Has Harty lost the plot?

[Bwian]

Harty continues to do a good job in the phone in with limited resources, quite often he needs to get a rise out of people just to make sure he has enough callers to fill the programme, just because he has pointed out the OBVIOUS, i.e. we would not be getting a lot more than 10,000 for home games at Falmer dont make him into some kind of monster.

Limited resources for a phone-in? What more does he need other than a phone and a few callers? Possibly a producer who doesn't keep putting on the Dopey Dorises that Harty begs to call in every frigging week.

Your final point-he may not be a monster but he sure as hell picked a GREAT time to discuss his estimated less than 10,000 for home games over the last 5 years. Add to that the fact that he didn't read the article he was quoting and it adds up to a f***ing meathead decision to make it the main topic. I've no axe to grind with Ian Hart but on this issue he f***ed up. We're in the middle of the biggest PI in the club's history and he feeds the NIMBYs with ammunition? Meathead-end of!

 

[Titanic]

30000 were willing to pay the best part of £50 for a trip to Cardiff... surely a significant proportion of those would be interested in matches against Leeds, Forest, QPR, West Ham, Derby, Ipswich, Sunderland etc... etc...

We've had two championship seasons, a play off challenge and a couple of seasons in Div 1 in the timeframe we are talking about.

A decent stadium, decent transport, increase capacity for away support, sensible ticket prices - IMHO (and that's all it is, an opinion) we would easily have averaged 12,000.

And it should not be forgotten that in those 6 years of waiting, not only have we spent real cash on Withdean and the fight for the stadium, but the costs of building the new stadium will have increased significantly too.

I suspect the real cost over those 6 years is well in excess of £30m.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

If we had Falmer for the last six seasons - or indeed any stadium in the area capable of coping with any demand - we would also have had a Commercial Department pulling out all the stops to fill the place. If they were anywhere near worth their salt then they would have been able to whip up a 12,000 average gate no bother. And a very large number of games would have had considerably greater attendance figures without the Commercial Department having to lift a finger.

 

[Tony Meolas Loan Spell]

12000 average over SIX seasons would indeed be correct. I know what Bens Grandad is saying about hardcore and floating support when the team do well, however remember this is the AVERAGE OVER 6 SEASONS.

In the championshiop winning years we would have got over that - everyone likes a winning team. Yes the crowds may have taken a dip when we were relegated or poor opposition, but they would have been back up for last season (certainly at the run in) and this current season.

And yes some games would have got say 10,000. Others would have got 20,000. They are using the mean average. Basic maths chaps.

Someone posted the stat about Hull - 6000 at Boothferry and about 15,000 at their new stadium.

Same applies to Middlesboro - remember Ayresome Park? And Southampton and Sunderland and Reading and Stoke etc.

 

[Ex Shelton Seagull]

Stoke's crowd at Victoria Ground in 94/95 = 12,919
Stoke's crowd at Britannia Stadium in 04/05 = 17,183

Reading's crowd at Elm Park in 94/95 = 9,350
Reading's crowd at Madjeski Stadium in 04/05 = 16,719

Sunderland's crowd at Roker Park in 94/95 = 15,389
Sunderland's crowd at Stadium of Light 04/05 = 27,322

Middlesbrough's crowd at Ayresome Park in 94/95 = 18,641
Middlesbrough's crowd at Riverside Stadium in 04/05 = 31,851

Southampton's crowd at the Dell in 94/95 = 14,689
Southampton's crowd at St Marys in 04/05 = 30,138

If you give people good facilities they will come. Simple as.

 

[brunswick]

pay on the gate = 14k+

tickets in advance = 11k-

 

[lost in london]

Being a non season ticket holder, I can't wait for the time when I'll be able to wake up on a saturday morning and think, I'll go to the game today, jump on the train and do it. At the minute Withdean just isn't that attractive an option. I don't place myself in the hardcore, but I've been to plenty of games the last few years, I think there are thousands like me and a 12,000 average is probably conservative.

