Quote faxcar="faxcar"
1). Well how do you know what the sums were, please show then to the club as concrete proof that they worked and if so i'm sure they will take a look.
2). In any case the Whitehaven game in line with your argument is irrelevant because the attendance went up because of the "Big Apple" prize promotion and not because the admission fee was reduced.
3). Lets just respect each persons view and agree to disagree and leave it to the people who are running the club because by now i'm sure we are boring the pants off everyone else.
4). Fair enough
.'"
Point 1 - I've no idea what the sums were, faxcar, but it was a "calculated guess" that the attendance x fee > than usual. You "sweepingly" claimed that the game was a loss leader using no factual evidence whatsoever. I just disagreed with you.
Point 2 - Again, how do you know the extra attendees were there because of the promotion and not because they've rugby league fans who wanted to go cut price?
Point 3 - I do respect other peoples' opinions! As for leaving the running of the club to the directors, that's what I'm doing! I'm not criticising their efforts, just debating what I think the problems we have in the sport as a whole, not just at club level. And I'm sure we're not boring the pants of folk ........... this is the feistiest debate we've had on here all season!
Point 4 -
PS - Another example of how people don't attend at higher prices was when Nigel Wood raised the attendance fee for a game against Bradford and 6 thousand turned up rather than the usual derby day 9 thousand round about that time.
PPS - Great to see the latest trio sign. I do want the club to do well, you know!