ENGLAND - Rugby World Cup 2015

[CharlieP]

Originally Posted by thomasKing

I very much agree with your first point here. There is no need for particularly big capacities in rugby.

Not particularly big, no. Definitely bigger, if you're a Bath, Harlequins or Northampton fan unable to go to a match because the ground's full.

[Harry1990]

First of all I better make sure my grammar is 100 % correct otherwise i will be criticised for not doing so.

I think in the premiership there is a few clubs that could do with small increases of capicity but it should be done in gradual steps, but one thing that has baffled me is that you can get a season tickets at Harlequins for about £120 if your a student/OAP etc and about £200 if your a regular Joe but if you cant afford it of have other commitments and just wantgo to the odd game every now and then most tickets for a league game cost around £20-25, which in my opinion is a tad to high, think if tickets were more in the £10-15 pound bracket games would sell out alot more.

[CharlieP]

Originally Posted by Harry1990

First of all I better make sure my grammar is 100 % correct otherwise i will be criticised for not doing so.

I only counted 15 mistakes, so you weren't far off.

[Rev Stickleback]

Originally Posted by Harry1990

First of all I better make sure my grammar is 100 % correct otherwise i will be criticised for not doing so.

I think in the premiership there is a few clubs that could do with small increases of capicity but it should be done in gradual steps, but one thing that has baffled me is that you can get a season tickets at Harlequins for about £120 if your a student/OAP etc and about £200 if your a regular Joe but if you cant afford it of have other commitments and just wantgo to the odd game every now and then most tickets for a league game cost around £20-25, which in my opinion is a tad to high, think if tickets were more in the £10-15 pound bracket games would sell out alot more.

Harlequins tickets are £22/£28/£34.50/£45 spread in more or less equal numbers over the ground. Premiership rugby is certainly not cheap.

Season tickets start at £179 for adults.

Their capacity issues are rather unusual, as I believe the local council say they have to provide one parking space for every 10 people who use the stadium (or thereabouts). As a result the ground capacity is actually a few hundred under the number of seats in the ground.

I guess when you sell out you can command higher prices. Northampton charge £28 to stand at their ground, which must be the highest price standing ticket in sports outside Formula 1.

[lwa]

Originally Posted by Harry1990

Great so i better bring a telescope to see the players when will these people learn olympic stadiums are just aweful apart from what they are desigmed for athletics

Strange then that so many clubs chose to play at athletics stadiums. Stade Francais (Stade Charlety), Racing Metro (Stade Olympique Yves du Manoir), Aviron Bayonnais (Stade Jean Dauger; Estadio Anoeta), Biarritz (Estadio Anoeta), SC Albi (Stade Municipal), Perpignan (Estadi Olímpic Lluís Companys) Saracens (Allianz Park; King Baudouin Stadium) and Glasgow Warriors (Scotstoun) will all play at athletics stadiums this season. And that's just the ones I can name off the top of my head! (there are many, many more in the French leagues)

And I haven't even mentioned the most obvious example - Italy playing their 6 Nations games at the Stadio Olimpico!

OK, the views may be slightly better in a rectangular football stadium, but all such stadiums in London will also have drawbacks. All have football clubs who won't be keen to move fixtures, wont want to much damage done to the pitch at the start of the season ect. and some may even require a smaller pitch than can be accomodated at Twickenham and other grounds. To me, the Olympic Stadium makes total sense, and I would be surprised if it isn't used.

And if Scotland end up playing there, then I might finally get a chance to actual see the Olympic park my taxes paid for...

[Rev Stickleback]

I would guess it's mainly just a case of demand necessitating a big stadium for some games, and no large stadium existing locally except one with a track.

[Harry1990]

Originally Posted by lwa

Strange then that so many clubs chose to play at athletics stadiums. Stade Francais (Stade Charlety), Racing Metro (Stade Olympique Yves du Manoir), Aviron Bayonnais (Stade Jean Dauger; Estadio Anoeta), Biarritz (Estadio Anoeta), SC Albi (Stade Municipal), Perpignan (Estadi Olímpic Lluís Companys) Saracens (Allianz Park; King Baudouin Stadium) and Glasgow Warriors (Scotstoun) will all play at athletics stadiums this season. And that's just the ones I can name off the top of my head! (there are many, many more in the French leagues)

And I haven't even mentioned the most obvious example - Italy playing their 6 Nations games at the Stadio Olimpico!