 

[Rougvie]

Stoke's crowd at Victoria Ground in 94/95 = 12,919
Stoke's crowd at Britannia Stadium in 04/05 = 17,183

Reading's crowd at Elm Park in 94/95 = 9,350
Reading's crowd at Madjeski Stadium in 04/05 = 16,719

Sunderland's crowd at Roker Park in 94/95 = 15,389
Sunderland's crowd at Stadium of Light 04/05 = 27,322

Middlesbrough's crowd at Ayresome Park in 94/95 = 18,641
Middlesbrough's crowd at Riverside Stadium in 04/05 = 31,851

Southampton's crowd at the Dell in 94/95 = 14,689
Southampton's crowd at St Marys in 04/05 = 30,138

If you give people good facilities they will come. Simple as.

Of course they will, but I think Harty, possibly a bit misguidedly was trying to see into some kind of Crystal Ball to envisage what sort of crowd we would have at an established Falmer in present circumstances.

Just because its all a bit upbeat on here from a SMALL minority of fans, doesnt mean that a lot of die hard home and awayers who dont contribute to this site are a bit concerned about attendances and a certain amount of apathy, which if you attend the vast majority of games is very evident to see, going on from that its also disturbing that Handcross Hill was at a standstill on Sunday moning with the amount of Cardiff bound traffic.

OK its a catch 22 situation, but your figures are also slightly flawed because unless I am mistaken the only club amonst those whose attendances hasnt FALLEN since their stadium was built is Southampton

 

[larus]

One important point has been lost here, which, I'm sorry to say IMO undermines Harty's position, is this:

IF we had a decent stadium, capable of holding 20-25,000 fans, then our revenue would be higher.
IF our revenue was higher, we would have had more money to spend on the playing budget.
IF our playing budget was higher, we would have been able to attract better players (Sidwell, etc).
IF we had better players, we would have played better footbal and could have been challengin for a premiership spot.

So, if you look at the whole equation, and not just selective parts, the figures being suggested could be deemed as conservative.

p.s. IMO, Harty was a bit wrong on his interpretation of this report, however, there's no need for the abuse aimed at him. FFS, we all see things differently but no-one can doubt his passion for the club, so leave the abuse out please.

 

[Ex Shelton Seagull]

Ok so statistics can be used to prove anything, 90% of people know that, but the figures for clubs moving to new stadiums show increased crowds as a result. Hull City, as i've already described somewhere else on here, are the prime example of the benefits of a new stadium. A club that struggled to get over 5,000 in old Division 2 over 10 years ago now plus in 17,000+ in League 1. That in a city that also possess a top flight team in another sport and has a number of other league clubs in its catchment area.

A new ground won't make people magically appear of course. It'll take hard work from the commercial department to win people back. I'd like to see half price tickets for kids, group discounts and a decent advertising campaign about tickets as opposed to the secret society that currently surrounds the sale of home tickets. We have had a long break when our crowds have been restricted and no-one really knows just how big an effect that will have. I don't agree with some on here who think that we'll open up the gates at Falmer and 20,000 people will rush in every weeK. It's going to take hard work to get the floating punter to turn up semi-regularly.

The question arises that if we wouldn't get more than 10,000 average, why do we need to build a new stadium that holds 23,000? This is the angle being pushed by all the anti-stadium groups at the moment. They all want us to stay at Withdean for at least the next 20 years at a 9,000 capacity. Why not, they say, demolish the running track and build 4 stands around the pitch taking it to 10,000?

This though would doom us to obscurity, to spending the rest of our existence living off the crumbs from the table. That's not for me and it's not for those in charge either. They have recognised that the most important step in making this club a forward thinking and succesful one is to provide an arena that can accomodate as many as possible in comfort. Wigan Athletic built a 25,000 stadium when they had crowds of 4,000, because Dave Whelan recognised that the most important step in moving forward was not on the pitch but the facilities off it. If you offer up an attractive venue it will attract people. Of course you then need to keep them there and that, as I say, is down to those in charge commercially.

