Attendance for Autumn Internationals

The Millenium Stadium has a capacity of 74,500, if the Stadium was full for 3 matches that would be 223,500 spectators. In the 4 Autumn matches 66490 attended the SA match, with 46253 for Argentina, 46523 for Tonga and finally 67,436 for yesterdays match. That is a total of 226704 for 4 games. I was offered 2 free tickets for yesterdays game on Friday night at the Ospreys game, I was offered another 2 on Saturday morning in a box from a Bridgend firm that pays for it. I declined both offers. I was also offered the same type of box for the Tonga game which was also turned down.
What I'm getting at is the fact that the WRU cannot fill the Stadium against 2 of the 3 best teams in the World, why do they play this 4th International. Why don't they drop the Tonga game, the Australians are paid £750000 to fulfill this fixture, the Regions are paid just over a £1million to supply 30 odd players for over 3 MONTHS of the season, this amount was negotiated in 2008 and was part of the Participation Agreement. The WRU if a new agreement cannot be negotiated, wants this to be rolled over until 2018, which can be if the Regions agrees. This is part of the reason for the RRW stance on the HC debacle.
THOUGHTS are welcome

The 4th match is really no use to anyone other than the SH team that it helps bank roll. It costs out teams in the HC as they have less time to prepare, and i'm not sure we've ever won it. It's not really worth it anymore :/

Perhaps just cut the capacity of the MS and let some light onto that peat bog in the hope it might one day support an international quality pitch?

Coleman wrote:The 4th match is really no use to anyone other than the SH team that it helps bank roll. It costs out teams in the HC as they have less time to prepare, and i'm not sure we've ever won it. It's not really worth it anymore :/

Yes, that is correct, apart from bankrolling the SH team, a small amount pays off the debt and the rest goes towards the Dodgers Bonus.

Coleman wrote:The 4th match is really no use to anyone other than the SH team that it helps bank roll. It costs out teams in the HC as they have less time to prepare, and i'm not sure we've ever won it. It's not really worth it anymore :/

Are you trying to say that Wales can't make any money out of the game with only 67 thousand people attending plus selling the TV rights?

I don't care about the money personally. The Union would make a profit without the 4th test. The only reason the 4th test exsists is as Wayne pointed out, to make Roger Lewis look like a financial mastermind. The game is counter productive. I'd much rather see a 4th test in North Wales then in Cardiff as then it would have a purpose other than making money.

Just to clarify, are you guys arguing against the 4th test in the interests of player welfare or preserving the pitch? Or is it both or actually neither? Actually, what is with those pitches in Wales and France. Why can't they get the foundation right, is it too much sand or something?

In regards to the attendance - I live in SW London area, myself and Brother in-law managed to buy tickets for the Wales v SA game on the Wednesday before.
They were £25 each, lower tier but good seats. There were loads of empty seats in the upper tiers.

We brought these tickets for 2 reasons - couldn't get hold of Twickenham tickets and the fact that Edwards promised a bloodbath of a match.

I was amazed that there were still tickets available at that price for a game against the big 3!

I guess 18 losses on the trot starts to take it's toll eventually...

I'm not having a pop at the team GE. The game was extremely entertaining and definitely delivered what Edwards promised. barring the result.
It was a great day out and well worth the trip, but I just find it difficult to understand why its so hard to sell out the stadium.

The tickets are priced competitively, Cardiff is easy to get to (as long as you leave early enough). Wales are playing a cracking style and brand of rugby at the moment so they should be selling out every game...............so, my question is why not?

What more can the sales/marketing people do.

I understand the attendance issues with regional rugby to a point, but I was always under the impression that the National side had no problem with gate numbers!

My point is mainly regional welfair i guess. Maybe if we don't have a HC next season Wales can have 5 or 6 internationals in the Autumn. But with the current set up it's counter productive.

The commentary team said something before the Oz match that I was a bit surprised about.
As the Australians were getting off the team coach he mentioned that they were getting 3/4 Million quid for this match alone!

Why the match fee? Is it because the match was outside an international window or something?

Yes. The match falls outside the IRB window when teams are obliged to have a game i believe. As the WRU basically run this as a way of generating extra money they pay the team they play. I read it was £400k somewhere and also that NZ wanted double that.

