[Football] Pretendance - THE FACTS

[Hotchilidog]

I'd be surprised if the discrepancy is that much for us these days. From my spot in the WSU the rest of the ground looks pretty full most games and the announced attendance does not seem that far off, unlike the glory days of 'pretendence' figures when the difference was obvious.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

• West Ham: Newham council says the average attendance at West Ham was 42,779 based on the 12 games it attended - which is 12,530 fans fewer than the club's season average figure of 55,309.

This in particular, is entirely unsurprising. They move into a huge new ground, which is an utter bitch to get to, and sold tens of thousands of dirt-cheap season tickets to new STH, many of them non-local.

I know two Hammers STH in Horsham area, and another here in Chandlers Ford. All 'proper' long term fans, but only one of those had a ST (and accompanying commitment) at Upton Park.

Add in some terrible form, and a divisive atmosphere, and frankly, I'm surprised even that many turn up.

 

[Stat Brother]

Of all the things to get knickers full of piss I never quite understood why this one was a thing.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

I'd be surprised if the discrepancy is that much for us these days. From my spot in the WSU the rest of the ground looks pretty full most games and the announced attendance does not seem that far off, unlike the glory days of 'pretendence' figures when the difference was obvious.

Reckon the difference is pretty marked on a school night, especially if the game's on telly or the opposition isn't one of The Big Six.

 

[Brovion]

Particularly, isn't the above total bollocks?

1. Caterers and sponsors use a fictional figure to calculate the value of their sponsorships and contracts? Really? Surely they are only interested in the actual number in the ground, not the made-up number.

....

Yes, obviously they are. And they might be a bit miffed to learn that actually the number of potential customers they can reach on a match day is way less than they've been told.

 

[Icy Gull]

Of all the things to get knickers full of piss I never quite understood why this one was a thing.

It was so much more fun going to a pretty full Goldstone and being told the crowd was only 8356

 

[theboybilly]

This in particular, is entirely unsurprising. They move into a huge new ground, which is an utter bitch to get to, and sold tens of thousands of dirt-cheap season tickets to new STH, many of them non-local.

I know two Hammers STH in Horsham area, and another here in Chandlers Ford. All 'proper' long term fans, but only one of those had a ST (and accompanying commitment) at Upton Park.

Add in some terrible form, and a divisive atmosphere, and frankly, I'm surprised even that many turn up.

Of all the grounds in the country I can't think of many with better transport links to be honest

 

[Bozza]

Of all the things to get knickers full of piss I never quite understood why this one was a thing.

I'm "meh" about it all, but since the dawn of time football attendances were (generally) the number of people who, you know, attended a game.

So I do understand why traditionalists get a bee in their bonnet about this,

If nothing else, it makes all historical comparisons in crowds completely meaningless, which is a shame.

 

[wellquickwoody]

I refuse to judge a match based on distance run, completed passes, possession, time spent in attacking quarter, etc, etc. These endless stats are becoming a bigger bore than Jamie Redknapp and Glenn Hoddle

The ONLY stat that counts is goals scored, end.

 

[Easy 10]

Yes, obviously they are. And they might be a bit miffed to learn that actually the number of potential customers they can reach on a match day is way less than they've been told.

So we're telling the caterers there's 30,000 in the ground, when there's only actually 25,000.

And yet they STILL manage to run out of half the decent scoff before halftime.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

I'm "meh" about it all, but since the dawn of time football attendances were (generally) the number of people who, you know, attended a game.

So I do understand why traditionalists get a bee in their bonnet about this,

If nothing else, it makes all historical comparisons in crowds completely meaningless, which is a shame.

For other reasons though from poor record-keeping, to basic guesswork, to outright tax-fraud, those historical attendances are also entirely unreliable. So comparisons were already a bit meaningless, in truth.

 

[Giraffe]

I'm "meh" about it all, but since the dawn of time football attendances were (generally) the number of people who, you know, attended a game.

So I do understand why traditionalists get a bee in their bonnet about this,

If nothing else, it makes all historical comparisons in crowds completely meaningless, which is a shame.

That's what bothers me as well. I also find it "dodgy" that the Premier League and others use this as almost a hoodwink over perhaps those that don't understand. I am sure in the marketing blurb for advertising sponsorship it is mentioned that 30,000+ are at the AMEX every week when the reality is it probably averages lower than this. Does it matter, probably not, as whether it's 28,000 or 30,000 I'm sure the sponsorship would be the same, but that;s what is annoying about. Why not be open and honest about it.

I recall early on at the AMEX asking the same question of the council as you did and getting an answer that exact for a particular game, when I asked for the next game they then gave out similar nonsense to what you have received. I don't remember the details of the game I asked about but it must have been a game where I thought the gap was large otherwise I wouldnt have asked and as I recall it was something like 29,000 v 22,000. Probably in August when everyone is on holiday.

 

[Brovion]

So we're telling the caterers there's 30,000 in the ground, when there's only actually 25,000.

And yet they STILL manage to run out of half the decent scoff before halftime.

Ah that's the point. Sodexo (it is still them isn't it?) aren't stupid, they know that the real attendance figure is less than the one announced so they're forced to guess what the exaggeration factor is and cater accordingly. If only the club would release the tru figure then we'd never run out of pies! (That is a joke, btw).