Northampton Town bought their stadium back from the local council because they want to expand it. The club is running at 77.7% capacity so far this season and those in charge want to attract more people along to help the team progress. Northampton aimed low with their original design, have now recognised the need to expand and are making plans to do so.

Even Darlington's ground, a white elephant at the moment, an extravagant ego monument that pushed the club toward bankruptcy, is starting to come good. Crowds are still low but they are increasing slowly but surely. With that stadium they are an attractive proposition to investors, hence the current bid by Peter Ridsdale for the club. If you have the facilities then you have a base to build success on.

I know that there is a growing dislike of Withdean, something that has built up since our relegation in 2002/03 season. When we get the new arrangement and the capacity goes up to 9,000 for next season we will have to SELL those tickets, not just sit on our hands and expect them to be sold. What will increase crowds is good news when it comes to the new ground. If people can see that light at the end of the tunnel then maybe they might suffer our stadium for a couple more years. I don't think people would accept it for the next 20 years, even if we had a roof.

I still think that 12,000 average is a realistic figure for a club like ours in a brand new arena playing 2nd level football. I want us to be in a position where we can look towards getting those kinds of gates. We can only get in that position if we move into a new 23,000 capacity stadium. If we do get a new stadium then we have the ability to attract that kind of crowd through incentives and hard work.

On the subject of the phone-in I will say that Ian Hart has put a lot of work into getting that set up for US. He must wonder if it's worth it when he reads stuff calling him a tossbag for trying to get a debate started. I'm sure SCR would like nothing more than to turn the phone-in into a 6-0-6 premiershite obsessed clone where people would struggle to get ANY kind of view on the Albion heard. He does a bloody good job on behalf of us all by keeping a strong independant voice. Criticism is vital. Without it we grow lazy and complacent. The board have done wonders but they do make mistakes, that's natural. Things like the phone-in allow us to point out those mistakes and bring them to the attention of those in charge. In the absence of any major fanzine culture and independant supporters groups the phone-in is a very important asset to supporters.

 

[lost in london]

ex shelton seagull, what a worryingly well thought out and sensible post for NSC. Either start some threads with a potentially libellous statement followed up with a vitriolic, poorly considered rant, or move on to another forum please, there's no time for your sort on here!

 

[Rougvie]

I cant be bothered quoting Ex Sheltons post, but yes its all pretty much spot on, what winds me up is that Ian Hart is villified and accused of being a 'tossbag' by people who dont even know the guy.

Ian Hart is a breath of fresh air from the new breed of Internet obsessed fan who think they can dictate what goes on at a club simply by the amount of posts they make on a pretty meaningless message board, in a way Harty is actually sucseeding in bringing topics into public discussion, just as we are doing right now, and for that I applaud him.

What exactly does give NSC, or certain posters the right to hijack every single outlet that is available to Brighton fans, no, long may Harty continue in his role otherwise we just get the same tedious party line on everything from Jake Robinson to Away attendances, most of these clowns not actually making up part of the latter in any case.

 

[Faldo]

I think this calls for a group hug.

 

[rool]

perhaps the NSC 'acolytes', 'quality posters' and club parasites might like to read that last paragraph of Ex Shelton Seagulls and think on.

As good and as clever as you guys think you might be I'd rather Harty was doing it any day. We wouldn't want it turning into another NSC wankfest after all.

 

[Titanic]

perhaps the NSC 'acolytes', 'quality posters' and club parasites might like to read that last paragraph of Ex Shelton Seagulls and think on.

As I'm none of those - perhaps I could return to the original post, which was questioning the quality of the phone-in this week, and the apparent lack of preparation or understanding of the subject matter by Ian Hart.

