Has Harty lost the plot?

[BensGrandad]

Out of the last 6 seasons I would estimate that about 6 or seven would have brought an away support in excess of 2500. It would then follow that out of approx 132 homes games we would have had possibly 5 in each season in The championship/old Div one where the attendance may have exceeded 12,000 possibly thats 10 games. the last 6 or 7 home games in each promotion year, thats another 18 - 21 games.We have probably 12 -15 games during the relegation when there would have been the hard core of 7 - 8,000.

That is 31 games with an attendance of perhaps 12 -14,000
Approx 12 - 15 games with a maximum of 8 - 9,000
Approx 86 games which were ordinary mundane non issue non big away club games. Not a cat in hells chance of acheiving an AVERAGE of 12,000 per game, I think that a more realistic figure is 10,000 but we need the 22,000 so as to build for the future and possibly the Premiership.

The figure of £30m quoted is totally unrealistic and 'pie in the sky' and was designed to cause a sensation.

 

[The Great Cornholio]

Out of the last 6 seasons I would estimate that about 6 or seven would have brought an away support in excess of 2500. It would then follow that out of approx 132 homes games we would have had possibly 5 in each season in The championship/old Div one where the attendance may have exceeded 12,000 possibly thats 10 games. the last 6 or 7 home games in each promotion year, thats another 18 - 21 games.We have probably 12 -15 games during the relegation when there would have been the hard core of 7 - 8,000.

That is 31 games with an attendance of perhaps 12 -14,000
Approx 12 - 15 games with a maximum of 8 - 9,000
Approx 86 games which were ordinary mundane non issue non big away club games. Not a cat in hells chance of acheiving an AVERAGE of 12,000 per game, I think that a more realistic figure is 10,000 but we need the 22,000 so as to build for the future and possibly the Premiership.

The figure of £30m quoted is totally unrealistic and 'pie in the sky' and was designed to cause a sensation.

Quelle Surprise!

We had an attendance of nearly 10000 at the Goldstone for a 'League 1' game against Swansea on a Wednesday night in the 90's. Crowds dropped off significantly during the Archer/Bellotti period. We were struggling nearly every season after 1991. New stadiums massively increase the saleability of tickets - and that is a fact. Study Reading, Hull etc if you don't believe me. Add in the fact we had 3 promotion seasons, one 'Return to Brighton Season' and the other being in the old Division 1 bringing big teams with big followings.

You are the one with an agenda and are plucking figures out of the air to support it. Why, I have no idea as you purport to be a supporter of this club. No-one knows the exact loss but to say that an average attendance of 12000 would not have been achieveable is ludicrous. It may not have been the case but, in my opinion and taking all the FACTS into consideration, I think it is a fair assumption. It may have been slightly inflated to create a sensation but surely that is completely understandable given the little matter going on at Brighton Town Hall?

 

[Bwian]

Out of the last 6 seasons I would estimate that about 6 or seven would have brought an away support in excess of 2500. It would then follow that out of approx 132 homes games we would have had possibly 5 in each season in The championship/old Div one where the attendance may have exceeded 12,000 possibly thats 10 games. the last 6 or 7 home games in each promotion year, thats another 18 - 21 games.We have probably 12 -15 games during the relegation when there would have been the hard core of 7 - 8,000.

That is 31 games with an attendance of perhaps 12 -14,000
Approx 12 - 15 games with a maximum of 8 - 9,000
Approx 86 games which were ordinary mundane non issue non big away club games. Not a cat in hells chance of acheiving an AVERAGE of 12,000 per game, I think that a more realistic figure is 10,000 but we need the 22,000 so as to build for the future and possibly the Premiership.

The figure of £30m quoted is totally unrealistic and 'pie in the sky' and was designed to cause a sensation.

Even if you actually believe all of the above don't you think it would be better to keep it yourself whilst the PI is going on? Clearly you have an agenda and seize every opportunity to try and discredit the board-regardless of what they're saying.

Have you considered the increase in construction costs because of all of the delays? Merchandising opportunities lost because of limited capacities? Costs of numerous Inquiries? Legal costs? Add to that all of the lost forever ticket revenues and the figure will be well over £30 Million. Add to all of that the wasted money on improving Withdean....I despair sometimes with 'support' like yours.

