empty seats and spaces there are and how to keep it going and him mentioning this very subject of how to get it right and get more people in, that was a good few years ago and still remains.

As I mentioned, at the moment they must base any current and future planning on what the state of the game is now.

Regarding this from what DG said in the last statement from the club they have a plan in place for the next 2 or 3 years, to survive, consolidate and then grow based on the current situation.

Across the game and certainly at our level I don't think there will be a better time to implement some of the reductions we've discussed if the clubs can come together and with the inevitable less central funding they will be forced to operate on lower income and get some parity and I'm just as sure the BoD will be revising their planning in any case, they have said they are continuing to scrutinize every last detail.

Players will be willing or forced to accept less if only less is available but as mentioned there are other overheads that will only go up and there's not much we can do about that without opening other areas that will stop fans going like mergers and moving out of the town etc.

I agree with GRB. lowering the admission price wont bring more people through the door. I know this quite a few years ago but i feel that some of the cause for lower gates was down to the introduction of Sunday trading for shops eyc and (dare i say it) SKY TV. When i started watching Fax back in 1978 there was no Sunday shops open so folk went to watch Rugby League on the afternoon. Then as i lad when i started playing I loved playing on a Sunday morning then going to the game with my Dad in the afternoon. Now, as we all know, everything is open and RL is competing with all the world has to offer. Isnt it strange that RL was born out of workers not getting paid by owners of mills etc for playing RL on a Saturday so they moved to a Sunday. Now the (again) retail get the right to open on Sundays and RL are back struggling while the 'mill' owners a making lots of money off people shopping on Sundays.
Anyway, SKY, When Fax played midweek games back when' there was always a good crowed. 3-4 thousand playing Wigan or St'sor whoever. Now with Thursday and Friday Televised why would someone from Hull bother to get home from work on a Friday and try to travel to Wigan for the match when they can stay at home. and watch it. Yes it was good to have SKY take up RL but I think it has not been as possessive as it could have been.

Greg - I agree lowering the price will not be compensated by an increase in numbers that's why I am arguing for the "missing " compensation to be filled with a multilateral decrease in wages. But I also think a tenner will see far bigger crowds for the big games, especially Bradford. Recently their presence at the shay has seen very disappointing crowds, probably even being outnumbered by the bullies.

Cowfax - I remember the first time paying over a fiver. It was at saints in the 90s who were always more expensive than every other club for some reason.

Faxcar - in my opinion a merger or move out of town is the same as the club becoming extinct. I for one will stop going. I think Bradford are only getting decent crowds at dewsbury because the move is temporary and they intend returning to Bradford.

Ps - going back to the lowering the admission, I remember fax lowering it to a tenner a few seasons ago against whitehaven (can't remember the reason) and the crowd was unusually high over 2000

Understandable but a bit sad how this thread on new signings seems now to be devoted almost entirely down to the cost of attending games. I may be wrong but in the past when the club has had spells of success I don't remember any calls for this . I have been daft enough to follow the team, regardless of cost or the quality of play for a long time - and while I fully appreciate the cost of attending games can't be ignored I feel if you gave most wavering supporters the choice of watching a competitive team playing decent rugby for £19 or watching a young team getting battered, you'd get consistently higher gates at the former. Once the club start announcing next seasons signings the excitement this generates will hopefully move peoples thoughts more onto the anticipation of getting to watch some rugby again.

Rarely do posts stay on thread Ilkley, the thinnest of links is that income affects signings which is how it went in that direction.

Another angle of looking at is after cutting the cost of say attending, at the moment you will end up with lower standard players, a losing side because the better ones will go elsewhere.

Then what can the club do to reverse the trend...........nothing you are stuck with it.
Crowds are going to go down because of the poor performances and entertainment value.
You can’t buy any better players because you have no money.
You can’t put the prices back up because that would make the situation worse.

Again it’s this financial dilemma of continually going from hand to mouth all the time.

As you say, what we need are the announcements on new signings and if a couple are exciting as mentioned by DG then it will give us a lift.

You appear to be losing track of my argument, faxcar. The admission price reduction needs to be multilateral with a low championship salary cap to prevent " the better ones going elsewhere". You can't do it unilaterally, I get that, unless of course the gamble of reducing the admission doubles the crowds.

Incidentally, everyone seems to be poo pooing the last scenario I have mentioned even though it's hardly ever been trialled. But I've already mentioned our own example of letting fans in for a tenner against Whitehaven a few seasons back (when if I remember rightly the admission then was £15) which saw an usually high attendance of over 2,000. Other examples include Huddersfield getting 9,000 against Catalans.

