|
|
Post by farmer on Sept 11, 2013 11:14:54 GMT
Only about 8% of Stoke on Trents population go to matches .The usual reasons rear there heads, price/membership cards/parking/its cold/no pubs/spent all me money on fags and beer.But we have never had high crows on a regular bascis.In the Waddo years we rarly averaged 20000.In Lous spell it was about 16000 so the fall in attendances has now shown that ground extensions and we are a big club is bollocks.We need to except what we are and not what we never will be.
|
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Sept 11, 2013 11:20:29 GMT
Given our location and all the clubs that surround us and throw in the fact that we were absolutely shit for more years than we care to remember, and Stoke's crowds have held up remarkably well.
In the 3rd tier, we were capable of attracting almost 30,000 supporters for games and when we have needed support, ours have always turned up.
Does anyone really think we are a big club at this level? Not really. We are middle of the road to small but when we were languishing in the lower leagues, we were a big club, as evidenced by the fact that almost every club at that level, until Man City came down to join us, had their biggest home gate of the season against us.
Also, a couple of years ago, didn't the club release some figures which suggested that almost 300,000 different people had watched at least one home match during the course of that particular season.
|
|
|
|
Post by farmer on Sept 11, 2013 11:26:55 GMT
Given our location and all the clubs that surround us and throw in the fact that we were absolutely shit for more years than we care to remember, and Stoke's crowds have held up remarkably well. In the 3rd tier, we were capable of attracting almost 30,000 supporters for games and when we have needed support, ours have always turned up. Does anyone really think we are a big club at this level? Not really. We are middle of the road to small but when we were languishing in the lower leagues, we were a big club, as evidenced by the fact that almost every club at that level, until Man City came down to join us, had their biggest home gate of the season against us. Also, a couple of years ago, didn't the club release some figures which suggested that almost 300,000 different people had watched at least one home match during the course of that particular season. When did we ever get 30000 in the 3rd tier,the ground capacity was only 27000,when the new Stoke End was built sum people live in cloud cuckoo land. |
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Sept 11, 2013 11:31:22 GMT
We got 27,000 v WBA with an estimated 4000 being locked outside. By my reckoning that is more than 30,000. If you could read, you would also note that I said "almost 30,000".
We also got our then record Brit attendance v Gillingham in the play-offs and sold the ground out v Man City in the relegation game with the club saying that they could have sold the ground out twice over, such was the demand for tickets.
What's your point anyway? What prompted such a ridiculous opening post. I can't recall seeing anyone saying that we are a massive club or anything of the sort.
Also, the 8% stat is totally misguided, as I pointed out in my response which you term "cuckoo land".
|
|
|
|
Post by lastoftheldk on Sept 11, 2013 11:39:25 GMT
In the mid 70,s average crowds were offically 27k and that was mainly pay on the gate and I think those figures were played with for obvious reasons, but really for the size of the area you would expect bigger crowds, though the support has always been fickle apart from a hardcore element
Saying that all matches are too expensive today, 40 pounds is a lot of money
Needs to be a wage and transfer cap for the game
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2013 11:41:58 GMT
What an absurd thread....Less than 1% of London attend Chelsea/Spurs/Arsenal combined....