The play-off final PROVED the potential of this football club and that's what this whole debate is about. Potential and potential lost revenues.

 

[BensGrandad]

As I have said past attendances do not matter, nor the present attendances due to no fault of ours but what does matter is the future and we NEED A STADIUM that can hold in excess of 22,000 for the future and hopefully premiership.

I have no agenda other than wanting Brighton to be in the premiership and comfortably so. Is that so bad? How is stating the obvious that we would not have had an average of 12,000 per game helping the NIMBYs? Anybody with any amount of intelligence could see that the figure plucked out of thin air was not an attainable figure by any stretch of imagination. Is it not better to say this than like TGC continually keep carping on about one of the men that has kept this club going and was instrumental in ridding us of A B & S.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

" Harty, you are a top Fan of the club and clearly as all of us do, love the club. However, you don't know the first thing about a good sports radio phone in. Why don't you listen to talksport and find out how to make it better. Simply asking Doris from Hassocks how she thought the match went when she would rather talk about the weather and how do they get all them players kits dry during this cold snap, is not good enough. Choosing an article to talk about and then admit you didn't read it is amaterish not to mention you didn't understand it either. Why don't you talk about a controversial insident during the game or choose a topic that will rough a few feathers but be accurate? You would get more callers (like myself) and make for a more professional show."

That was Captain Sensible's post on the 'tossbag' thread. Seems to say it all really. In particular, tub-thumping about an article 'and then admit you didnt read it' is indeed amateurish. What makes that form of sloppy journalism any more acceptable than any other form of sloppy journalism? What could it possibly hope to achieve that would be of benefit to the Albion? Harty's in the wrong on this one, no two ways about it. Constructive criticism (as opposed to the 'come out from behind your keyboard and meet me behind the bike-sheds' toss that off-message posters usually get threatened with) might run along the lines of: Next Time Read The Article Before You Go Off On One. Albion Legend or no Albion Legend.

 

[The Great Cornholio]

Anybody with any amount of intelligence could see that the figure plucked out of thin air was not an attainable figure by any stretch of imagination. Is it not better to say this than like TGC continually keep carping on about one of the men that has kept this club going and was instrumental in ridding us of A B & S.

Glad to see you haven't been reduced to base abuse - Oh.

This is your second post stating as fact that 12000 was not achieveable as an average. I have listed many points above which you have completely ignored and you have the gall to accuse Knight of picking figures out of thin air. I will reiterate my points and add to them. Please feel free to defend your statement of fact.

The first season back in a new stadium would dramatically increase :-

Reading last season at Elm Park - Average Attendance = 9676. First Season at Madejski = 11262 IN A LOWER DIVISION

Hull last season at Boothferry Park Average Attendance = 9506. First season at KC Average Attendance = 12843 IN THE SAME DIVISION

Leicester last season at Filbert Street in Prem Average Attendance = 19835 (22000 Capacity). First Season in Division One at Walkers Stadium Average Attendance = 29231 IN A LOWER DIVISION

So I think we can take that as fact.

Assuming results were exactly the same as at Withdean. We had 2 seasons of being Champions with all the associated big matches - Chesterfield, Reading etc. Another season of reaching the Playoffs with big games against rivals as well as a Playoff Semi Final which would have sold out. The other season was our first season in the second tier for many years and involved games against Crystal Palace (Obvious sell out), Reading, Wolves, Leicister, Ipswich and other big draws. As well as big games towards the end of the season when we had a chance of staying up. Add to this a cup tie with Southampton.

However, if attendances went up in the first season, it is safe to assume that revenue would go up. This would allow more money for squad strengthening. Managers who left may not have done so. A higher standard of football would result in high crowds.

The prospect of sitting in a modern stadium under cover and at reasonable prices would entice a lot more people to start watching regularly. It is a proven fact that attendances at pay on the day games are higher than all ticket games. The club would be able to offer tickets to local schools, artificially boosting the attendance and generating more indirect revenue.

If you are going to throw out insults about lack of intelligence, are you going to back it up by responding to the above points and justifying your 'claim'?

