Are the attendances at this World Cup acceptable?

I would have thought that attendances should be better for an event of this nature:



Scotland v Romania - 12,592

France v Japan - 28,569

Argentina v England - 27,000

Australia v Italy - 25,731

Ireland v USA - 20,823

South Africa v Wales - 28,498

Samoa v Namibia - 12,752

Tonga v Canada - 17,174

Scotland v Georgia - 10,267



New Zealand drew a whopping crowd of around 60,000 and there was no official attendance for Fiji v Namibia.



Do you consider these acceptable attendances.

what is the capacity of the stadiums these games were played in Stag?

Smallest is 15,000. Largest is 60,000.



A few stadiums less than 20,000 which to me is crazy.



IMO New Zealand simply doesn't have the infastructure to cater for a World Cup.

hmm well I know a few are 30,000 capacity so I guess figures around the 28,000 mark aren't so bad, although to be perfectly honest, I would expect games like England v Argentina and Wales v SA to sell out.

What's the ticket pricing like?

I know that tickets can be fairly pricy especially the knockout stages which costs hundreds of NZ dollars.

That might explain it then. Plus there might be fewer travelling fans as well what with the economic climate being what it is. I don't think attendences have been disastrous by any means, but definitely could be better.

rugbydreamer wrote: I don't think attendences have been disastrous by any means, but definitely could be better.

Yea thats how I'd see it too. But for a country like NZ I'd have expected better.

The big reason for A NZ world cup was that this is definitely the last time they will be able to host it really. After this world cup the next ones will (hopefully) be bigger and bigger and so it really will be beyond NZ's infrastructure. The IRB know they won't make a lot of money (may even lose some) hence the next tournament in England to make money before expanding after that to hold one in Japan.

Compare it to the last world cup in France where attendances were all thirty/forty thousand plus, then, this time next year, some quaters might look at this world cup as a bit of a failure, even though they might have forgotten how good the rugby being played was. It is a shame really as I am enjoying this world cup as much as others, but if the fans do not turn up for such a global event then the fringe countries, USA, Russia ect, where we all hope rugby union takes off might start to think what the bother is about it all.

red_stag wrote:Smallest is 15,000. Largest is 60,000.


A few stadiums less than 20,000 which to me is crazy.

IMO New Zealand simply doesn't have the infastructure to cater for a World Cup.

Venue sizes are here http://www.therugbyblog.co.uk/rugby-world-cup-2011-venues-and-stadium-guide. Stadium sizes rather match population centres - how many rugby grounds in Ireland have capacity over 20k? The IRB are guaranteed a profit from the Cup, though admittedly not as big a one as they'll make in 2015.

Here's the % attendances.

Scotland v Romania 12,592 Invercargill 16,500 76%
France v Japan 28,569 North Harbour 35,000 82%
Argentina v England 27,000 Dunedin 30,748 88%
Australia v Italy 25,731 North Harbour 35,000 74%
Ireland v USA 20,823 New Plymouth 25,000 83%
South Africa v Wales 28,498 Wellington 34,500 83%
Samoa v Namibia 12,752 Rotorua 34,000 38%
Tonga v Canada 17,174 Whangarei 25,000 69%
Scotland v Georgia 10,267 Invercargill 16,500 62%


Granted the Samoa v Namibia game attendance stands out like a beacon, but it's a mid-weekgame, I wonder if it was overpriced.

We all knew it wouldn't be as big a the French World Cup. Proximity to other rugby nations, population, available money (last one was just before the credit crisis began). New Zealand is a long way from other rugby nations (other than Australia and PI), economy there isn't doing great, games are on late.

Yes, crowds probably as expected so far.

Rotorua, Palmerston North, Whangarei, Nelson and Invercargill are tiny grounds in terms of capacity.

Still not bad to get 10-12,000 for the Scotland-Georgia-Romania matches.

actually this is the whole reason WHY they were given it, cos they will never be able to host again with the current stadiums, too small, too far, too little attendance.

the RWC in Japan would be attended more.

Its good that they got it though, but it needs to be alternated to developing rugby areas like Asia, Americas, Eastern Europe. With the big 4 being the money spinners (Eng, Fra, Aus, SA... they're the only nations with the stadia to match the increased attendance, especially in Europe)

Red Stag
I dont see why you are worried about whether New Zealand is fit o be the host of this World Cup .Remember our government has paid $150 million up front to the IRB.
What we probably need is some more tourists, there are very few Irish people here for example as opposed to Argentinians,South Africans, Welsh ,French, English,Japanese etc.......

Yeah, Japan has several state of the art stadiums with capacities of 40-70,000.
Like 2002 WC, I think they will turn up in droves... well, it would be great to see.

aucklandlaurie wrote: Red Stag
I dont see why you are worried about whether New Zealand is fit o be the host of this World Cup .Remember our government has paid $150 million up front to the IRB.
What we probably need is some more tourists, there are very few Irish people here for example as opposed to Argentinians,South Africans, Welsh ,French, English,Japanese etc.......

Auckland, as I see it the stadiums are tiny and the hotel scene has become a farce. There is one particular hotel I know in Auckland which is a 2* hotel. Cost to stay there during RWC semi finals is $650NZ per night and you must stay for 5 nights minimum.



I'm not interested in finances just that I can't believe the amount of top class tests with only twenty something thousand at the games.

Damage IMO, Italy also has the stadiums and infastructure needed for a RWC to run smoothly.

I wouldn't think it has much to do with the location. From the perspective of grounds, accommodation, transport etc, NZ is not big enough to host an event of this size and stature. That all provides a constraint in terms of how many people show up to watch it.