If people think a winning team will attract lots more fans no matter what clubs charge, I'm afraid they'll be disappointed. Aka Salford recently getting to the Grand Final who still had an embarrassingly small knot of fans (albeit noisey) in attendance.

Apologies for high jacking the thread, Ilkley Fax.

The club have often in the past been able to really push the marketing for an individual game, including cut price admission , as a way of hopefully introducing new spectators to the game. I feel however a longer term drop in admission prices is too big a gamble for the club to take if it still wants to put a competitive team on the field.
I also don't feel a low imposed salary cap is is either workable or even desirable.At the moment Fax obviously don't have a wealthy benefactor, but if a David Brook or Tony Gartland came along again with the possibility of putting together a team capable of getting into and then being competitive in super league I think the vast majority of supporters would welcome them with open arms!!
I won't comment again until we have some positive news on retention/recruitment - something which I think is desperately needed to lift the mood of supporters and get them thinking positively again about the prospects for next season.

I’m not losing track about anyone else’s argument FD, simply staying on track of my own alternative argument or reasoning because of the dangers involved and from the start highlighted the need to act multilaterally.

Agreed is you can’t do it unilaterally but that’s one of my points, if the club were to do it now then that’s exactly what they would be doing, the entire argument around reducing admission prices now would in fact be unilateral.

As I have said the BoD can only plan now, by looking at what is actually happening now and not on what doesn’t even exist or on what may or may not happen in the future, but if in the future things change then they may well do so.

All the examples you have mentioned were one off promotion events, there will be a number of reasons and factors involved but a common denominator is they were not intended to become the norm and all fall under the category of being loss leaders.

The Whitehaven game with 2,300 in attendance was largely down to “The Big Apple Day” initiative with someone who attended winning a trip to New York.

I attended the promotion event and they had a dark purple Statue of Liberty with the spiked head on the stage and I remember them saying that it was connected to the “tremendous promotion that had been advertised” and humorously adding that we weren’t signing Wayne Price.



The fact that these were not repeated or being used en mass by anyone in the game proves these loss leaders would only lead to loss.

PS: And if people think that watching a losing side will increase or maintain the numbers of the paying public then they will be sadly disappointed as per Bradford for example who in the modern SL era have gone from World Club Champions, record crowds and a glittering trophy cabinet to playing at Dewsbury.

Fair enough, ilkley, that's your opinion and i respect that. However, I get the feeling the majority on here are happy to "plod along " hoping something will happen, such as a sugar daddy. But be careful what you wish for. We have already seen what's happened at leigh and Toronto with their sulky sugar daddies and look how much huddersfield owe davy. It's eye watering.

And if you think new fans will pay 19 quid even if we're winning you're living in cloud cuckoo land. If radical changes aren't made we'll be down to sub 1000 crowds on a regular basis in the next 3 seasons. As with other championship clubs.

Ps just read your post, faxcar. How do you know the whitehaven game was a loss leader? Maybe the club was hoping the "excess " fans would continue to attend at full price, if I recall we played well. The sums suggested we made more with the promotion because whitehaven matches have always been poorly attended.

Point 1 - I've no idea what the sums were, faxcar, but it was a "calculated guess" that the attendance x fee > than usual. You "sweepingly" claimed that the game was a loss leader using no factual evidence whatsoever. I just disagreed with you.

Point 2 - Again, how do you know the extra attendees were there because of the promotion and not because they've rugby league fans who wanted to go cut price?

Point 3 - I do respect other peoples' opinions! As for leaving the running of the club to the directors, that's what I'm doing! I'm not criticising their efforts, just debating what I think the problems we have in the sport as a whole, not just at club level. And I'm sure we're not boring the pants of folk ........... this is the feistiest debate we've had on here all season!



Point 4 -





PS - Another example of how people don't attend at higher prices was when Nigel Wood raised the attendance fee for a game against Bradford and 6 thousand turned up rather than the usual derby day 9 thousand round about that time.

PPS - Great to see the latest trio sign. I do want the club to do well, you know!