And your last line is a little bit strange don't you think? From a former friend of Greg Stanley and from someone who has stated that we would be in a stadium by now if Stanley and Archer were still in control. And yet now you laud someone who helped get rid of them.

 

[Infernal Optimist]

How anyone can suggest that we couldn't average 12,000 is beyond me. The Albion has always been a bandwagon club. When we are doing well we get big crowds. I've been in a 36,000 crowd at the Goldstone myself in the 70's

We've won 3 championships and been in the play offs during the last 3 years. Does anyone seriously think we couldn't have got 30,000 for the Reading game in 02/03 for example?

What does make a difference is pay on the day. People can not or will not get down to the shop for tickets. 15,000 apllications for the Spurs game gives an indication of the depth of support still available to the Albion for attractive games...

My only concern about Falmer is that its not big enough !

 

[BensGrandad]

To answer TGC.

What other teams have achieved in relation to attendances when they moved to a new ground is totally immaterial to us.

Whether you like it or not we have a fan base of approx 8,000 the attendances above that figure are geared up to the amount of support that the away teams bring and in the seasons that we won promotion there were very few teams that would have brought more than 2,500 supporters to the game in fact outside of the Championship I am struggling to think of one other than Sheff Wed.

I would be the first to accept that there may have been very odd games when we would have exceeded 12,000 but I would suggest that over 75% of the games would have had considerably less.

As regards the statement about Ian Hart ridding us of A B & S it is a known fact that I worked for Stanley but none the less he outlived his usefulness and became a liability and had to be removed. I have never said that if he was still Chairman we would be in a new stadium what I have said is that if we had a chairman with Archers money we would be in a new stadium by now somewhat different I believe.

It is a pure myth to suggest that our gates would have doubled with a new stadium and has no figures in relation to us to back up this asumption whatsoever.

As I have tried to point out but as usual people on here tend to answer the part of a question that they think is relevant and ignore the major points that irrespective of past attendances or even fanciful figures of possible attendances now we need a stadium that is going to hold us in good steed for the coming years and be able to accomodate our needs and it is for this reason and this reason alone that we need a stadium that will hold a minimum of 22,500. Or are we just going to stagnate and go up and down divisions 1 and 2 like a Y o Yo.

 

[Man of Harveys]

To answer TGC.

What other teams have achieved in relation to attendances when they moved to a new ground is totally immaterial to us.

Er, not sure I'd agree with that...but whatever...

 

[Bwian]

I'll borrow this from Tim Carder:

The ups and downs of the 1960s and early 1970s led to a period of unprecedented success, and the Goldstone struggled at times to cope. In each of the four seasons 1976-80 attendances averaged more than 20,000 as the club moved from the old Third Division to the First. The peak came in 1977-78 when 25,264, on average, watched Albion finish fourth in Division Two. Three times in the space of a fortnight crowds of more than 30,000 gathered to witness the valiant promotion bid.

These numbers would suggest a fan base of slightly more than 8,000 And if you need further proof of that, how did we manage to sell our allocation for the playoff final with our pathetic fan base of 8,000? Those who went to Cardiff represent our POTENTIAL fanbase-not a hardcore of limited numbers because of the shithole we're playing in thanks to your mate Stanley and his 2 chums who f***ed the club over big time!

And yet you still insist we'd have struggled to reach a 12,000 average? Football has never been more popular-The Albion have never been so successful (in terms of promotions over a short period of time) and factor in the new stadium appeal and your arguments have more holes than swiss cheese. And frankly-they're boring the f***ing life out of me!

 

[The Great Cornholio]

As I have tried to point out but as usual people on here tend to answer the part of a question that they think is relevant and ignore the major points

That is priceless. That is exactly what you have done. Your are stating your opinions as fact with no basis in truth. Again. You ignored my points about the "Return to Brighton" factor in the first year as well as the fact that 3 of the years in question we were riding high in the division. That's not to mention the disdainful way you have dismissed the trend with new stadiums at other clubs. Is their something different about us than every other team that has had a new stadium. I didn't even mention Bolton, Middlesborough, Huddersfield and the like.

Football attendances whave risen quite sharply in the last few years. We are averaging over 6000. So where the hell did you pluck this 8000 from? Surely that is based on the number of fans willing to visit Withdean. Do you seriously expect us to believe that 21000 out of the 29000 who went to Cardiff would never go regularly to Falmer or the like given reasonable pricing, facilities and access?

 

[Bwian]

Maybe we should get Greg Stanley's friend to ask DK and the Marketing Department of the club how many DIFFERENT people are on the database-having bought tickets since Withdean was opened? That is a better indicator of our fan base.

As I said in my previous post-he's beginning to bore the life out of me with his ramblings.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

Whether you like it or not we have a fan base of approx 8,000

You are basing this on Goldstone crowds in the late 80s and 90s. This figure is not relevant in 2005 for all the reasons that people have stated above.

 

[BensGrandad]

Ian has consistently had listening figures of approx 25,000 why should he worry what 20 idiots without any idea on NSC think.

 

[The Great Cornholio]

Ian has consistently had listening figures of approx 25,000 why should he worry what 20 idiots without any idea on NSC think.

Did that 25000 fall out of the same cloud that the 8000 fan base did?

 

[Bwian]

Ian has consistently had listening figures of approx 25,000 why should he worry what 20 idiots without any idea on NSC think.

So 20 people prove you to be clueless about the Albion's potential and suddenly they're idiots?

 

[caz99]

T

PS

Ian Hart has not been seen once at the Public Inquiry.

Surely now that he is his own boss he could give himself at least one day off work. The dead are dead afterall. They won't be coming back. Plenty of time on their hands.

that is the most stupidest comment i have read. Ian happened to do my father in law's funeral before just after christmas. he was there beck and call when my boyf wanted to see his father in the chapel etc. he did nothing but the best for the funeral and he was kind and compassionate throughout. comments like that are offensive and pathetic

 

[Brighton Breezy]

I agree with Caz that making a joke about him taking time off because the dead are dead is out of order. I am sure Harty is superb and very professional at what he does at work and that a great many people have been greatful for his help.

I also realise that Harty is a Brighton fan through and through which is why I find it so difficult to understand why he would undermine the fantastic work of Martin Perry et al by suggested his figures and argument was flawed.

Perry et al are not going to approach the inquiry and say "Yeah well we want a new ground but we probably wouldnt have sold any more tickets if we had it even though we have won two leagues and gained promotion...Oh and we have not really lost out on making any money while playing at Withdean"

The response would be "Well keep playing at Withdean then because you dont need a new ground"

Brighton could have easily got over 10,000 in recent years but that is not the argument.

The problem with Harty is that he accused the Argus of scaremongering in an article that he had not even read and then hosted an entire show wrongly suggesting Brighton had lost £30m. If that is not scaremongering what is?

The saddest thing was that the show came in the wake of another superb win by Brighton. THAT and the teams success on the field should have been the focus of the phone in.

 

[The Great Cornholio]

I agree with Caz that making a joke about him taking time off because the dead are dead is out of order. I am sure Harty is superb and very professional at what he does at work and that a great many people have been greatful for his help.

I also realise that Harty is a Brighton fan through and through which is why I find it so difficult to understand why he would undermine the fantastic work of Martin Perry et al by suggested his figures and argument was flawed.

Perry et al are not going to approach the inquiry and say "Yeah well we want a new ground but we probably wouldnt have sold any more tickets if we had it even though we have won two leagues and gained promotion...Oh and we have not really lost out on making any money while playing at Withdean"

The response would be "Well keep playing at Withdean then because you dont need a new ground"

Brighton could have easily got over 10,000 in recent years but that is not the argument.

The problem with Harty is that he accused the Argus of scaremongering in an article that he had not even read and then hosted an entire show wrongly suggesting Brighton had lost £30m. If that is not scaremongering what is?

The saddest thing was that the show came in the wake of another superb win by Brighton. THAT and the teams success on the field should have been the focus of the phone in.

Dear God. I knew this day was coming and I was dreading it. But it is here. I agree with Morris!

 

[Brighton Breezy]

For ME to criticise someone for shoddy journalism (i.e. not reading the article in the first place) must surely speak volumes.