 

[El Presidente]

The Albion guard this information like the Crown Jewels. This is the response the last time I asked Brighton & Hove Council who, it seems, asked the club if they could release their figures:

Please find set out below the information in response to the above request:

The information you have requested regarding capacity figures for the Amex Stadium’s actual attendance figures for the current 2015-16 season is held by Brighton & Hove City Council but is being withheld because we consider that the exemption under Section 43 (2) of the Act applies to the information.

Section 43 (2) of the Act provides an exemption from disclosure of information which would be likely to prejudice the commercial interests of any person (including those of the Council and other businesses).

A commercial interest can arise in a number of different circumstances. However, in broad terms, a commercial interest relates to any person's ability to buy or sell goods or services or to operate effectively without undermining its trading position.

In considering the exemptions at section 43(2) we have considered the balance of the public interest arguments for and against disclosure. We recognise that there is a public interest in transparency and accountability in public decision making.

We have also considered the public interest in maintaining the exemption in this area. We believe that there is a strong public interest to withhold the information because the Brighton & Hove Albion FC have informed us that the information is used by the caterers and sponsors, who use the attendance information to calculate the value of their sponsorship rights and contracts. Even more significant for the stadium is that other clubs use attendance information to work out the club’s possible future revenues and therefore how much Brighton & Hove Albion will have to spend on player budgets, which is likely to prejudice the team’s competitive edge.

Taking the likely prejudice outlined above into account, we are satisfied that the public interest in withholding the requested information in this respect outweighs the public interest in disclosure.

I've had a similar response from both the Council and the Police and Fire authorities.

As you say, tickets sold generate revenue rather than those attending, and therefore the council's response is either spurious or they don't understand anything about business and finance.

It's a similar issue with transfer fees. The standard response for the eternal 'non-disclosed' transfer fee is that it gives away sensitive information which could give competing clubs an advantage. However, (a) a ballpark fee is usually quoted in the media, so competitors would have a rough idea and (b) without sounding like an ITK wanker, I teach a lot of football agents, and they are the biggest gossips on the planet. Details of deals are passed around via WhatsApp groups all the time, as they like to show off how well they've done for clients. If a no mark such as myself gets to see some of the contracts and clauses, then I'm pretty sure that clubs, who have far more of a day to day relationship with agents, will do the same.

 

[BBassic]

Another reason that point 2 is also bollocks is that gate receipts have little to no bearing on how much any club has to spend on players/wages.

In the Championship it's down to how much owners are prepared to lose and in the PL it's about TV money (plus how much owners are prepared to lose).

Whether we get 25,000 or 30,000 at each home game has virtually nothing to do with our transfer budget.

Exactly that. It's also not that hard to have too much of a guess either.

Take the max capacity, minus 3-5k, multiplied by the average ticket cost and bingo bango you've got a number.

 

[El Presidente]

Exactly that. It's also not that hard to have too much of a guess either.

Take the max capacity, minus 3-5k, multiplied by the average ticket cost and bingo bango you've got a number.

Correct, having just crunched some numbers, the matchday income per fan per match is far lower than people would expect, but factor in ST prices at the Amex are pretty reasonable, strip out VAT, travel contribution and remember there are many fans with concessions then we get the following. So an extra 1,000 fans per match per season works out at about £350k.

Finishing ONE place higher in the Premier League is worth £2.1 milion, the equivalent of an extra 6,000 fans per match.

 

[Machiavelli]

Reckon the difference is pretty marked on a school night, especially if the game's on telly or the opposition isn't one of The Big Six.

There aren't so many school nights now we're in the PL. I think there's one conventional midweek fixture -- Tue fixture (Palace) -- and then there's the possibility of a weekend game being moved to a Friday or Monday night, only the latter of which is a proper school night.

 

[Machiavelli]

I've had a similar response from both the Council and the Police and Fire authorities.

As you say, tickets sold generate revenue rather than those attending, and therefore the council's response is either spurious or they don't understand anything about business and finance.

It's a similar issue with transfer fees. The standard response for the eternal 'non-disclosed' transfer fee is that it gives away sensitive information which could give competing clubs an advantage. However, (a) a ballpark fee is usually quoted in the media, so competitors would have a rough idea and (b) without sounding like an ITK wanker, I teach a lot of football agents, and they are the biggest gossips on the planet. Details of deals are passed around via WhatsApp groups all the time, as they like to show off how well they've done for clients. If a no mark such as myself gets to see some of the contracts and clauses, then I'm pretty sure that clubs, who have far more of a day to day relationship with agents, will do the same.

You're an ITK wanker

 

[Stat Brother]

It was so much more fun going to a pretty full Goldstone and being told the crowd was only 8356

Those were brilliant.

There could have been 3 of you stood there and the tannoy would announcement e:-

Today's attendance is 1 thanks for coming.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

So we're telling the caterers there's 30,000 in the ground, when there's only actually 25,000.

And yet they STILL manage to run out of half the decent scoff before halftime.

I'd be massively surprised if the caterers didn't use some sort of algorithm weeks or even months in advance - with probably major input from the club - as to what would be the likely actual attendance. From their point of view, far better to under-order and run out, rather than over-order and have to bin stuff. Totally understandable IMHO, it's never going to be an exact science.