[quote="Coleman"]Yes. The match falls outside the IRB window when teams are obliged to have a game i believe. As the WRU basically run this as a way of generating extra money they pay the team they play. I read it was £400k somewhere and also that NZ wanted double that.[/quote]

That's because they knew we would beat them and ruin their website WWWWWWWWWWWWWWL doesn't look so good.

It is frightening though, when you think £11 of every ticket sold went straight to the Aussies. Don't the WRU pay the regions the participation agreement money so they can play this game? That means, going by quick maths, the union ran this game either at a lose or pretty near a loss, given the wages to players beer sellers, security etc.

Hmm - seems a bit cheeky that the NH have to pay for the chance to play against the Southern Hemisphere!
Doesn't sound like good strategy - like I said, especially if they cant sell out the Millen Stadium.

Although I have heard somewhere that the WRU is now making a good profit so I guess the marketing chaps are doing something right.

Coleman wrote:Yes. The match falls outside the IRB window when teams are obliged to have a game i believe. As the WRU basically run this as a way of generating extra money they pay the team they play. I read it was £400k somewhere and also that NZ wanted double that.

No Coleman it was £750000, the thing that gets me, is what I said in the OP, they gave nearly as much money to Australia for 1 match as they give to the Regions for 9 matches or 3 Months away from the Regions, and more importantly they want to carry on this level of funding for another 5 years, I had this information from a quite high up source within RRW, by all accounts this was also confirmed in a Guardian article either Saturday or Today.

If they make 750,001 from the match in takings and TV revenue then its fair game if you ask me. Although i doubt they would do it for a £1 profit. If they're giving AUS 750K you'd expect them to make as much in profit, if not more.... else all you're doing is beefing up their balance sheet.

seems like Wales and Aus are the two intl teams most likely to cram in extra matches for money. how about that game 5 weeks after RWC2011?

the reason is clear and understandable however - Aus have centrally contracted players and are in a very tough financial spot at present (some risk of bankruptcy of ARU). WRU can ride roughshod over RRW and Roger Lewis is very focused on the financial performance of the WRU.

fa0019 wrote:If they make 750,001 from the match in takings and TV revenue then its fair game if you ask me. Although i doubt they would do it for a £1 profit. If they're giving AUS 750K you'd expect them to make as much in profit, if not more.... else all you're doing is beefing up their balance sheet.

But you forget that the welsh players still need paying for that game, and so do all the stewards, and the kids that sell the beer and burgers, and the people who clean up all the left over plastic beer containers etc etc. Oh and the electric bill for the big screens, and all that stuff too.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

fa0019 wrote:If they make 750,001 from the match in takings and TV revenue then its fair game if you ask me. Although i doubt they would do it for a £1 profit. If they're giving AUS 750K you'd expect them to make as much in profit, if not more.... else all you're doing is beefing up their balance sheet.

But you forget that the welsh players still need paying for that game, and so do all the stewards, and the kids that sell the beer and burgers, and the people who clean up all the left over plastic beer containers etc etc.  Oh and the electric bill for the big screens, and all that stuff too.

i am sure WRU still makes a profit. would be easy to identify the impact of a single AI vs top3 from the WRU annual report. i bet its a £4-5m event for WRU (Aus/SA matches), they pay costs and the Ozzies £750k, and i bet they are left with at least £1m of pure profit.

took 10 seconds to discover that Match Income was c£35m in 2012 and c£30m in 2013 for the WRU. they play how many intl matches a year? 11 or 12 is it? so lets call it c£3m for an average intl fixture. i would say that a home match with full stadium (more or less) would a much bigger money-maker than away tour matches for example, so prob worth as i said £4-5m to WRU for SA/Aus AI friendlies.

Well more matches would generally mean a more cohesive team. So going into the 6 nations and World cup Wales will have that advantage over the other 6 nations teams.

quinsforever wrote:took 10 seconds to discover that Match Income was c£35m in 2012 and c£30m in 2013 for the WRU. they play how many intl matches a year? 11 or 12 is it? so lets call it c£3m for an average intl fixture. i would say that a home match with full stadium (more or less) would a much bigger money-maker than away tour matches for example, so prob worth as i said £4-5m to WRU for SA/Aus AI friendlies.

In theory the away team gets nothing out away games. They just get their expenses covered.