OK, the views may be slightly better in a rectangular football stadium, but all such stadiums in London will also have drawbacks. All have football clubs who won't be keen to move fixtures, wont want to much damage done to the pitch at the start of the season ect. and some may even require a smaller pitch than can be accomodated at Twickenham and other grounds. To me, the Olympic Stadium makes total sense, and I would be surprised if it isn't used.

And if Scotland end up playing there, then I might finally get a chance to actual see the Olympic park my taxes paid for...

Surely everyones taxes paid for it being a British olympics in the capital of the united kingdom so surely everyone in the uk should pay taxes for it ?

And i still think rugby football union would be best of in the Emirates than at the OS which is going down to 60k post games anyways

[CharlieP]

Apparently England are keen to play home games away from HQ:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012...wickenham-2015

[Harry1990]

good idea, I guess just where to stage them and what game to play, selling 82k tickets in London and the south east/south west for a game at NZ is easy or easyish but assuming that they would want to keep the 6 nations game and id imagine some of the autumn internationals at HQ, pretty the RFU wouldnt want the All Black games to be played elsewhere.

they did play at Old Trafford about 2009 time i think vs Argentina wouldnt know what the attendance was? but id imagine if they are going to try and raise the profile of the game in the north of England before 2015 if they do play games there then the tickets would be slightly cheaper than they sell them at Twickenham

[lwa]

Originally Posted by Harry1990

Surely everyones taxes paid for it being a British olympics in the capital of the united kingdom so surely everyone in the uk should pay taxes for it ?

And i still think rugby football union would be best of in the Emirates than at the OS which is going down to 60k post games anyways

But the Emirates is owned by Arsenal, so fixtures need to be worked around them. Whereas, I think the Olympic Stadium is to be rented to any football club who takes up residence? Far more desirable from the organisers PoV.

Originally Posted by Harry1990

good idea, I guess just where to stage them and what game to play, selling 82k tickets in London and the south east/south west for a game at NZ is easy or easyish but assuming that they would want to keep the 6 nations game and id imagine some of the autumn internationals at HQ, pretty the RFU wouldnt want the All Black games to be played elsewhere.

they did play at Old Trafford about 2009 time i think vs Argentina wouldnt know what the attendance was? but id imagine if they are going to try and raise the profile of the game in the north of England before 2015 if they do play games there then the tickets would be slightly cheaper than they sell them at Twickenham

Yeah, England toured Argentina in (our) summer 2009, but UAR opted to hold the first match of the series in England at Old Trafford. According to wikipedia, attendance was 40,000 - but worth remembering there was also a Lions tour that summer, so it's not a full strength England and these tests tend to slip under the radar. Ireland and Wales toured North America that year, and Scotland didn't tour at all.

Not my place to tell the RFU what to do, but Scotland have moved a few tests (Canada, Samoa, Tonga) to Aberdeen - have been a fantastic success each time, drawing bigger crowds than the same fixture would at Murrayfield.

Mind you, if they played a game that interested me in Newcastle, I would jump on a train...

[thomasKing]

Originally Posted by flierfy

The Olympic Stadium is in public hands and will remain there AFAIK. That might help the RFU to strike a better deal. Another advantage is its commercially neutral name. And with West Ham less likely to be involved in European competitions than Arsenal it might also be more often available than the Emirates.

Yes, the neutral name and public ownership may well come into it. The football fixtures shouldnt really matter much. We are talking four weekends where club grounds would be used and one of those is likely to be a blank weekend.

These plans may also be a way of putting pressure on the premier league who have - apparently - reacted quite negatively and arrogantly to an RFU approach. Organisers should call the premier league´s bluff and just draw up plans for a tournament without premier league or even football league grounds. Football grounds arent that important at all for the tournament. Only old Trafford would be a real loss.

