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.

Didn't suggest for one minute we would be laughing all the way to super league, enforcer. I am saying the only way to attract new fans is to stop charging stupid money

Stop acting like a childish troll.

Ironically the selfish attitude displayed by super league will lead to the sports demise, even though they think they're acting for the good of the game.

It makes one wonder how rugby league survived before sky's money, but take that away and the sport is worse than bankrupt. And their coverage is getting worse with bumbling bill Arthur as lead commentator and I am sure they are using trainees operating the cameras!

Nrl is a million times better in terms of both tv coverage and playing standards. The super league matches over the weekend were very poor viewing, and the commentators were dreadful. I used to think ray french was bad!

I apologise, I just got bored of seeing you hammering out the same point over and over.

The, small, increase in attendance from dropping the price will not be sufficient enough to cover the lost income from dropping the price.

I know, enforcer, that's why I have to keep on repeating my point..... that the lost income should be compensated by a multilateral agreement between the championship clubs to apply a low salary cap.

Haven't you noticed the gradual decrease in crowds as we all die off, not being replaced by newbies?

It would be interesting to know how many of the fax fans who attended our last home game against york were relatively new. None is my guess. The same faces stand round me in the south stand - I recognise them ALL from many seasons past!

[Part quote="Fuzzy Duck" I know, that's why I have to keep on repeating my point..... It's okay FD that's what Ducks do, we understand pal. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnS0y3yPHwM

[Part quote="Fuzzy Duck" I know, that's why I have to keep on repeating my point..... It's okay FD that's what Ducks do, we understand pal. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnS0y3yPHwM

Hilarious

Saw a picture of the Wembley cup fax triumph admission fee at Wembley £6 . I cant remember what it was at Thrum hall when thousands attended. Never used to think about it . All I know now is if you asked me to pay 22 or stay in the 3 pigeons I will stay in the pub and have an excellent meat pie and pint .

These relate to football, but interesting to look at ticket prices in years gone by... [urlhttps://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/gallery/2015/feb/17/football-ticket-prices-old-ticket-stubs[/url and [urlhttps://sportslens.com/english-football-finances-1981-2011/91782/[/url

I remember paying about £10 in the old 2nd division round about 1989-1990 which adjusted for inflation would be about £25-26 now. So it could be we are actually paying less than what we should be if prices went up with inflation every year?

I think your memory might be playing tricks on you! If you look on eBay for "Halifax v Wigan 1993" there are a couple of tickets currently on offer for that year. It was £6 to stand, and £8 in the centre stand at Thrum Hall then.

I'd have happily paid £100 to watch that game at that time.In comparison what we have on offer now isn't even value at £6 and that sums up where we've fallen to..

What price will always be a factor in any event, the reality is one of quality. Why would anyone really start to watch championship rugby which is of so low skill and unimaginative week in week out?

I can't agree with that. 1) So low skill...Lot's of SL players start off in the Championship and below, that's where they learn their skills. There are some great, skilful players in our league. 2) Unimaginative...That could be the very description of SL. 5 barges and a kick is the name of the game and the better players have, for the most time, had their skills stifled and coached out of them. I obviously want to see Fax back in the top tier, but if it's entertaining rugby you want to be watching then SL is not the place to be. Up The Fax!

Wish all super league and championship games were half as good as last night's Cas v Wire game...although accepting it was a rare exception.

Another quote from Connor Robinson on the twitter feed

"...[iit's going to be a new-look squad and I suppose so many new faces can be daunting[/i..."

Interesting if true. Makes you wonder whether they are having to wait for the Super League to finish before announcing some of the signings.

Not sure about any other SL incomings to the Fax squad but I would guess the reason Paul Brealey, (who was originally said to be leaving) is now not in the outgoing names will be down to what happens with Toronto.