Quote: SmokeyTA "Actually i didnt reference these figures as proof franchising was working. You said that it was P + R which what [iputs bums on seats and generates interest and excitement, and thus media hype. This is something which is lacking in the game now.” [/i I said that if that were the case, it would be easily provable by comparing 'bums on seats' in a P + R world and a franchising world.
I didnt reference those figures as proof franchising worked, simply as evidence that P + R isnt what puts "bums on seats and generates interest and excitement, and thus media hype. This is something which is lacking in the game now.”
Now if you want to say that the increase is down to new stadiam, special offers, whatever then fine, but that simply goes to support the argument that it isnt P +R which what puts [i"bums on seats and generates interest and excitement, and thus media hype. This is something which is lacking in the game now.” [/i it is new stadia, special offers, or whatever else you want to put it down to. But we know, specifically that in and of itself, that on its own, P +R doesnt increase attendences and a lack of it doesnt reduce attendances.
I dont think those two things are linked, and deep down i suspect neither do you. The special offers run by the bulls havnt been put forward by anybody as a serious reason for the Bulls failings. There are much more obvious, as well as much deeper, more structural reasons for their troubles. It has been almost universally acknowledged that the pledge scheme run by the Bulls was a good scheme, that increased attendances dramatically and created a feel-good positive atmosphere at Odsal. It would be wrong to suggest that because in other areas there has been clear mismanagement that means that that offer, in isolation, is a bad idea.
Frankly, i would think it delusional for anyone to believe that what the Bulls achieved with 'the pledge' could have been done under a P+R system.'"
But comparing last season's attendance's to this years, the way you did, neither proves that licencing is doing it, or that we wouldn't be getting higher gates should we bring back P&R. It doesn't mean that P&R doesn't put bums on seats.
It may make little difference to the best supported clubs at the top of Super League, but the battle for relegation would give several teams something to really play for. That does generate interest amongst fans, neutrals and the media. So the bottom half of the SL table and the lower leagues would see an increase in support.
With those lower end clubs battling it out, it raises the standard of the competition and that would be good for SL. It would help the lower end clubs grow their attendances and that will give them better finances to continually improve their standards.
The season is all but over for the bottom 4 clubs and there is little but pride to play for. All they'll get coming to watch that is it's die hards. Because there is just nothing riding on these games. That game, a few years back, between Wakey and Cas for their battle to stay up was a sellout and attracted a national interest. Do you think that their next meeting will do that?
Bradford giving away half price tickets, while in deep financial trouble, seems like lunacy to me. You are probably correct about the pledges though. Bradford, and their fans, are secure in the knowledge that they will never be dropped from the league under the licence system and will get another couple of years to rebuild. Under P&R, they would be in great danger of relegation, should they be forced to sell their best players. I'm not sure if that could be regarded as a ringing endorsement for the system. It's good for Bradford I suppose. That's about it.