At least four club rugby grounds (leeds, leicester, gloucester and Exeter) could reach a reasonable capacity if long term development plans were pushed forward, possibly with the help of world cup money that would otherwise be used on renting football grounds. Some might get an even higher capacity for the world cup with large temporary stands being put in place after the demolition of old small stands and before the construction of new small stands all timed for the world cup

[thomasKing]

Originally Posted by CharlieP

Not particularly big, no. Definitely bigger, if you're a Bath, Harlequins or Northampton fan unable to go to a match because the ground's full.

well yes but dont forget how little top club rugby there actually is. Only half the clubs qualify for the Hec meaning the rest are left with a lot of low-key tournament games that arent likely to test capacity. In the premiership there are only 11 home games and the likes of harlequins even move one or two away from the stoop, leaving potentially as little as 9 and some of them will be played with international players absent. There is reason to be careful. Its not only very costly to expand but could have the reverse affect of chasing people away if empty seats kills the atmosphere.

I think the likes of northampton are getting it right. They are expanding but not by much, and as such they are committing themselves long term to a 15,000 capacity home ground while seeking to create a permanent relationship with Milton Keynes to stage big games there.

[CharlieP]

Originally Posted by thomasKing

well yes but dont forget how little top club rugby there actually is. Only half the clubs qualify for the Hec meaning the rest are left with a lot of low-key tournament games that arent likely to test capacity. In the premiership there are only 11 home games and the likes of harlequins even move one or two away from the stoop, leaving potentially as little as 9 and some of them will be played with international players absent. There is reason to be careful. Its not only very costly to expand but could have the reverse affect of chasing people away if empty seats kills the atmosphere.

I think we're both singing the same tune. I'm not advocating 30,000+ grounds, just saying that a few are bulging at the seams and could do with incremental expansion.

Looking at last year's figures, Bath and Northampton sold out all but two home Premiership games and Quins attracted between 10,802 and 14,282 for games at the Stoop. A 20% expansion at those three grounds would see almost all the new seats used almost all the time.

[CharlieP]

Originally Posted by thomasKing

These plans may also be a way of putting pressure on the premier league who have - apparently - reacted quite negatively and arrogantly to an RFU approach. Organisers should call the premier league´s bluff and just draw up plans for a tournament without premier league or even football league grounds.

At which point the IRB would probably take the tournament away and give it to South Africa. The organisers promised to sell close to 3 million tickets - the only way to do that would be to play more than half the games at Twickenham, Wembley and the Olympic Stadium, which would make an "England" World Cup a joke.

Football grounds arent that important at all for the tournament.

On the contrary, they're essential!

[lwa]

Originally Posted by thomasKing

Football grounds arent that important at all for the tournament. Only old Trafford would be a real loss.

At least four club rugby grounds (leeds, leicester, gloucester and Exeter) could reach a reasonable capacity if long term development plans were pushed forward, possibly with the help of world cup money that would otherwise be used on renting football grounds. Some might get an even higher capacity for the world cup with large temporary stands being put in place after the demolition of old small stands and before the construction of new small stands all timed for the world cup

Only Old Trafford a loss?

Well, if we aren't using EPL/FL grounds, then the closest suitable ground to St James Park is probably Murrayfield. Anfield and OT, probably Hampden or the Aviva. No way the IRB would support another 'European' RWC, if that had been the intention all along the tournament would have gone to Italy or South Africa.

Don't see how a RWC in England without using football grounds could even be considered...


Of the grounds you list, Welford Road and Kingsholm are already being used so can't replace football grounds; and temporary or not, no idea how you intend to expand Kingsholm. Only other Prem ground I have been to is the rec, and to be honest, for all the setting is fantastic, the ground is a dump and falls far short of the requirments even for Premiership rugby.

[Rev Stickleback]

Originally Posted by CharlieP

At which point the IRB would probably take the tournament away and give it to South Africa. The organisers promised to sell close to 3 million tickets - the only way to do that would be to play more than half the games at Twickenham, Wembley and the Olympic Stadium, which would make an "England" World Cup a joke.