As I've said before I certainly don't want an 'NSC wankfest' and was in fact chastised earlier for daring to suggest that people should use real names rather than NSC nicknames.

But I do think there is scope for improving the product. Less of the second-rate Terrry Wogan-isms, and rather ill-judged attempts to 'stimulate debate', and a bit more football content wouldn't go amiss.

Andrew Hawes and John Byrne did manage to achieve that balance when they did a double act recently - mainly because they didn't have 'an agenda' and they LISTENED to the callers, and DISCUSSED what they were saying.

Like many said earlier in the thread, I've stopped looking forward to the phone-in and am easily distracted elsewhere.

Bit like NSC recently, too.

 

[Rougvie]

Andrew Hawes and John Byrne did manage to achieve that balance when they did a double act recently - mainly because they didn't have 'an agenda' and they LISTENED to the callers, and DISCUSSED what they were saying.

So what EXACTLY is Ian Harts 'agenda' ??

Cant remember many people questioning his 'agenda' in the Gullhanger days, or when the Goldstone closed, but oh yes silly me we didnt have the Internet in those days.

I thought all the guy wanted was for the club he has supported passionately all his life to survive and prosper.

 

[The Great Cornholio]

So what EXACTLY is Ian Harts 'agenda' ??

That is the exact point of this thread. We don't know. To me, he still seems to being living in the Gullseye (Gullhanger being Mike Ward) days and seeing Knight and Perry as Archer and Bellotti. Nobody expects sucking up to the club but this isn't the first time he has gone out on a limb on a subject like this (Black hole, anyone?)

In this case, the majority of NSC seem to think he made a mistake on Saturday. I know NSC is not the be all and end all of BHAFC but it is the largest cross section focus group there is. A good 10-20% of hard core fans probably visit here.

Cant remember many people questioning his 'agenda' in the Gullhanger days, or when the Goldstone closed, but oh yes silly me we didnt have the Internet in those days.

This is the kind of comment that most irks me about this subject. He can't live on that forever. I'm not going to bite my lip because of past endeavours. Just because he helped enormously during the club's darkest period doesn't give him carte blanche to use his position to make comments which feed Nimby standpoints just to try and 'sex up' an ailing phone in.

 

[Rougvie]

This is the kind of comment that most irks me about this subject. He can't live on that forever. I'm not going to bite my lip because of past endeavours. Just because he helped enormously during the club's darkest period doesn't give him carte blanche to use his position to make comments which feed Nimby standpoints just to try and 'sex up' an ailing phone in.

No one, especially me is asking you to bite your lip, but the sort of tone that has been used against Ian Hart over the past few days is pretty disapointing and pretty insulting, but from some quarters not surprising as NSC just loves a bandwagon.

As I said before, the guy was simply conveying a sentiment that has been brewing up for a good while about attendances and to many of us who care deeply about the Albion both in the long, and short term its a situation that needs to be discussed and addressed, OK in reflection he went about it in slightly the wrong way, but Ian can be slightly naive at times when he is putting a delicate point across, but I am still convinced that he wants Falmer as much you or I and any 'agenda' is naievity at the very worst, but more likely just a very convenient excuse for all those not with the balls or abillity to have a Radio show in the first place to have an easy dig, then hide behind that convenient anonimity of NSC.

 

[Rougvie]

[

 

[The Great Cornholio]

but I am still convinced that he wants Falmer as much you or I and any 'agenda' is naievity at the very worst, but more likely just a very convenient excuse for all those not with the balls or abillity to have a Radio show in the first place to have an easy dig, then hide behind that convenient anonimity of NSC.

That is the same excuse he keeps trotting out. I'm hardly anonymous - just because I don't feel the need to phone up and be patronised. I fully agree with you about the insults but that is par for the course on NSC. My, and a few others, gripe is that serious, salient points were made within these threads and were greeted with childish abuse from the man himself.