Quote: SmokeyTA " If that were to be true then the lack of it would mean we have less bums on seats now under franchising than under P + R. If we don’t then that statement cant possibly be true. IF we have more bums on seats under franchising, for whatever reason, it undeniably proves that P + R isn’t what puts bums on seats. '"
The increase from 2011 is only just under 10% on the 61,000 over all figures. The increase in St Helens' attendances alone pretty much account for that. They were playing at Widnes and averaged around 7,500 and are now getting 14,000+. Then there are the other reasons for the increase, which would have happened regardless of the type of promotional system the sport uses.
It was you whom referenced these figures as some sort of proof that licencing is as good for increasing the attendances than P&R. I personally would regard the increased figures as a result of particular and unusual circumstances that would've occurred anyway and not due to the virtue of either system, as you have put forward.
Quote: SmokeyTA "The myriad of other reasons you have listed are what ‘puts bums on seats’. Lets not forget that it was franchising which allows Bradford the stability to offer cheaper tickets and bring in more fans. They couldn’t have done so under a P + R system which risked relegation which would totally destroy any longer term benefits Bradford were looking to reap from getting ‘bums on seats’'"
Are you serious? I mean you must be ing totally deluded the believe that, given the circumstances?
If anything, the current system, whereby some clubs will always be favoured above others - no matter what - has given the board at the Bulls a licence to chance committing financial suicide, as they know that they'll never be kicked out of SL to be replaced by a Championship club.