Throw in Fulham, Crystal Palace & Wet Sham it is less than 1.5%
|
|
|
|
Post by farmer on Sept 11, 2013 11:43:38 GMT
We got 27,000 v WBA with an estimated 4000 being locked outside. By my reckoning that is more than 30,000. If you could read, you would also note that I said "almost 30,000". We also got our then record Brit attendance v Gillingham in the play-offs and sold the ground out v Man City in the relegation game with the club saying that they could have sold the ground out twice over, such was the demand for tickets. What's your point anyway? What prompted such a ridiculous opening post. I can't recall seeing anyone saying that we are a massive club or anything of the sort. Also, the 8% stat is totally misguided, as I pointed out in my response which you term "cuckoo land". We also took 40000 to Wembley,support is week in week out not just the glamour games. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2013 11:44:18 GMT
Only about 8% of Stoke on Trents population go to matches .The usual reasons rear there heads, price/membership cards/parking/its cold/no pubs/spent all me money on fags and beer.But we have never had high crows on a regular bascis.In the Waddo years we rarly averaged 20000.In Lous spell it was about 16000 so the fall in attendances has now shown that ground extensions and we are a big club is bollocks.We need to except what we are and not what we never will be. The blame in One word ........Kitson |
|
|
|
Post by farmer on Sept 11, 2013 11:46:14 GMT
What an absurd thread....Less than 1% of London attend Chelsea/Spurs/Arsenal combined.... Throw in Fulham, Crystal Palace & Wet Sham it is less than 1.5% We are a one club city fuck them up the road my point is that we have never been a well supported clud over a period of time,so lets except it and stop moaning about empty seats. |
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Sept 11, 2013 11:46:42 GMT
Only about 8% of Stoke on Trents population go to matches .The usual reasons rear there heads, price/membership cards/parking/its cold/no pubs/spent all me money on fags and beer.But we have never had high crows on a regular bascis.In the Waddo years we rarly averaged 20000.In Lous spell it was about 16000 so the fall in attendances has now shown that ground extensions and we are a big club is bollocks.We need to except what we are and not what we never will be. Where do you get your 8% figure from? I reckon it is way, way off. If (just as an example) we typically have 20,000 season ticket holders and 2,500 pay on the day fans that does not mean we only have 22,500 fans attending home games. Of the 20,000 season tickets many get lent to friends from time to time or are shared for the season between members of a family. So, the 20,000 season tickets are used at some point by, maybe, 25,000 people. Of the 2,500 pay on the day tickets sold at a typical game, that is not 2,500 fans who attend matches - it is more likely to be 10,0000 fans who go to the occasional match. Some may go to one or two matches a season and others maybe ten matches a season. So our 20,000 season tickets and 2,500 pay on the day tickets probably represents 35,000 fans - maybe more. |
|
|
|
Post by Stretfordpotterer on Sept 11, 2013 11:48:17 GMT
If you do a bit of digging the figures actually stack up far more positively than the way you're painting them having used the population for the Potteries conurbation.
Population of the potteries 372,775
Stoke average attendance 25,270
Port Vale Average attendance 5,727
8.32 % of the population attending football on a weekly basis. You would imagine that Vale can up their average to around the 7000 mark which would take the average up to something like 8.5%
On last season crowds
Leeds - 5% (and that is using just Leeds population, not urban area)
Manchester - 23% if you take manchester population, but 4.7% if you take GM as a whole which is far more realistic as both teams draw large support from Salford/stockport/Altrincham/Sale/Oldham/Bury
Sheffield - 6.8%
Nottingham a fairly impressive 9% but again thats not including anything other than City of Nottingham population
Southampton 10% using just Soton but closer to 3% if you use whole urban area.
I seem to recall Burnley always coming out on top of the list as far as attendance v population was concerned at around about 11%
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2013 11:49:31 GMT
Only about 8% of Stoke on Trents population go to matches .The usual reasons rear there heads, price/membership cards/parking/its cold/no pubs/spent all me money on fags and beer.But we have never had high crows on a regular bascis.In the Waddo years we rarly averaged 20000.In Lous spell it was about 16000 so the fall in attendances has now shown that ground extensions and we are a big club is bollocks.We need to except what we are and not what we never will be. Where do you get your 8% figure from? I reckon it is way, way off. If (just as an example) we typically have 20,000 season ticket holders and 2,500 pay on the day fans that does not mean we only have 22,500 fans attending home games. Of the 20,000 season tickets many get lent to friends from time to time or are shared for the season between members of a family. So, the 20,000 season tickets are used at some point by, maybe, 25,000 people. Of the 2,500 pay on the day tickets sold at a typical game, that is not 2,500 fans who attend matches - it is more likely to be 10,0000 fans who go to the occasional match. Some may go to one or two matches a season and others maybe ten matches a season. So our 20,000 season tickets and 2,500 pay on the day tickets probably represents 35,000 fans - maybe more. he made it up....in much the same way that on the other thread he has decided that if we increased the capacity to 40,000 we'd only get 32,000 at first then average out at 28,000 from there on in (i think he does the projections for most of the fucktards that go on Dragon's Den  ) |
|
|
|
Post by Plave on Sept 11, 2013 11:51:46 GMT
2011 census had the Stoke-on-Trent population at 249,000
|
|
|
|
Post by nott1 on Sept 11, 2013 11:54:59 GMT
They are under the thumbs of their wives and have to go shopping every week?