So I'd say they have 7 home internationals in 2012 and 6 in 2013 (3 then 2 in the 6 nations). So it works out at about £5M per home game. 6 nations are usually sell outs. Big 3 are usually close to sell outs. So, your top end of £5M is probably closest to it.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

fa0019 wrote:If they make 750,001 from the match in takings and TV revenue then its fair game if you ask me. Although i doubt they would do it for a £1 profit. If they're giving AUS 750K you'd expect them to make as much in profit, if not more.... else all you're doing is beefing up their balance sheet.

But you forget that the welsh players still need paying for that game, and so do all the stewards, and the kids that sell the beer and burgers, and the people who clean up all the left over plastic beer containers etc etc.  Oh and the electric bill for the big screens, and all that stuff too.

tis true...there are many other factors to be considered: stamp duty, window tax, swamp insurance, hen food, dog biscuits, cow ointment; the expenses are endless.





got to love blackadder.

I too was offered tickets but I didn't fancy watching Welsh bish bash bosh rugby (Warren Ball), a few years ago I would have jumped at the chance to watch Wales and Aus.

Maybe attendances are down as it's not a novelty anymore playing the SH. We now play SH teams as much as we play the 6N teams, I.e. Once a year - actually if you include the summer tours then each year we play a SH team more than we play our neighbours England, Scotland, Ireland et al. Plus the fact that we're 99% likely to lose and there's no points/silverware on offer, perhaps it's not such a mouthwatering prospect to some fans!

In the 6N on the other hand we only see these teams at the Millenium Stadium every other year. Less than the likes of Aus then I suppose. And they bring a lot of travelling support which swells the numbers but more importantly adds to the atmosphere, and maybe makes for a more appealing prospect for some fans.

Griff wrote:Maybe attendances are down as it's not a novelty anymore playing the SH. We now play SH teams as much as we play the 6N teams, I.e. Once a year - actually if you include the summer tours then each year we play a SH team more than we play our neighbours England, Scotland, Ireland et al. Plus the fact that we're 99% likely to lose and there's no points/silverware on offer, perhaps it's not such a mouthwatering prospect to some fans!

In the 6N on the other hand we only see these teams at the Millenium Stadium every other year. Less than the likes of Aus then I suppose. And they bring a lot of travelling support which swells the numbers but more importantly adds to the atmosphere, and maybe makes for a more appealing prospect for some fans.

Well, I guess if the fans think that the captain doesn't see beating Australia as a motivation, then why should they show up anyway?

to be honest the first half was as good a game of rugby you could wish for.  Warren ball or not it was an entertaining match.

fa0019 wrote:to be honest the first half was as good a game of rugby you could wish for.  Warren ball or not it was an entertaining match.

I agree, the 2nd half was good too.  

I'm not saying I made the right call by not going, but Warren Ball can be hard to watch sometimes.

Scrumpy wrote:

fa0019 wrote:to be honest the first half was as good a game of rugby you could wish for.  Warren ball or not it was an entertaining match.

I agree, the 2nd half was good too.  

I'm not saying I made the right call by not going, but Warren Ball can be hard to watch sometimes.

its a bit weird, you would have thought with the Lions series victory and the huge welsh involvement the place would have been packed to the rafters.

To the Non Welsh thanks for the input, but to put it down to just monetary terms is rather slightly misleading as the OP explains, as I explained I was offered FREE TICKETS, TWICE for the Aus game and also for the Tonga game, another poster on here also went to the game on Saturday free.
The point I was trying to make was the amount of money they gave to Oz compared to what they gave the Regions and if those figures are correct, then it is even worse that they reckon they make about £5Million/ game and for the PA the Regions only receive just over £1 million and they want to carry on the same amount for the next 5 years with only inflation price increases.
With the disruption to the Regions for last weekends Rabo games, in which 3 lost and 1 drew and obviously the disruption to next weeks HC and Amlin matches for our squads, when I KNOW, people will come on to me to say how the WRU are carrying the Regions and how useless they are in said competition.

Wayne... give the profits on order if they didn't have the 4th additional game the amount received by the clubs would in all probability be even less.

fa0019 wrote:Wayne... give the profits on order if they didn't have the 4th additional game the amount received by the clubs would in all probability be even less.

