It's not as simple as you are trying to make it sound though, and this argument has come out many a time.

Take England vs Australia in 2009 and 2011 for example.
DW Stadium 2009 - 23k (2k empty)
Wembley 2011 - 42k (48k empty)

Clearly there are more than enough people interested in attending to fill DW Stadium nearly 2x over, but that didn't happen. Why?
Taking games to small familiar stadia takes away the event feeling you get. Simply moving a game to a smaller stadium doesn't always build that "limited tickets, must buy now!" situation that many messageboard marketers think it will.

I applaud the RFL's selection of stadia for this WC (although I wish they hadn't called it the "England & Wales RLWC when quite clearly Ireland & France are also hosting!).

The way to grow rugby league events is to pick target venues, announce early and work hard to fill them; not to retreat to small venues so you don't have to work as hard to fill them, get rid of the buzz and ultimately don't anyway (hence the poor interest in the internationals last year).

I can't wait for the WC. The build up so far has been better than anything I've seen in international RL.

Very, very good post. Couldn't agree more with everything you've said there.

+1

The ONLY thing I wish was different would be the other France game being in France. Another guaranteed sell out without any marketing money need spending.

I wasn't setting out to over simplify, but sure, in a short post, it doesn't cover a fraction of the challenges. I agree that the venue selection has on the whole been good. If we find a really clever way to ensure not too many empty seats in the worrying ones - where, with the best effort in the world, selling lots of full price seats is going to be hard - then we *could* end up looking like every choice was an inspired one. Contrary to the opinion of clowns who jump onto every thread accusing people of running the game down, I am passionate about the success of RL and because of my own professional background I am particularly focused on 'image' which I think, rightly or wrongly, is where RL constantly has a problem. If we can get the image improved a lot, then a lot of other 'problems' sort themselves out. If I were advising the sport I would highlight a particular challenge as being that its not like the launch of a new product, rather RL is an old product up against a lot prejudice and preconceived ideas, and in that environment you have to analyze things differently. In particular the sight of any empty stadia will delight those who want to knock the game, or more subtly, and actually more dangerously, delight those folk in the media looking for any excuse to ignore it or diminish its importance. I would tell them that therefore, the negative effect of just one bad day on TV can undo a lot of good days. That's not fair, but you're in a battle and have to work out what the battlefield looks like. Therefore, if you're going to err, then err on the side of not quite going for the biggest venue you could get away with. Sure, you will almost certainly fail to get it exactly right but that's OK. The one thing that needs avoiding like the plague is the image of ANY game being played in front of huge empty stands. Its just too attractive a metaphor for those keen to see us ignored, and will be exploited. I return to the WCC analogy - they can't say anything negative about it, but had it been played in front of the same crowd at Cardiff, they'd have described it as a total failure.

If I sound like I'm not moany enough for you in this post, don't be alarmed, I still contend that Wood and the RFL neither understand, nor would know how to address, the image issue with any skill on a long-term basis. Take one look at the photo of them outside Red Hall. It sounds ridiculous I know, but it matters. If they can't present themselves, I don't feel good about them presenting the sport.

The issue with image is a fair one, but in such a negative society, we are always seemingly dealing with a choice between two wrong options. Which one is the least wrong? The reason I say this is because no matter which one you pick, someone will moan that it's the wrong option. There are always people (especially in our game) ready to knock something, so when people of a more positive thinking come across these criticisms with not much argument, they are ignored.

I'll give you an example, take your argument about Headingley being full and people can't say anything negative about it. In reality, it's not difficult - home advantage isn't fair, it's always weighted in favour of the Brits, it's at the wrong time of year, 20k for a world final is tiny compared to 70k+ for other finals (and it's supposed to be the biggest prize). That's a few off the bat, and a few that are often talked about. It is a competition that has an incredible amount of potential but hasn't moved forward in 14 years (in fact if anything, moving them to the home of the SL champions has created further issues with neutrality). This theory of yours that having a full ground means there isn't much that can be said negatively isn't justified. Filling a smaller ground usually means a drop in attendance, and that is the first place the critics will go to. Like the example I said before, Eng/Aus at DW usually a safe bet. But it didn't fill and had thousands of visibly empty seats. Wembley closed the upper tiers, looked full in the bottom ends (I was there, it was a great occasion) and built up to 42k. Which one is better? I'd go with the latter every time.

