Jeff : Grand designs

Double Headers and Wembley specials

• Do they make any money?
• Do they boost subsequent participant home attendances?
• Do they boost TV audiences?

I'd like to know because I can't find out.

And the Quins 'Big Games' I'm guessing?

HammerofThunor wrote:And the Quins 'Big Games' I'm guessing?

Well no HoT, Not in particular. All of the DHs and Sarries' home games seem subsequently to have resulted in business as usual home support.

Irish mustered 5828 at home last weekend whilst Quins roused 12550 to the Stoop. Both are 'average' attendances. Sarries will once again be distorted by a Wembley appearance this weekend. Wasps will be at proper home for the first time.

The question is though, does this do anyone any good?

Portnoy,

that is the average attendance for Quins because that is virtually the ground capacity.

I am not sure that the double headers have grown attendances for LW, LI and Sarries.

However looking at average attendances over the last 10 years Quins have certainly managed something right with their various efforts.

In the 2001/2 Season quins averaged just over 6,500 attendance.
By the time they were relegated this was up to 8,500
In their season back (2006/7) they averaged 11,000.
they started the big match the following season and averages at the Stoop continued to rise. Last season they averaged 12.700 at the Stoop.

so in 10 years they have almost doubled attendances - pretty good work.

If they lost money then they would have been scrapped a long time ago.

There is an 80k seater stadium in Dublin. I'm trying to remember a number of years back that they said if there were less than 28k in the stadium, then the event would lose money from the cost of security, stadium, staff, etc. But that from around 30k onwards it would be all profit.

Also, while it might not be seen to improve support for other home games for the rest of the season, it does mean one very good attendance to boost the finances.

There is also 2 ways to look at the Sarries appearances in Wembley. One is that they distort the usually low pull. The other way is that with proper targetting of fixtures and marketing they can pull in big crowds. At Leinster, the RDS has c.18,500 seats which is fine for almost all matches. But for Munster and marquee HCup home games, they will move to Lansdowne Rd and pull in 40-50k people for the fixture. Moving those couple of games to pull in the cash (and give more people the chance of watching the bigger games in person) and helps pay for... well take your pick (a) one of the marquee players like VDM, Rocky, Nacewa, Thorn for a season, (b) a good chunk of the academy for that year or (c) the cost of a top grade coaching setup.

Oh right so this is yet another not very subtle attack on Saracens from Portnoy.

Probably don't make money but when you have the financial backing Saracens do you can afford to make a loss in the short term. The English paupers Wray,Leslau and Silvester are only worth £150m each. The South African backers have are worth more than £2billion.

2nd question is irrelevant because Saracens never made any effort to market VR. You know this. Don't play dumb. All the focus has been on getting the new stadium.


Do you know the TV figures?

LondonTiger it's all because of Mark Evans. It's him Quins should be thanking.

thebandwagonsociety wrote:If they lost money then they would have been scrapped a long time ago.

There is an 80k seater stadium in Dublin. I'm trying to remember a number of years back that they said if there were less than 28k in the stadium, then the event would lose money from the cost of security, stadium, staff, etc. But that from around 30k onwards it would be all profit.

Also, while it might not be seen to improve support for other home games for the rest of the season, it does mean one very good attendance to boost the finances.

There is also 2 ways to look at the Sarries appearances in Wembley. One is that they distort the usually low pull. The other way is that with proper targetting of fixtures and marketing they can pull in big crowds. At Leinster, the RDS has c.18,500 seats which is fine for almost all matches. But for Munster and marquee HCup home games, they will move to Lansdowne Rd and pull in 40-50k people for the fixture. Moving those couple of games to pull in the cash (and give more people the chance of watching the bigger games in person) and helps pay for... well take your pick (a) one of the marquee players like VDM, Rocky, Nacewa, Thorn for a season, (b) a good chunk of the academy for that year or (c) the cost of a top grade coaching setup.

It also give more fans the opportunity to see a game, which in itself is a positive thing

beshocked wrote:Oh right so this is yet another not very subtle attack on Saracens from Portnoy.

Probably don't make money but when you have the financial backing Saracens do you can afford to make a loss in the short term. The English paupers Wray,Leslau and Silvester are only worth £150m each. The South African backers have are worth more than £2billion.

2nd question is irrelevant because Saracens never made any effort to market VR. You know this. Don't play dumb. All the focus has been on getting the new stadium.


Do you know the TV figures?

LondonTiger it's all because of Mark Evans. It's him Quins should be thanking.

No 'shocked not another Sarrieattcak. You and I have recently mellowed in our relationship I think on a number of issues.

Sarries are clearly forging a different business model from the norm.

But I'm questioning the rationale : Is it (now or ever) likely to be successful?

The huge chip stakes being laid by primarily the Sarries to my mind are of exponentially more consequence to other Jeff clubs than Sarries and Leicester.

Portnoy depends how you define success.

Depends what the objectives and goals are.

For all you know it might be brand awareness. It certainly makes the rugby world take notice.

Saracens is always going to be different to a Leicester or Northampton because it's not been based around a specific town/area. Saracens wants to throw it's net far wider. You could see this as a disadvantage but then again it's not. Saracens can and try appeal to a far wider audience.

Then again this means they sometimes don't treat their small but loyal current followers correctly in their pursuit of bigger crowds.

Wembley is a football stadium. The bouncers act as if they were part of the Gestapo in their former lives. They treat everyone like dirt. The Wembley experience certainly is not that desirable for a rugby fan. For the average joe it's great though.

Cheap ticket for Wembley - half time entertainment and normally two good teams facing each other.

beshocked wrote:Portnoy depends how you define success.

Depends what the objectives and goals are.

For all you know it might be brand awareness. It certainly makes the rugby world take notice.

Saracens is always going to be different to a Leicester or Northampton because it's not been based around a specific town/area. Saracens wants to throw it's net far wider. You could see this as a disadvantage but then again it's not. Saracens can and try appeal to a far wider audience.

Then again this means they sometimes don't treat their small but loyal current followers correctly in their pursuit of bigger crowds.

Cheap ticket for Wembley - half time entertainment and normally two good teams facing each other.

Wembley is a football stadium. The bouncers act as if they were part of the Gestapo in their former lives. They treat everyone like dirt. The Wembley experience certainly is not that desirable for a rugby fan. For the average joe it's great though.

And a money-spinner or a money pit? Saracens have an awful long way to go just to break-even over a season. And a hell of a lot further to recoup their investment. They appear to be leeching toot.

Portnoy are you going to say anything constructive or is it just the same old ?

Every man and his dog know that Saracens lose money and a lot of it.

Instead of the same old mantra that Saracens are doing things wrong suggest what you think they should be doing instead?

I know you think Tigers are the greatest club in the world. I see Tigers as a very good club but not particularly innovative. Not willing to push the boundaries. Too stuck in the old ways. Too insular.

Tigers have a pretty good model but it doesn't work for everyone.