Quote ="Fuzzy Duck"Point 1 - I've no idea what the sums were, faxcar, but it was a "calculated guess" that the attendance x fee > than usual. You "sweepingly" claimed that the game was a loss leader using no factual evidence whatsoever. I just disagreed with you. Point 2 - Again, how do you know the extra attendees were there because of the promotion and not because they've rugby league fans who wanted to go cut price? Point 3 - I do respect other peoples' opinions! As for leaving the running of the club to the directors, that's what I'm doing! I'm not criticising their efforts, just debating what I think the problems we have in the sport as a whole, not just at club level. And I'm sure we're not boring the pants of folk ........... this is the feistiest debate we've had on here all season! Point 4 - PS - Another example of how people don't attend at higher prices was when Nigel Wood raised the attendance fee for a game against Bradford and 6 thousand turned up rather than the usual derby day 9 thousand round about that time. PPS - Great to see the latest trio sign. I do want the club to do well, you know!'" Okay. Let the debate continue. Point 1.So you stated this about the Whitehaven game "The sums suggested we made more with the promotion because whitehaven matches have always been poorly attended.'" Yet you now say "I've no idea what the sums were, but it was a "calculated guess" that the attendance x fee > than usual. How can you calculate anything if you don't know the sums? Basing something on pure guesswork is hardly using the factual evidence you ask from others is it? Point 2. So which was it, the "Big Apple Promotion" or the reduction in price at the gate on the day, were the prices for that game even reduced? Answer. It was the New York promotion. Here's the factual proof quoting in part from a Mr Fax item that Pete Mac had been asked to produce. "Narrow wins over Hunslet and Dewsbury were followed by a convincing dispatch of Whitehaven in front of over 2,300 people, largely down to the ‘Big Apple Day’ which offered one lucky attendee a trip to New York, saw Fax confidently regain momentum." The full item is here. https://halifaxrlfc.wordpress.com/tag/halifax-rlfc/ As before, for a fact it hasn't been done since by anyone so it can't be a good long term idea. The loss leader comments has been taken out of context because you originally included Giants vs Cats in your examples of how it had worked when in fact, for that game the entrance fee was free to celebrate the appointment of Simon Woolford. Here's the factual evidence. https://www.familiesonline.co.uk/local/ ... v-catalans Thankfully our BoD are not planning the clubs future based on having no idea about the sums involved, guess work, free admission when we appoint a new coach, taking a unilateral step when it’s a multilateral step that’s required or trips to New York as some would "sweepingly" claim to be the way forward.

Quote ="Fuzzy Duck"Point 1 - I've no idea what the sums were, faxcar, but it was a "calculated guess" that the attendance x fee > than usual. You "sweepingly" claimed that the game was a loss leader using no factual evidence whatsoever. I just disagreed with you. Point 2 - Again, how do you know the extra attendees were there because of the promotion and not because they've rugby league fans who wanted to go cut price? Point 3 - I do respect other peoples' opinions! As for leaving the running of the club to the directors, that's what I'm doing! I'm not criticising their efforts, just debating what I think the problems we have in the sport as a whole, not just at club level. And I'm sure we're not boring the pants of folk ........... this is the feistiest debate we've had on here all season! Point 4 - PS - Another example of how people don't attend at higher prices was when Nigel Wood raised the attendance fee for a game against Bradford and 6 thousand turned up rather than the usual derby day 9 thousand round about that time. PPS - Great to see the latest trio sign. I do want the club to do well, you know!'" Okay. Let the debate continue. Point 1.So you stated this about the Whitehaven game "The sums suggested we made more with the promotion because whitehaven matches have always been poorly attended.'" Yet you now say "I've no idea what the sums were, but it was a "calculated guess" that the attendance x fee > than usual. How can you calculate anything if you don't know the sums? Basing something on pure guesswork is hardly using the factual evidence you ask from others is it? Point 2. So which was it, the "Big Apple Promotion" or the reduction in price at the gate on the day, were the prices for that game even reduced? Answer. It was the New York promotion. Here's the factual proof quoting in part from a Mr Fax item that Pete Mac had been asked to produce. "Narrow wins over Hunslet and Dewsbury were followed by a convincing dispatch of Whitehaven in front of over 2,300 people, largely down to the ‘Big Apple Day’ which offered one lucky attendee a trip to New York, saw Fax confidently regain momentum." The full item is here. https://halifaxrlfc.wordpress.com/tag/halifax-rlfc/ As before, for a fact it hasn't been done since by anyone so it can't be a good long term idea. The loss leader comments has been taken out of context because you originally included Giants vs Cats in your examples of how it had worked when in fact, for that game the entrance fee was free to celebrate the appointment of Simon Woolford. Here's the factual evidence. https://www.familiesonline.co.uk/local/ ... v-catalans Thankfully our BoD are not planning the clubs future based on having no idea about the sums involved, guess work, free admission when we appoint a new coach, taking a unilateral step when it’s a multilateral step that’s required or trips to New York as some would "sweepingly" claim to be the way forward.

