No you said it probably wasn't news when City were watched by 50.000 at Newcastle because 47,000 of them were there to watch Newcastle. And my point is, which you haven't answered so were this mythical 'over 50,000' that were supposedly watching the Hull derby all there just for them? Because that was the picture RH were trying to portray last week in their trailers for the magic weekend. So equally that wasn't news either ? The obsession isn't mine it's with those who conttinually attempt to pump up the importance of one sport over an other in this area.
What was minor about the Magic Weekend? I'm sticking sixth the thread of the OP, except I'm also sticking with the facts of the event.
I have answered, I said there wasn't 50,000 there at all, never mind to watch the derby game. Of course not, though it seems you were the only ****er who heard it anyway.
Erm, I never said there was anything minor about the magic weekend. Although it does seem odd to get giddy at an attendance over two days that barely meets what they get in an hour and a half for the usual games there. I do wonder at the logic of claiming a success for a game that would normally be watched by about 10,000 people from Hull, attracting about half of that, and with less of their cash going into the rl coffers.
I get what your saying, in theory it could work but in reality its just completely unrealistic. Hull actually made enquires to host it next year to tie in the the city of culture things, that's why people are mentioning the KC. Its an extra fixture so any money made by the clubs is a bonus, they don't loose anything by not playing at their grounds because without the magic weekend these fixtures wouldn't exist. The money Newcastle has made is based on everything from hotel bookings to restaurants and take-aways, how has RL missed out on this? It doesn't matter where the event is held the clubs and the RFL don't make anything from that sort of spending.
As I said, it wasn't me that suggested the KC, although looking at the gates, it would be feasible. They are losing money, extra games or not, because the games are still being played, they form part of the fixture list, and ultimately that money goes out of rl.
Not sure your logic is quite right there, how do you suggest they keep the fixtures and keep the money in RL?
By playing games at a rugby ground in a rugby league area. They've cocked up a few times by trying to expand into new areas, instead of consolidating in traditional areas. Even helping local pubs survive in rl strongholds brings benefits over and above letting other regions profit.
It wouldn't work, people would just go to their game and leave, the entire weekend concept would just fall down, interest would drop and it would be scrapped. Plus it only financially benefits one team and one area, not to mention giving one team the home advantage. People like the weekend away, its something different and while the numbers remain as they are its unlikely to change any time soon.
There are teams around Manchester, and it was played there, plus the bulk of people only bothered with their own clubs. The Hull and Rovers fans mainly turned up for their own game, but caught a bit of the earlier one. There's more chance of giving clubs a share of the cash if it's a rl club hosting it. Plus it's a chance to showcase a different ground each year. As it is, it just emphasises the fact that the game struggles in its heartland, so tends to have smaller grounds.
It looks like they sold 68,276 for an event that could hold 105,000 over two days, admittance limited on each day, although daily limit not reached. Oh aye, there were 12 clubs involved, collectively they increased attendance at a venue they enjoyed the previous year. They were happy to return and spend their money, enjoying the occasion and the location, so what is wrong with that? Should it be held at each of the 12 club stadiums, limiting attendance and venue / after game experience? That would return the cash to a RL host, although I very much doubt it would get anywhere close to £4.24 (est.) It amuses me that 68,276 were clearly wrong to enjoy themselves bed in such a selfish way. This nit's well and truly picked.
And is doing exactly what you often call for, they are looking at other ideas and acting upon them, collectively and with success. What a bloody nuisance success is when folk don't want to see it.
You're creating a question I never asked, and then claiming to have answered it better, but using flawed logic in the process, It doesn't have to limit attendance for a kick off. Each individual game had a lower attendance than it would have had played separately, and they got less cash tHan the lower gate would have given them too. If the crowds were in a traditional area, the money braked in by Newcastle, could have helped support traders, to provide services to fans at other games. But all that is by the by Local radio bigging up what was in fact a reduced attendance for Hull v Rovers would have had a different slant had City been involved,
