I don't know about getting 'hammered' for it but it does seem an odd logic. If for example you bought a season ticket last year despite the fact that you might only be able to make 1/3 of the games then perhaps £90 wouldn't make as much sense. But £90 is still incredibly cheap to watch top flight SL IMO. You have said you would pay £75 but are not prepared to gamble on paying another £15 by pledging. I hope current members aren't thinking similar things, otherwise the whole scheme will fail.

I think we've all left games this year feeling pretty p!ssed off with the performance given by the team. But the club is massively reliant on the fans to generate income. If the fans don't back the club when they're effectively giving half the games for free then I fear for our future to be honest.

Quite possibly.

I used to work with a couple of "Bulls fans" who continually played merry hell with how crap the team was and its performances were, and said they would not go again unless the cost of tickets were negligible and the performances improved. They were always amongst the most vocal of the complainants after a bad loss.

I just wonder if it ever entered their heads that there might be a connection between their actions, and the club not having the money to recruit and retain the best playing and coaching staff and enough support staff, or to entertain a devlopment and marketing budget like some of our rivals? Given that, unlike most of the current "form" teams we have no sugar daddy?

I suggest the best way to ensure that we continue to see the dross, and probably lose our Licence and disappear into oblivion next time round, is by the fans depriving the club of the income and the cash flow they need to do something about the dross? Would you not agree?

To be honest, I'd suspect the reason for no 'marquee' recruits has much less to do with Orford than the fact that we, as a club, are not perceived as one which is going to win anything. Much as I don't really know I'd suspect Orford's, (not to mention Mimmis') antics would have been regarded in a bad light generally amongst clubs and players.

Ultimately though, a top 'marquee' player wants to play with a successful club, which since we're told that the salary cap leaves most clubs with the same amount to spend on the team (?), means that, if it were just money, we should have the same chance as any other to attract these players.

We'll know more when the annual accounts are filed, but I suspect last year's prices weren't as viable as we were led to believe. No doubt the plan was to entice a large number of supporters through the rock bottom prices and then build on that foundation and look to retain them (and even increase numbers) for the following season.

Unfortuately our p!ss poor performances this season were not part of the plan, and have done the financial strategy no favours whatsoever.
The question is whether these prices for next season have been modified to reflect our league standing/performances, or whether they were set a long time ago - perhaps even when the initial pledge scheme was put together - and they are sticking with it despite the fact that we have failed to make the playoffs yet again, and may even finish lower in the table than in 2010.

I would have liked to see the club set the pledge targets a little lower than they have done. Why not aim for a more realistic figure and build gradually?
If (and it's a big if) we have a more successful season in 2012 it will be far easier to push for a bigger rise in pledges, but to try and do it on the back of the season we've just had might be a bit too ambitious I feel.

All that being said, there will be 4 more season ticket holders from my household in 2012 whatever the price

My opinion? For that is all it is - I can offer no proof either way, in support or to refute:

More than a few Marquee players may have sold their image rights to third parties apparently unconnected with the club. The income they receive from these sources may mean they feel able to sign for the club of their dreams for perhaps less than they might otherwise require, had they not had this additional source of income. For, given the current exchange rates, the effective ending of club-paid image rights/EBTS/Pension etc payments and the impending big increase in NRL salary cap, it seems to me hard to see now how a very senior antipodean could find it worthwhile to come for just a salary within the salary cap?

For some reason, I get the impression there are few if any interested unconnected third parties round these parts. They seem to be more common in some other RL heartland areas though. Maybe the club owners have good connections?

Not sure if I totally agree with that. I'm sure all players would rather play for successful clubs given the choice. Ultimately it'll come down to the deal offered and length of contract, but also who's coaching the team, whether they have mates at the club, facilities, reputation, etc. If a similar deal is offered from 2 clubs then I'm sure most players would choose the one who had the better chance of winning something. The same reason Willy Mason chose Hull KR over us (funny how that worked out). Apparently the 2 clubs offered similar deals. If we had offered more then I'm pretty sure he would have come to us. Offer the right deal to the right player and you'll get them regardless of success.

I can't buy into the fact that we can't get top players because we're crap. We're either not trying to sign a marquee player, not offering the right deal or there are none available. A top draw player will believe that they are the difference between winning and losing.

I'd agree with all the different reasons you give as to why players sign (or don't) it's all part of what makes the deal attractive, but, of course, clubs have to look to how much they need that particular player when deciding how much they are prepared to shell out.

Got to say though, I don't regard Willy Mason as a 'marquee' player; some time back, sure, but not for few years. I think Orford was, and maybe Greg Bird might have been, but it's the Robbie Pauls, Tevita Vaikonas, Lesley Vainikolos, and indeed the Willy Masons of old, the Matt Kings, the Monaghans of today, top players at the top of their game who really qualify for the word marquee, and those, not such as one Mason currently is, are the ones who are really looking to sign for successful, or those who they perceive will become successful, clubs.

Yeah Mason was just an example of someone choosing another club over us. I didn't want him here but youve got to admit he got Hull KR plenty of publicity and sold shirts (maybe would get pledges for a club?). Suppose it leads to the question as to what is a marquee signing and how can it benefit a club? Guess that's for another thread though.

These are [iHome[/i season tickets. What dross have we been served at home? Heavy defeats by Wolves & Wigan (where are they in the table?) and a disappointing performance vs Hull when we still had something to play for - and thats about it. Everything else has been victories, draws or narrow defeats. It certainly keeps your attention focussed on the game.

The days of turn up, watch a couple of bulls tries rumble in, have a flask of tea & a cake, chat to your neighbour, see another couple of bulls tries go in then, chant a few times just for show although the team doesn't need any encouragement really, shout as deacs starts his run-up to try and put him off, watch it sail through as usual then repeat in 2 weeks time have long gone.

The team needs encouragement & money from the fans now.

I was always expecting a price rise due to the rise in a lot of our fixed costs.
I also think the £60 pledge was (purposely) cutting things close to the bone as a headline grabber. It was incredibly successful and a similar level of faith needs to be shown again.

A couple of good results in our last home games will at least provide some cheer if a play-off place is beyond us now.

I think the changes lined up to our back line for next season show promise and also show that the club have recognised the problem areas.

£90??!!!??!!!! YEAH RIGHT!!

Pull the other one. they should be paying us to go next year.

Ive pledged, but wife said no bloody chance.

I've pledged too. 2 adults and 2 kids. God only knows why.

Pledged for me + 2.

£90 is still great value.



Why should they pay you to go to a sporting event? Yes we've served up dross this season, but there have been enjoyable moments and some decent performances. It was worth the £60 imo.

If you don't pledge, the club doesn't get the money it needs to compete, and we are forced to watch more seasons of failure. The club needs SUPPORT, and without as big money backer its down to the fans to give Potter the funds to spend the sc.

I really think the club has to take a massive risk and sign a marquee player. Thats the only way the club are going to get anywhere near five figure crowds next season. I can only see the hardcore fans of about 5,000 and maybe a couple thousand more signing up after yet another dreadful year.