If the stadia are not being sold out then the demand isn't there to warrant larger venues. You don't want a match played out in front of a half empty stadium.

I think they've judged it right and the infrastructure is just right, big stadia for the big matches, smaller intimate ones for the less attractive fixtures.

No complaints so far.

Don't forget Lancaster Park got damaged by the earthquake... otherwise we could have seen it near full for a few matches instead of Trafalgar Park at Nelson. Then again... I like the ground at Nelson too.

Red Stag
Are you over here at the moment ,I will pick you up in the morning and educate you.....PM me....

With the exception of the Samoa Namibia game all the rest over 60 and approaching 70% so thats not to bad given location, current financial climate etc.

Out of interst anyone know what the ticket prices are like?

red_stag wrote:Damage IMO, Italy also has the stadiums and infastructure needed for a RWC to run smoothly.

yes, but will there not be a clash with their football lot, Rugby over there needs a boost (especially given their win over France) but I'm not sure the football mafia will allow egg chasing on their hallowed turf

Bedfordwelsh
I went to last friday nights game , category c tickets $225 per person me and the old bat.
Sunday Aus v ITaly Categ B @200 per person
Semi Final 1. category c $500 per person.
Final category D $350 per person ... I've so far spent over $2K...and loving every minute of it worth every cent....

Its because New Zealand couldn't be further away from the big population centers (Europe)

+ There is loads of Irish support (mainly from Irish people working in NZ).

There weren't too many kiwis in France for the last one (just as well, really)

Boyne
aside from young Irish people over here backpacking there absence is quite noticeable compared to most other countries..

The probability is that the 2011 RWC will lose ~£50m.

That's why
a) England were granted the 2015 tourney.
b) This is the last time that the RWC will be held exclusively in NZ.

aucklandlaurie wrote: Boyne
aside from young Irish people over here backpacking there absence is quite noticeable compared to most other countries..

Recession? Do you guys have newspapers over there???

In 2007 people were a bit more financially secure the present economic climate is not a great incentive for people to take extended leave from work or part with their hard earned savings.

Cymroglan wrote:In 2007 people were a bit more financially secure the present economic climate is not a great incentive for people to take extended leave from work or part with their hard earned savings.

+ New Zealand is extremely isolated. Once in a lifetime trip. That's why its best to have it in places like UK, France, Italy (how cool would that be!!!), US even.....

Boyne

in all honesty the countries that have absolutely poured into Auckland, Block booking hotels and resaurants for the next month have been the non English speaking supporters, Especially Japanese, Argentinians, French, I noticed a number of mid teen millions yachts down the viaduct last week, but its very confusing athough they fly British and South African ensigns they all seem to be registered in the canary Islands...

Auckland,

Excuse my ignorance but whats the exchange rate what would those prices work out in sterling.

Bedford
Today we are about .6 to the Euro. to be exact 0.5995.

The irb held it in New Zealand, and changed the tackle laws, to help the All Blacks actually win it. Everybody knows that.

feckless
we got told last week that we are not to host it ever again...

Aren't they all televised and with the crowds out there an atmospheric bar with a load of rugby fans is a great place to watch the game as opposed to paying a few 100 dollars or whatever.

ruby
Of course they are all televised live, but the games are spread all over the country (apart from Christchurch,it got smashed in an earthquake) I' m only going to eden Park and North harbour games.

Point I'm making Auck is that when you have that atmospheric bar option it takes away some motivation to go to the games. Word has it there's also a global economic problem going on which may account for something

Ruby
I Very rarely watch rugby in bars, as you cant concentrate, bars are for drinking and getting up to mischief....

I don't watch rugby in bars either all the dwarfs flying through the air obstruct my view.

Cymro
That was in Queenstown.....

I do watch games in the pub if can't get ticket etc but give me the chance of going to a live game anyday.

Attendances dont really matter!
The IRB got their money from the NZ government, that is all they need to develop the game globally in the next 4 years before Japan host the next one.

New Zealand is a big country with a small population so clearly they won't have the massive stadiums you might have in England for example.

Even in England they would have to use the football grounds.

Twickenham has 82000, Welford Road now has 24000 (or 26000 can't remember), then it's down to around 17500 at Kingsholm. Below that I think the Stoop has 14000 and Franklin's Garden 13500

HammerofThunor wrote:Even in England they would have to use the football grounds.

Twickenham has 82000, Welford Road now has 24000 (or 26000 can't remember), then it's down to around 17500 at Kingsholm. Below that I think the Stoop has 14000 and Franklin's Garden 13500

Dont be silly, England can't host a World Cup without Wales permission, you need to include the Millenium stadium!

Well since the WRU will only vote if they get games, we do yes.

I'd prefer the Millennium to football grounds anyway. I hope they have some up my way and then I'll be able to go see them. Leeds would be preferable.

"I don't watch rugby in bars either all the dwarfs flying through the air obstruct my view."

Yeah, wee Shane Williams is a bit of a nuisance but thankfully he doesn't score much anymore.

Get real people.
NZ has small population, we were never going to have massive crowds.
However, is NZ really that isolated? Its only 1 plane ride away for goodness sake. I understand about 80,000 people have travelled here. That's not too bad given the recession.

Yes if you care about money then holding a world cup in NZ is a bad idea. If you care about rugby then its not so bad. Do you think you are really going to get big crowds in Japan to watch Scotland play Romania? It's just the big Japanese sponsors who are going to make it profitable.