What on earth are you on about? You can announce anything you like publicly as your attendance. You have to inform the HSE how many people are actually in a stadium on a given day, this was legislation brought in after the Hillsborough disaster.
@widnes77 Jesus man do you need a crayon..it's the thread on IMG on how clubs are getting round getting extra points...one being what I've just mentioned quite clearly (for some) that clubs are milking attendance figures ... attendances are play a part in your IMG score ...
The good souls who are ploughing money into poor clubs and expecting to get a result and a SL place will have been and gone before the saga is over - and so will I and many of our pensioner supporters!!!!!
A team to watch and a comfortable seat is all that most folk want tbh.
It does make me wonder about away support and helping Yorkie crowd figures!!!!!Do they help our side or push us down?
I’m pretty sure it was announced a few months back in one of the RL pages that they had an independent verifier for attendances so official figures submitted for scoring COULDN’T be fiddled. Whether they’re announcing them as higher or not you probably don’t fiddle official private statistics submitted as W77 said
@scouseviking55 I very much doubt there's not one single person on here can honestly say theyve been to a game at some point over time ...heard the attendance and never thought there's absolutely no chance there's that many ....that's the point I'm trying to make ....
A quick lookup on this and the difference in funding in the championship differs from top to bottom by £65K.
But we didn’t finish top or bottom. We ranked 22nd overall this time compare to 16th last time, which equates to 10th in Championship compared to 4th last time. Not knowing the variances in funding between each place, let’s assume the split is equal so a 6 place drop equates to c£27K loss of funding on what we MIGHT have had if we achieved the same place as in 2023 rankings.
Of course this is an educated guesswork, but the point is that we aren’t talking massive money here - the equivalent of 100 extra fans per home game, or less than the cost of one player if you so wish. What I would say is that realistically the difference between what we will get and what we could have got is always going to be less than the cost of paying someone to improve the IMG score at the club, so maybe that is the key take away here?
I have no idea about funding for IMG positions. But if it was a £27k loss in funding at Championship level that is a very significant amount. The amount we have lost in funding is a good question for Monday night. I thought we did pay someone to help improve our IMG score?
I would expect us to drop one more place when Batley's points score is announced.
Would the loss of the VIQI income stream play a part somewhere too?
Hate the system but for the time being we are going to have to get better at playing it until everything changes once again. Not that it would get us in SL but there is no way Widnes should be out of the Top 20 given the stature and history of the club.
If we finish in the Top 6 again we will improve on that front. If we could win the 1895 even better. We don't have a proper derby match so we need to market/do offers for targeted games.
Unless we have a terrible season (don't think we would under Coleman bar a bad injury crisis) we won't be seeing sub 2000 attendances such as the early league match (Barrow?) and if we can get 4000 for a couple of matches like Bradford for example we should be able to get back up to 3000 average.
Not an expert on Social Media by any means but maybe as the horrific 'every click matters' pinned tweet says (as opposed to every kick, pass or tackle!!!!) there is some scope for more engagement there.
Would the loss of the VIQI income stream play a part somewhere too?
Hate the system but for the time being we are going to have to get better at playing it until everything changes once again. Not that it would get us in SL but there is no way Widnes should be out of the Top 20 given the stature and history of the club.
If we finish in the Top 6 again we will improve on that front. If we could win the 1895 even better. We don't have a proper derby match so we need to market/do offers for targeted games.
Unless we have a terrible season (don't think we would under Coleman bar a bad injury crisis) we won't be seeing sub 2000 attendances such as the early league match (Barrow?) and if we can get 4000 for a couple of matches like Bradford for example we should be able to get back up to 3000 average.
Not an expert on Social Media by any means but maybe as the horrific 'every click matters' pinned tweet says (as opposed to every kick, pass or tackle!!!!) there is some scope for more engagement there.
Oldham, Bradford, Halifax York and Featherstone we should look at higher attendances. These clubs probably have the best fan bases.
@cumbria-viking I'll explain this for you as simply as I can
1. Let's say we have 2000 ST holders and on a matchday, we sell an additional 400 tickets. The club will announce the attendance as 2400, as that is how many tickets they have sold. However, 150 people don't attend.
Domestic emergencies, summer holidays, illness or travel issues lead them to not coming the game, so the real attendance is 2250. This is the figure the club by law has to inform the HSE of, no ifs no buts.
2. In the Reimagining RL proposals points breakdown you receive points for your average attendance. Your average attendance is based on "people who attend the games in person". That is what the criteria states.
Thus, it is the actual number of people in the ground and not the number of tickets sold that is the figure that counts. That is a number that no administration in their right mind would falsify due to the severe legal repercussions of doing so.
Hope that explains it.
not sure whether the IMG ratings have anything to do with funding, assume it is on your finishing league position - so img ratings do not affect funding from rfl