Why, when they are making £5 Million/ game, 5 or 6 games a season.
Can I also add when I read your reply I started this response in an entirely different manner, but I thought better of it.

wayne wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Wayne... give the profits on order if they didn't have the 4th additional game the amount received by the clubs would in all probability be even less.

Why, when they are making £5 Million/ game, 5 or 6 games a season.
Can I also add when I read your reply I started this response in an entirely different manner, but I thought better of it.  

ok well say they make 5MM a year from 5 home games a season... so a profit of 1MM per game (after costs and fees given to teams etc). Well if they have 1 less game then thats -1MM less in the kitty no???

Perhaps the free tickets were an incentive to get people in the door, buy programs, beer etc etc?

Lets say that 1MM is evenly spread between the 4 pro sides or 250k each.. is the additional disruption not worth it for that sum of money, or any significant sum of money?

Wayne, I too had a free ticket. However, nothing is ever truly 'free'. The WRU doesn't give away free tickets. Rugby clubs and businesses might give people 'free' tickets, but they've been paid for somewhere along the line. Mine was through a mate's business. A few friends at the game had them through work. Others I was with had rugby club tickets, but the club paid for them I think.

Griff, you were the person I was reffering to, as you put in on a thread last week that you had a free ticket for this game, the Boxes are obviously free for the invited guest, tickets for the stadium itself not so.
fa, they make £5M/game that is £25M/Season against the top teams, if you cannot see the point I'm making you are beyond hope.

wayne, ok so they make 5MM or whatever sum per game but where does the money go? Are all the board of directors laughing it up to Mexico each winter???? or is it being distributed in other ways?

The union is responsible for all clubs and rugby in the country no not just the professional outfits? They fund more than the professional clubs. The figure also is not profit surely, its revenue... its a big distinction.

My point really is that just because someone has a ticket for free doesn't mean that it's been given away by the WRU. Some people seem to be claiming that the WRU/stadium management were giving away free tickets to boost the numbers (unless I've misinterpreted it). That is just not true. Most of those with 'free' tickets are recipients of corporate ones that some company has paid a lot of money for!

Even the corporate box isn't completely free - someone has to pay for it all!

fa0019 wrote:wayne, ok so they make 5MM or whatever sum per game but where does the money go? Are all the board of directors laughing it up to Mexico each winter???? or is it being distributed in other ways?

The union is responsible for all clubs and rugby in the country no not just the professional outfits? They fund more than the professional clubs. The figure also is not profit surely, its revenue... its a big distinction.

fa, you obviously don't know anything about how the finances of the WRU are distributed, and to be honest I can't be bothered to tell you, lets just say the Dodger looks after the people that controls the WRU, have a look how much the Irish Regions are funded, on top of the Central Contracts that they pay directly, this is a big reason for the RRW stance on the HC debacle.

wayne wrote:

fa0019 wrote:wayne, ok so they make 5MM or whatever sum per game but where does the money go? Are all the board of directors laughing it up to Mexico each winter???? or is it being distributed in other ways?

The union is responsible for all clubs and rugby in the country no not just the professional outfits? They fund more than the professional clubs. The figure also is not profit surely, its revenue... its a big distinction.

fa, you obviously don't know anything about how the finances of the WRU are distributed, and to be honest I can't be bothered to tell you, lets just say the Dodger looks after the people that controls the WRU, have a look how much the Irish Regions are funded, on top of the Central Contracts that they pay directly, this is a big reason for the RRW stance on the HC debacle.

100% agree with you wayne. seems like Dodger is waging a long-term campaign to weaken the welsh regions in the hope that the WRU can centrally contract the players, as Dodger offered to do in exchange for the regions signing their new participation agreement. He wants unfettered control, and no rivals claiming credit (region owners and benefactors).

Lewis is only interested in the corporate and hospitality side of things.

We should be proud of the WRU hosting teams like Tonga and Samoa over the last few years.

That is us doing our bit to help the less wealthy nations for the greater good of the game.

Too true Maesteg
Of course being games within the international window the less wealthy teams don't make money from those games just expenses. Of course Wales won't make much money from those games either I'm sure through lower attendances and probably less TV money for that game.
That's why they need to have an extra game to create so more revenue.