On the contrary, they're essential!

with 48 games in the world cup, that's an average of over 60000 a game. It sounds a crazy promise.

[CharlieP]

Originally Posted by Rev Stickleback

with 48 games in the world cup, that's an average of over 60000 a game. It sounds a crazy promise.

Northern Hemisphere Rugby World Cups:

1991: 31,493 average
1999: 42,683 average
2007: 47,150 average

Pretty bold, yes, but not far-fetched if they market and price it right.

[CharlieP]

Originally Posted by lwa

Only Old Trafford a loss?

Well, if we aren't using EPL/FL grounds, then the closest suitable ground to St James Park is probably Murrayfield. Anfield and OT, probably Hampden or the Aviva. No way the IRB would support another 'European' RWC, if that had been the intention all along the tournament would have gone to Italy or South Africa.

Don't see how a RWC in England without using football grounds could even be considered...


Of the grounds you list, Welford Road and Kingsholm are already being used so can't replace football grounds; and temporary or not, no idea how you intend to expand Kingsholm. Only other Prem ground I have been to is the rec, and to be honest, for all the setting is fantastic, the ground is a dump and falls far short of the requirments even for Premiership rugby.

Exactly. If you take club soccer grounds out of the mix, and stay in England, you're looking at:

Wembley (90,000)
Twickenham (82,000)
Olympic Stadium (80,000)
Millennium Stadium (72,000)
Welford Road (24,000*)
Headingley Carnegie (21,000*)
Langtree Park (18,000*)
Kingsholm (16,500*)
Halliwell Jones Stadium (15,200*)
The Stoop (14,800)
Franklin's Gardens (13,600*)
The Rec (12,200)

*not all-seater

If we transpose the fixtures from the last World Cup, the first weekend would be something like:

New Zealand v Tonga (Welford Road)
France v Japan (Kingsholm)
Scotland v Romania (Headingley Carnegie)
England v Argentina (Twickenham)
Australia v Italy (Olympic Stadium)
Ireland v USA (Wembley Stadium)
Fiji v Namibia (Langtree Park)
South Africa v Wales (Millennium Stadium)

Pretty shit if you're a New Zealand, France or Scotland supporter who can't get a ticket.

[thomasKing]

you seriously over-estimate the relevance of football grounds. It has minimal influence on crowd and revenue targets.

whether premier league, football league or no football stadiums are used, the four main stadiums in the tournament will be the same. Those four stadiums will host the entire knock-out phase by themselves and certainly host as many games as any other stadium in the group phase. This means the top four stadiums will likely sell 60-70% of all tickets and probably provide 80-90% of all match day income as they will basically host all matches of significance. (The only real loss would be old trafford as that is the only football stadium good enough to stage big group games but even that would not feature in the ko phase anyway.)

Whether or not the remaining games are played in 25,000 capacity club rugby grounds or 35,000 capacity football grounds is a pretty pedantic issue. sure, you would probably lose some 2-300,000 tickets sold ( provided all the football grounds could actually be filled for the all-minnow games ) but it would be the very cheapest tickets in the entire tournament and would come at the cost of a lot of rent paid to football clubs.

Still, I am not actually saying it would be better without football stadiums, just that it wouldnt make much of a difference, and its certainly good enough for rugby not to let themselves be held to ransom by the premier league.

[Rev Stickleback]

Originally Posted by CharlieP

Northern Hemisphere Rugby World Cups:

1991: 31,493 average
1999: 42,683 average
2007: 47,150 average

Pretty bold, yes, but not far-fetched if they market and price it right.

It'd be a larger average than every world cup bar one.

It is possible.

If the QFs onwards are played at Twickenham, Old Trafford, Wembley and Cardiff, and those four venues are used five times each in the group stage (and are filled to capacity) that would leave you with the other 20 group games needing to average around 37000 each.

It's still a big leap of faith that it'd be possible to sell that many tickets to a lot of games not involving England in areas of the country with low support for the game.