It says Cas lost money because of lower attendances in the super 8s, something replicated by and large throughout the league.

I would think hull fc lost revenue, we had hardly any paying walk ups during our 3 home games, yes our position of just making the numbers up didn't help either

Worth a note on Thursday games that our corporate hospitality was way down too

So you are adding your own conclusion now rather than going by the article which proves my point.

I'd suggest the Thursday games reduced the attendances but that doesn't mean money was lost. Depends on the Sky payment for TV.
It certainly doesn't mean it was a failure.

I'd say middle 8 attendances were up. But of course I'm using the same 'feeling' logic you are for your attendance facts.

Yes I know, but someone asked how the Super 8 home games for Leeds compared to London and Bradford games.....not just some of the Super 8 games you wanted to pick or avoid included.

It says nothing of the sort - if you actually read it rather than following your prejudice and going off on one, they didn't lose money their income was down £100k compared to the corresponding league games.

Thursdays are interesting. They obviously have a negative effect, but are you aware of any attempts to really minimise it? Each Club should only have 2 in the first part of the year, is there nothing to be done? I can easily understand why the corporates might be difficult, but for the junior clubs, for schools, youth organisations isnt it much easier?

Thursdays are kind of exactly what im talking about, people seem to just accept thursdays are rubbish and its all big bad sky's fault, but what are clubs doing to counteract it?

Ahh, so they didnt lose it, they just never got it in the first place.

another important distinction.

You have to wonder why pedants are so keen on making these distinctions without differences, to somehow try and argue there isnt a loss but ignore the fact the article literally says “It is a substantial loss for a club like ourselves"

There is no comparable game with the St's play off game, because we were eliminated in 2014 before a comparable game was played sweetie

Similarly one of the super 8s games would have to be left out because there is a variable number of home games to be played in each season

Strictly speaking its the Cas game that should be left out as it was the 4th home game, the results are back in and lo and behold, there wasnt a great deal of difference between Warrington (13k) and Wigan (15k) or saints (16k) all on season tickets and London (12.5k) and Bradford (16k) and Les Catalans 8k* all pay.

middle 8 attendances up on what? far harder comparison to make.

Im not adding any conclusion, im simply stating the fact that by and large, comparable attendances were lower in the super 8s and by the same logic that Steve Gill quantified it as a loss, quantified that as a loss.

ill readily admit that to judge the whole system change, and its effect on the whole league structure is more complex than lower super 8 attendance means overall loss. But in isolation of any other factors, the drop and loss from regular season to super 8s can be addressed and changed.

I stopped reading that article as soon as I read "new-fangled system"



The article is about Castleford, who "lost" £100k. That doesn't mean other clubs lost money and certainly doesn't mean the Super8s games lost money overall. Does that £100k include Sky TV money, sponsorship revenue and ALL other incomes? Probably not.

Anyway, using Smokey's own logic (search his posts from last season) then we/he can't really make any claims about the success of the Super 8s until the end of next season. 2015 was year one, we have nothing to compare against so calling it a failure because Cas took their eye off the ball is just silly. But then it's Smokey we're talking about....

Crap thread.

you have entirely made that up.

It's a loss of income, not a loss of profit - how hard is that to understand for you?