Many countries are in that predicament of needing to generate revenue its just balancing the cost of getting that profit (I'm thinking in terms of loses and player fatigue)...
The AB's might have had better AI games if they hadn't played the extra games against Australia and Japan for example. I would love to play 1 or 2 fewer tests a year.

maestegmafia wrote:We should be proud of the WRU hosting teams like Tonga and Samoa over the last few years.

That is us doing our bit to help the less wealthy nations for the greater good of the game.

But then stopping the Ospreys from playing against Tonga (I think, I know it was a PI side) last year and claiming that the Ospreys players were playing too many games already goes to shows the opposite.

nganboy wrote:Too true Maesteg
Of course being games within the international window the less wealthy teams don't make money from those games just expenses. Of course Wales won't make much money from those games either I'm sure through lower attendances and probably less TV money for that game.
That's why they need to have an extra game to create so more revenue.

Many countries are in that predicament of needing to generate revenue its just balancing the cost of getting that profit (I'm thinking in terms of loses and player fatigue)...
The AB's might have had better AI games if they hadn't played the extra games against Australia and Japan for example. I would love to play 1 or 2 fewer tests a year.

I think there has to be an amnesty and a bit of common sense added to the fixture calendar and the only way to do that is from the IRB.

If teams like Canada, USA, Samoa, Fiji, Tonga etc etc are given the opportunity to train and play at their best then they will be awesome competition in the AIs and will start to attract the big attendances the SH teams do.

Wasn't the England v Aus game outside the window aswell? Australia must have made a fair bit of money on this our.

Coleman wrote:Wasn't the England v Aus game outside the window aswell? Australia must have made a fair bit of money on this our.

They need to the ARU are absolutely broke.

maestegmafia wrote:

Coleman wrote:Wasn't the England v Aus game outside the window aswell? Australia must have made a fair bit of money on this our.

They need to the ARU are absolutely broke.

 
The ARU has about A$3M in assets. Annually their turn over is around A$100M.  Their high level financial picture is very similar to the NZRU (as you might expect), other than Australia makes about A$30M from sponsors, whereas the NZRU is drawing a (very difficult to track down) number of about NZ$75M annually since they picked up the AIG deal.  NZ still manage to make a measly ~NZ$4M profit, so it probably reflects the comparative cuts the ARU is making (closing their academies etc.).
 
Not sure it constitutes "broke", although in comparison to the RFUs' quarter of a billion pounds in assets it certainly looks that way.
 
Should a rugby unions objective be to operate with a vast annual profit? I suggest it's not.

GloriousEmpire wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

Coleman wrote:Wasn't the England v Aus game outside the window aswell? Australia must have made a fair bit of money on this our.

They need to the ARU are absolutely broke.

 
The ARU has about A$3M in assets. Annually their turn over is around A$100M.  Their high level financial picture is very similar to the NZRU (as you might expect), other than Australia makes about A$30M from sponsors, whereas the NZRU is drawing a (very difficult to track down) number of about NZ$75M annually since they picked up the AIG deal.  NZ still manage to make a measly ~NZ$4M profit, so it probably reflects the comparative cuts the ARU is making (closing their academies etc.).
 
Not sure it constitutes "broke", although in comparison to the RFUs' quarter of a billion pounds in assets it certainly looks that way.
 
Should a rugby unions objective be to operate with a vast annual profit? I suggest it's not.

I agree that profit is not the purpose of the game. My thoughts on the ARU were based on reading recent articles in the SMH on the Wallabies taking pay cuts and backroom staff being laid off. I rad that the ARU have faced a $AUS 19 million deficit for the last two years.

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/union-news/pay-cut-test-for-wallabies-20131016-2vmy8.html

wayne wrote:

fa0019 wrote:wayne, ok so they make 5MM or whatever sum per game but where does the money go? Are all the board of directors laughing it up to Mexico each winter???? or is it being distributed in other ways?

The union is responsible for all clubs and rugby in the country no not just the professional outfits? They fund more than the professional clubs. The figure also is not profit surely, its revenue... its a big distinction.

fa, you obviously don't know anything about how the finances of the WRU are distributed, and to be honest I can't be bothered to tell you, lets just say the Dodger looks after the people that controls the WRU, have a look how much the Irish Regions are funded, on top of the Central Contracts that they pay directly, this is a big reason for the RRW stance on the HC debacle.

Shovel to wheelbarrow to car boot, under the cover of darkness possibly?