So why reduce the admission if the attendance was purely down to the Big Apple promotion? You're saying the higher attendance had nothing to do with the reduced attendance fee! Really? And also strange that despite its success the promotion wasn't tried again because ......... it was considered it wouldn't be a success. Confused.com



Hey let's just plod along eh? And we'll have the same old people on here in a few seasons time scratching their heads saying "I wonder why we only had 800 against Fev? Can't be anything to do with it being £22 to get in. Nah!!"

Point 1. I honestly can't remember the gate price being reduced for that game and can't find any reference or factual proof, can you?

In any case, even if it was, lets say it was, "The Mr Fax" article tells us the main reason why people attended, which was not any reduction in admission prices, it was the promotion, they said so not me, and they would have closely looked at it, it was after all their idea.
You asked for factual evidence and Iv'e given it from the source.

Point 2. It increased the crowds for that one game largely because of the promotion.
If it had been a financial success on the day or it gave any indication that it would work longer term then they and other clubs would have repeated the exercise, fact is it wasn't and hasn't been, was it an overall success, no, is it relevant for today 7 years on to be used as an example sound business strategy as you propose, no.
No confusion at all.

How to get bums on seats which includes the correct set point for admission prices is a conundrum as old as the game and something every club looks at very closely, it's a main income stream but we've covered it a dozen times and it's hard to see a change until the game at our level changes.
FWIW, and without any evidence based on just looking at the state of the game I do think there will have to be changes and some will be forced and it's a case of watch this space.

Plodding.
No one at this club, at every level including the BoD are plodding along, they are putting their hard earned cash in and working their butts off hour after hour looking at every detail doing their best for the club and for us based on the factual reality of the game as it is at present and anyone who infers they are plodding along are 100% wrong IMHO.

Personally, I'm not plodding, I'm trusting them and running with the club the best i can as it is for me now.

PS. The Nigel Wood - Bradford example was a protest, quite rightly on principle by many supporters of both clubs against the blatant attempt by Tank to making a killing and exploit people as much about the amount.
It was deeply embarrassingly wrong never to be repeated again and offers nothing to the current debate or situation of the club in 2020 / 2021.

The only proof I've got is in my head, faxcar. I have a brilliant memory. I even remember the score: 50-18 to Fax which flattered us because we didn't shake them off until the last 20 minutes. It was the 7th July 2013 and it was a scorching hot day. After the match I watched Andy Murray win at Wimbledon on TV in the Pump Room.

Alas, I think we should agree to disagree on the admission fee subject because we're just going round in circles.

Let's digress. I'm assuming SKY have lost an awful lot of money this season on the soccer and rugby (both league and union) with cancelled / paused customer subscriptions and lost advertising revenue, even accounting for claw backs.

SKY needs soccer, but doesn't need Rugby League. In view of the above, do you think the next TV deal will be significantly reduced with the RL having no choice but to accept anything offered, no matter how poor? We should never have sold our souls to SKY. We're now stuck with unsustainable vastly inflated player salaries (which have indirectly filtered down to the championship - see previous discussion).

PS - In "real life" I'm not a miserable doom monger as some as my posts might portray. In fact I'm a jolly nice chap who always has a smile on his face

I can't believe that Fuzzy Duck has solved the club's problems! Simply drop the entrance price to £10 - £15 and we'll be laughing our way to Super League.

Thanks Fuzzy Duck, you're a very intelligent hero.

We do actually agree on the admission prices ironically even on the source of the debate .......... £22 or £19 which is extortionate and to solve it needs a multilateral approach.

I only have the Sky Sports subscription and only because both the missus and me watch rugby league but I was never offered a refund or a cancellation option, just a suspension which, with not knowing how long the lockdown would last and then the NRL starting up would last I never got round to going down the refund route so Sky never lost any of my money, can’t speak for anyone else.

IMHO.
Sky have got the game of Rugby League by the proverbial and will offer the least amount they can get away with.

SL have got the RFL, Championship and Championship 1 clubs by the proverbial and will offer the least amount they can get away with.

For a fact, Sky funding to the game is being reduced.

Central funding to the Champ and Champ 1 clubs is being reduced and as I have mentioned before Ian Lenagen and his SL buddies have shown what they think about clubs such as Fax by saying regarding the distribution of the finances.

“ Super League are the flagship completion and should get the bulk of the money” adding, “ who cares about the Championship anyway?”

Pretty certain all clubs will have less finances coming in and even before Covid some were struggling to survive and in that case there was talk in the RL press that Champ and Champ 1 would merge to form one larger comp.

I dread to think what will happen if we haven’t beaten Covid.
We’ll soon be in September just a few short months from the pre season start and the comp just after.

Just have to wait and see what the future holds when all the dust settles.