It's the same issue that's blighting the CCSFs. They've moved then to tiny grounds (and still don't to fill them) instead of trying to make the event more desirable. Totally negative thinking that has created further problems.

Your argument about image is fair, but your solution I disagree with and will cause problems further down the line as it ignores other underlying issues.

Also, your argument about 20k at Headingley being better than 20k at Cardiff is a bit disingenuous. How could we know that 20k would be at Cardiff? If it's announced early, built up properly (like the other two finals) it would most certainly get a higher crowd. Rome wasn't built in a day. The first GF only got 44k. Loads of empty seats.

We need to be progressing, not receding. We've taken the safe option for 14 years, and whilst I agree that we should have for a time (we weren't in a position to take risks), I feel we've been ready to move forward for at least 5 years but haven't had the bottle to.

Brilliant post and 100% Agree. Although wembley was half empty, it looked a million times better and like a proper international than it did at a near full DW.

I can't passionately disagree, since I don't think I'm in a wildly different camp, it comes down to where one thinks the balance is right. Clearly nobody would want to use Wembley for a game with 2000 fans, just as nobody would want to use a amateur ground for a WC final. As I say, I err on the side of filling seats over absolute numbers, because I think its better for long term profile...but...don't think I'm suggesting this is taken to the extreme.

[Some grounds themselves work better than others with empty seats. I think its the cricket ground in Perth that has random looking seat colours scattered all over to create the impression of more people when its not full. It works. Not in our hands that, just an observation.]

I've heard those critcisms about the WCC, but I worry less about criticisms that need to be argued out because not that many people listen to detailed stuff. It's those one-shot instant impressions that for me have more impact. I'd wouldn't like a casual viewer to tune in to the WCC and see half empty giant stands, whereas I'm quite happy for them to see a full Headingley. Sure, if they want to go away and read the analysis of critics they might read about the things you mention, but the first impression and the one that's more likely to stick with them, is big game, big crowd, amazing atmosphere, sport in good health.

At a personal level, I've taken new fans to 'dumps' like Knowsley Road, but packed out dumps and they've come away thinking "wow, I had no idea how amazing RL was", whereas I've taken people to a half empty DW and they've just not really 'got it', even though the game on show was close.

And how much better is it to sell Hospitality or attract sponsors for a proper international at Wembley than at Doncaster or Leigh sports village.

I mean I love Elland Road but its an old stadium in a ty part of Leeds...really isn't the best setting for an International test/final game

I think every Eng v Aus test should be held a Wembley, to get that special occasion of the game back

Great comparison, Wembley-LSV. I hope I never live to see the day England v Australia is played at LSV and I am a Leyther.
LSV does have 22 boxes plus 3 corporate lounges which is fantastic for a 12k venue.

I agree BTW re. Eng-Aus. No problem at all with that being at Wembley. And no problem at all if I never have to set foot in Elland Rd again. Horrible place. Headingley infinitely better.

For me, they should always be asking the question, "is it realistic ( even if very ambitious) to get to within 20% of capacity if we work our socks off on ticket sales, and market this like crazy?" If yes, go for it, otherwise, pick a smaller ground.

If we didn't have so much of a PR challenge in general this would be FAR less important, almost unimportant, but there's a narrative out there of "RL is a sport in decline" that we need to overcome. Never let the buggers see an empty stand IMO. The narrative and the reality are never that far apart, because media profile is so critical to success - the narratives can be self-fulfilling. And, to respond in advance to Smokey...our waffling on here has nothing to do with the narrative out there. "Talking the game up or down" *here* does absolutely nothing - we're preaching to the converted.

Why do you care what idiots who are looking for excuses to shoot down the sport think? Their opinions are totally inconsequential, why would you want to pander to them rather than doing what's best for the sport? The ironic thing is that you and similar fans trash the sport a hell of a lot more than anyone outside the game, and ultimately are probably a lot more damaging since you are the ones who would be expected to be supporting the sport.

Who is it then?

Where are you seeing this narrative and who is writing it?

Can somebody explain which circumstances dictate that an ' early bird ' discount offer should be extended ?

Good sales ?

Poor sales ?

could either, could be neither.

They could have always planned to extend the early bird sales and it was always part of the strategy to do so. The thinking being that the ending of it would act as a prompt for some, the extension doing the same to others.