Leeds and Rotherham
Sowing Seeds in Yorkshire
For a full explanation of the source of and rationale behind these figures please refer to The Figures Explained.
| Leeds | ||||||
| Season | Average Att. | Position (Out of) | Weighted Position | Final ZP Position | Percentage Growth | |
| 01-02 | 4143 | 11th(11) | 11th | 12th(12) | ||
| 02-03 | 4516 | 11th(11) | 11th | 5th(12) | 9.0% | |
| 03-04 | 4198 | 11th(12) | 11th | 11th(12) | -7.1% | |
| Variation '01 - '04 (2001/2=100%) | 101% | 11th(12) | ||||
| Crowd Growth Absoloute | 63 | 11th(12) | ||||
| Average Growth | 1.0% | 11th(12) | ||||

2003/4 Season
| 8-May-04 | ZP | Leeds Tykes vs Sale | 15:00 | Headingley | 4239 |
| 2-May-04 | ZP | Leeds Tykes vs Northampton | 14:30 | Headingley | 4000 |
| 18-Apr-04 | ZP | Leeds Tykes vs Wasps | 7 - 11 | Headingley | 3194 |
| 28-Mar-04 | ZP | Leeds Tykes vs Newcastle | 30 - 30 | Headingley | 4907 |
| 6-Feb-04 | ZP | Leeds Tykes vs London Irish | 9 - 16 | Headingley | 3230 |
| 21-Dec-03 | ZP | Leeds Tykes vs Gloucester | 22 - 18 | Headingley | 7467 |
| 31-Oct-03 | ZP | Leeds Tykes vs Harlequins | 16 - 30 | Headingley | 3205 |
| 19-Oct-03 | ZP | Leeds Tykes vs Leicester | 39 - 18 | Headingley | 4073 |
| 12-Oct-03 | ZP | Leeds Tykes vs Saracens | 41 - 31 | Headingley | 2888 |
| 26-Sep-03 | ZP | Leeds Tykes vs Rotherham | 23 - 13 | Headingley | 4842 |
| 14-Sep-03 | ZP | Leeds Tykes vs Bath | 32 - 44 | Headingley | 4093 |
| Rotherham | |||||
| Season | Average Att. | Position (Out of) | Weighted Position | Final ZP Position | Percentage Growth |
| 00-01 | 2542 | 11th(11) | 11th | 12th(12) | |
| 01-02 | |||||
| 02-03 | |||||
| 03-04 | 3205 | 12th(12) | 11th | 12th(12) | 26.1% |
| Variation '00 - '04 (2000/1=100%) | 126% | 9th(12) | |||
| Crowd Growth Absolute | 663 | 10th(12) | |||
| Average Growth | 6.5% | 5th(12) |

2003/4 Season
| 8-May-04 | ZP | Rotherham vs Newcastle | 15:00 | Don Valley Stadium | 5203 |
| 2-Apr-04 | ZP | Rotherham vs Leeds Tykes | 20 - 34 | Millmoor | 2750 |
| 22-Feb-04 | ZP | Rotherham vs Gloucester | 21 - 35 | Millmoor | 2250 |
| 14-Feb-04 | ZP | Rotherham vs Wasps | 20 - 27 | Millmoor | 2200 |
| 4-Jan-04 | ZP | Rotherham vs Bath | 18 - 34 | Millmoor | 6195 |
| 20-Dec-03 | ZP | Rotherham vs London Irish | 10 - 15 | Millmoor | 1910 |
| 22-Nov-03 | ZP | Rotherham vs Leicester | 17 - 27 | Millmoor | 2900 |
| 1-Nov-03 | ZP | Rotherham vs Saracens | 12 - 25 | Millmoor | 2500 |
| 17-Oct-03 | ZP | Rotherham vs Sale | 14 - 28 | Millmoor | 2229 |
| 4-Oct-03 | ZP | Rotherham vs Northampton | 13 - 42 | Millmoor | 3118 |
| 20-Sep-03 | ZP | Rotherham vs Harlequins | 15 - 43 | Millmoor | 4003 |
Yorkshire is rugby league country. The fact that both these clubs have made it into the Zurich Premiership, in the case of Leeds establishing themselves there, is a glowing testament to both clubs. The crowd numbers are the lowest two of the ZP clubs surveyed. Given both clubs’ relatively short spell in the top flight this is not unexpected.
As has been witnessed at other clubs in areas which are not traditionally associated with rugby union, it takes time to develop an audience.
Leeds are unique in the premiership in that they are owned by and share facilities with a rugby league club. In their first ZP season, 2001/2002, they surprised many people by having the temerity to beat many established clubs. Whilst they did in the end come bottom of the table, that season came down to the wire, with a three-way scrap to avoid relegation between themselves, Harlequins and Bath. Their premiership status was saved as the powers-that-be deemed Rotherham’s ground facilities to be unsuitable for the ZP. This gave them a crucial extra season to settle into the top flight.
Given their relatively short time in the Premiership it is difficult to read much into the Leeds figures. As much as anything else we have, as yet, no idea how much Rotherham's appearance in the top flight has impacted on last seasons figures. Assuming they do stay in the top flight they have every chance of developing an audience in the same way that Sale and Newcastle have managed to do in previously hostile territory. Capacity at Headingley is not an issue now, or for the foreseeable future.
If we carry Leeds figures forward five years this is what we see. To my mind this is a gross understatement of the potential.
Season - Attendance
| 04/05 | 4239 |
| 05/06 | 4280 |
| 06/07 | 4322 |
| 07/08 | 4364 |
| 08/09 | 4407 |
Rotherham have made two brief appearances in the ZP during the period covered. Both times they have struggled, winning only one game in the 00/01 season and none in 03/04. They stand as a testament to the huge gap in standards between National Division One and the Zurich Premiership. However, along with Leeds, they have proved that there is an appetite for rugby union in Yorkshire. The fact that Rotherham managed an average 6.5% annual growth even though they were out of the ZP for two of those years stands as testament to this fact.
Here, if it were needed, is proof that these figures are spurious. If we project that Rotherham return to the ZP in 2005/6, these are the figures.
Season - Attendance
| 04/05 | ND1 |
| 05/06 | 3637 |
| 06/07 | 3874 |
| 07/08 | 4127 |
| 08/09 | 4396 |
The potential for the development of Rugby union in Yorkshire is vast. Question is, Will the administrators of the sport and perhaps more importantly the established professional clubs be patient enough to let this potential develop?
We will stay up North for the next article in this series and look at Newcastle
Bookmark or share this story with: