Attendance v Fulham on Saturday...

[Eeyore]

I predict the attendance will be 36,747

Plus one. I wasn't there.

 

[Rich Suvner]

Why should we disregard fans who haven't turned up and of whom pay £500 for a St ?

because they weren't "in attendance"

pretty simple really.

 

[Gilliver's Travels]

Sorry SSS but who gives a stuff about attendances anyway ?

(1) Anyone who is uneasy at their club so barefacedly abusing the English language in order to tell a laughably obvious lie.

(2) Amex advertisers and sponsors, who are being sold to on the basis that their messages are being seen by 26,000 people, when that figure is clearly being exaggerated by several thousands.

The club knows precisely how many people are in the crowd. And it know how many tickets have been paid for. Why not simply avoid the word 'attendance' altogether and just announce ticket sales (with a loud ker-ching sound effect) as, er, 'today's official ticket sales'?

And if they can't bear to admit how many are actually at the game - the attendance - then why not just leave the media to publish it afterwards?

 

[kingcole]

Currently 1470 showing as available.

Probably 100-200 more in the family sections.

If we allowed another 900 ish for segregation and a partly used school shelf then the sold figure at this time would be about 29,000.

He away end will be crammed. Fulham have shifted over 3000 http://www.fulhamfc.com/news/2014/november/26/brighton-sold-out

I think this is a record for an away league attendance at the Amex and should lead to a great atmosphere.

Definitely a good chance of brisk last minute sales. The arrival of bent, some decent weather and pay day for many will help.

 

[empire]

Whatever the att, should be a belter of a game, bout time our team and fans turned it on at home, no excuses

 

[fat old seagull]

I predict the attendance will be 36,747

I predict the attendance will be something less than that. Which is good as my predictions are seldom right

 

[Simster]

Its wasting your breath. Some people just want to knock the club. Simster has an issue why Palace were getting similar but a little big bigger crowds in the lat 80's and early 90's. The fact that palace had Ian Wright playing for them, they finished 3rd in the top flight, and got to an FA Cup final might have had something to do with why more returned to palace than us, especially as we had a relegation to the 3rd division and our version of Ian Wright was er, Richard Tiltman and then Kevin Bremner! This says it all, and why the Albion can never win with some people. You will also see that none of the "never will fill Amex brigade" have yet to make the list of clubs who would get 30,000 for Fulham at home in a December championship relegation scrap. Why they are so negative about our support, I just don't know. The team I can understand but the support? Just doesnt make sense. Cheers for the sup[port of a few people but over and out on the subject from me. Was interesting to see Newcastle got 9000 for Oxford at home in this period. If that doesnt illustrate the point then nothing will.

I'll say it yet again, I have no problem pointing out that our home support at the moment is absolutely superb. I have no issue with announcing tickets sold over bums on seats - it's all good as far as I'm concerned. And a crowd of over 28,000 for the visit of Fulham just before Christmas, featuring two massively underachieving teams, both threatened with relegation, is absolutely fantastic.

I'll also agree that we've had some BIG crowds down the years (in the 70s), for lower division football. But they have been so few and far between, that I can name the opposition. Rochdale, Derby, Chelsea, Bournemouth, Blackpool etc. All 30k+ home gates, but really there are only about 8 of them.

But let's be clear - you act like an idiot, constantly making out we have always had the most loyal fans in the country when clearly we haven't. You bang the same boring drum, most of which are complete lies. You said Palace's average gates had slumped to 4,500. They hadn't - their worst average (1985) was 6,500. (It was MY fact that they got one gate of 4,005 just 5 years after 52,000 turned up in 1979 when they were boring us all with their "plastic" accusation, so I know what I'm talking about). You also said their average gates in the top division were 14,000. They weren't - their lowest average gate was around 17,000. You gloss over our own examples of tiny crowds with factually incorrect statements - our 8,000 average in 1991 when we finished 6th was the 19th best in the division, we had a period of 6 out of 7 seasons in what is now the Championship in the mid 80 - early 90s where our average didn't get above 9,050. And so on. In all of these cases, our gates were NOT comparable to our peers, they were FAR lower, so don't lie about the affects of hooliganism again. Especially 1991. How many teams in the play-off era have averaged lower than our 8,000 and finished in the top 6 of the second tier? I reckon ONLY Notts County have averaged lower, when they went up, coincidentally in the same year.

So please, by all means debunk the myth that Northern teams are any better, but do us all a favour and shut up about this idea that our supporters are more loyal than anyone else, especially the Nigels.

Equally, I won't accept from a Nigel this stupid idea that we're all Liverpool fans just because they can't get close to our gates in their rickety shoebox even in the top division. That 0-0 play-off game was played in front of 23,000 yet they now get 25,000 when Man Utd roll in to town. Did Palace install 2,000 new seats then?

 

[LamieRobertson]

Seems like a lot of pointless arguing going on

 

[Moshe Gariani]

So please, by all means debunk the myth that Northern teams are any better, but do us all a favour and shut up about this idea that our supporters are more loyal than anyone else

You are wrong.

Simple analysis of average crowd figures and average league positions for all clubs since the second world war shows that we are ranked something like 50th for average league position and 40th for average crowd. That is despite the "wilderness years" of very low crowds that we suffered while lots of other clubs were enjoying increased gates in new or improved stadiums.

It is a "fact" that our club has historically been well supported relative to our league position.

 

[Simster]

You are wrong.

Simple analysis of average crowd figures and average league positions for all clubs since the second world war shows that we are ranked something like 50th for average league position and 40th for average crowd. That is despite the "wilderness years" of very low crowds that we suffered while lots of other clubs were enjoying increased gates in new or improved stadiums.

It is a "fact" that our club has always been well supported relative to our league position.

Actually, no I'm not. But this is why so many people find this so pointless.

Your simple analysis might prove the point you want to make, but it takes no account of the number of fans we actually HAVE. Liverpool have millions of fans all over the country, and always have filled up their 45k stadium, even in the second division in the 60s. So historically, their average support will have ranked higher than their average league position. According to you, that makes them incredibly loyal. I'd beg to differ though, when you consider their pool of millions of potential fans. It's a totally meaningless stat.

We've had periods of very good and very crap support, which is all I'm saying really. Now is an example of great support. The late 80s and early 90s (well before it became apparent Archer was asset stripping) it was woeful.

 

[Moshe Gariani]

Actually, no I'm not. But this is why so many people find this so pointless.

Your simple analysis might prove the point you want to make, but it takes no account of the number of fans we actually HAVE. Liverpool have millions of fans all over the country, and always have filled up their 45k stadium, even in the second division in the 60s. So historically, their average support will have ranked higher than their average league position. According to you, that makes them incredibly loyal. I'd beg to differ though, when you consider their pool of millions of potential fans. It's a totally meaningless stat.

We've had periods of very good and very crap support, which is all I'm saying really. Now is an example of great support. The late 80s and early 90s (well before it became apparent Archer was asset stripping) it was woeful.

My analysis proves the point we are arguing about. Talking about an outlying case like Liverpool and then getting your facts wrong doesn't help you.

 

[Simster]

My analysis proves the point we are arguing about. Talking about an outlying case like Liverpool and then getting your facts wrong doesn't help you.

Haha, I got no facts wrong and I wasn't arguing that we weren't relatively well supported, I was arguing that we are no more or less loyal than anyone else. And of course you don't like me talking about Liverpool - it's an extreme case that goes to prove your "simple analysis" is in fact, a meaningless crock of shit.

So you don't like Liverpool - let's pick historically similar teams instead, all starved of success with large hinterlands and potentially large dormant support: Plymouth, Bristol City, and Hull. Are you telling me our support has been noticeably better (bigger and/or more loyal) than ANY of those over the past 40 years? They've all had periods of good and bad support too - but we're not noticeably different.

 

[perseus]

Palace fans are a bit fickle. More so than Fulham?

View attachment 60411



This was from ages ago. I can't be hacked to do it now. Anybody on a computer training course want to update this?

 

[Moshe Gariani]

Haha, I got no facts wrong and I wasn't arguing that we weren't relatively well supported, I was arguing that we are no more or less loyal than anyone else. And of course you don't like me talking about Liverpool - it's an extreme case that goes to prove your "simple analysis" is in fact, a meaningless crock of shit.

So you don't like Liverpool - let's pick historically similar teams instead, all starved of success with large hinterlands and potentially large dormant support: Plymouth, Bristol City, and Hull. Are you telling me our support has been noticeably better (bigger and/or more loyal) than ANY of those over the past 40 years? They've all had periods of good and bad support too - but we're not noticeably different.

You continue to struggle.

You got your facts badly wrong about Liverpool average gates over the years and underlined your lack of knowledge about the decline in crowds during the 1980s.

Splitting hairs in definitions of "well supported" and "loyal" doesn't help you.

There is no point in you citing further individual cases. Plymouth, Bristol City and Hull are all "well supported" clubs. Neither me nor WCP have said anywhere that our support is better than ALL other other clubs. Quite the opposite in fact - I highlighted that we rank 40th. It is just that our support has been, over the last 60+ years, proportionately "good" relative to our average league position - and that historic fact is not even undone by inclusion of our uniquely challenging wilderness years.

 

[perseus]

E1F




I hope these seats are really sold because even last week the seats were already unavailable and there are fans wanting them.

 

[BensGrandad]

More and more ST holders are not using their tickets I know of a staunch long standing supporter who is not going as he is going to watch the boxing,this would never have happened a few years ago, sad times

 

[Simster]

You continue to struggle.

You got your facts badly wrong about Liverpool average gates over the years and underlined your lack of knowledge about the decline in crowds during the 1980s.

Splitting hairs in definitions of "well supported" and "loyal" doesn't help you.

There is no point in you citing further individual cases. Plymouth, Bristol City and Hull are all "well supported" clubs. Neither me nor WCP have said anywhere that our support is better than ALL other other clubs. Quite the opposite in fact - I highlighted that we rank 40th. It is just that our support has been, over the last 60+ years, proportionately "good" relative to our average league position - and that historic fact is not even undone by inclusion of our uniquely challenging wilderness years.

I really don't continue to struggle despite your pompous assertion that I do. Sure, if you want to be completely accurate, Liverpool have averaged under 34,700 just the once in 50 years. However, they've always been towards the top of attendance tables which is part of the point I was making - because they have so many fans.

There is a big difference between loyalty and size of support, but clearly you "continue to struggle" to see it. So best leave it there. And I'm glad you agree that of the only three individual cases of clubs in similar sized cities with similar lack of success, we rank, erm, about the same as them.

 

[perseus]

Show Biz and Supermarket Crowds are different

If loyalty and habitation and alternative attractions did not pay a part, there would be an accurate correlation between customers and population and the clubs could calculate their crowds much like supermarkets calculate their customers.

However, it does not work like that or else Cardiff, Plymouth, Hull, Bristol City, Bristol Rovers, all ought to get get larger crowds than they do because of their respective populations. Thye are the only examples of relatively poorly supported clubs and there is a reason. How big a reason?

 

[Moshe Gariani]

Sure, if you want to be completely accurate, Liverpool have averaged under 34,700 just the once in 50 years.

LOL. 1984 when they were the league champions and averaged 31,900.... lots of other seasons when they were well below capacity too - notably when relegated to Division 2 (just before your carefully chosen cut off date).

But this isn't the point. ALL clubs lose fans when they are relegated or mediocre for an extended period.

You shifted the ground to "loyal" because you lost the argument regarding WCP's assertion that Brighton have always been "relatively well supported".

 

[Simster]

LOL. 1984 when they were the league champions and averaged 31,900.... lots of other seasons when they were well below capacity too - notably when relegated to Division 2 (just before your carefully chosen cut off date).".

Carefully chosen? I said last 50 years - hardly "carefully chosen".

But this isn't the point. ALL clubs lose fans when they are relegated or mediocre for an extended period.".

No and yes. Some clubs retain fans for a season or two after relegation. But a sustained period in the doldrums brings with it a drop in attendance. This is why your back of a fag packet analysis is pointless, because some clubs haven't really been in the doldrums, or at least nothing like what we've been through. Man City and Norwich both went down to league one for a season but crowds stayed with them, as expected, for those single seasons. So your simple analysis will show a drop in league position for them, but no drop in crowd size. So it's flawed.

You shifted the ground to "loyal" because you lost the argument regarding WCP's assertion that Brighton have always been "relatively well supported".

No, no I didn't. I got tired of WCP's constant crowing of how fantastic our crowds have always been, when the fact is they were utterly shithouse as recently as 20 years ago, and not because of asset strippers, and not because of hooliganism. I'll say it again, look at our crowds from 1986-1993 and tell me I'm wrong. We got within one game of the Premiership, and averaged 8,000 - which was 19th best in the division. So the Albion have NOT "always been 'relatively well supported'".