|
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Sept 11, 2013 11:55:14 GMT
2011 census had the Stoke-on-Trent population at 249,000 That is irrelevant - it is the catchment area which is important and that would include NUL and various outlying districts. Probably a catchment of 400k - 450k shared with the Vale and, to a lesser extent, Crewe. Then there are exiles like me. I have a round trip of 270 miles each home game but many others have even further to travel. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2013 11:56:33 GMT
2011 census had the Stoke-on-Trent population at 249,000 That is irrelevant - it is the catchment area which is important and that would include NUL and various outlying districts. Probably a catchment of 400k shared with the Vale and, to a lesser extent, Crewe. Then there are exiles like me. I have a round trip of 270 miles each home game but many others have even further to travel. don't drag farmer into working out stats Lakeland...he's far too busy spouting patronising, self superior bullshit to have the time to work shit out properly |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2013 11:59:27 GMT
What a pointless thread. 8% is probably a healthy some compared to other clubs in the Premier League. Especially since we have 2 professional teams within a stones throw.
Believe it or not, not every everyone likes football or likes it enough to dish out a healthy sum of money for 90 mins.
|
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Sept 11, 2013 12:00:21 GMT
Only about 8% of Stoke on Trents population go to matches .The usual reasons rear there heads, price/membership cards/parking/its cold/no pubs/spent all me money on fags and beer.But we have never had high crows on a regular bascis.In the Waddo years we rarly averaged 20000.In Lous spell it was about 16000 so the fall in attendances has now shown that ground extensions and we are a big club is bollocks.We need to except what we are and not what we never will be. Where do you get your 8% figure from? I reckon it is way, way off. If (just as an example) we typically have 20,000 season ticket holders and 2,500 pay on the day fans that does not mean we only have 22,500 fans attending home games. Of the 20,000 season tickets many get lent to friends from time to time or are shared for the season between members of a family. So, the 20,000 season tickets are used at some point by, maybe, 25,000 people. Of the 2,500 pay on the day tickets sold at a typical game, that is not 2,500 fans who attend matches - it is more likely to be 10,0000 fans who go to the occasional match. Some may go to one or two matches a season and others maybe ten matches a season. So our 20,000 season tickets and 2,500 pay on the day tickets probably represents 35,000 fans - maybe more. A couple of seasons ago, Tony Scholes was quoted as saying that we had been watched by some ridiculous figure of individual people. I remember it as being close to 300,000 different people who had bought tickets, in Stoke areas of the ground, to watch a game in that season. I may be wrong but it was definitely in the 100's of thousands and represented a very significant proportion of the population of Stoke-on-Trent. Farmer - We are far from a one club city and Vale have a significant number of fans, albeit infrequent attendees, that would erode some of our local supporter base. We also have Wolves who were a Staffordshire club before the boundaries were re-drawn and highly successful teams very close to us in the likes of Liverpool, Manchester United, Everton and even Derby from the 70's. Why you wish to decry our support, which has held up remarkably well in all honesty, is beyond me. |
|
|
|
Post by Sergeant Muttley on Sept 11, 2013 12:05:50 GMT
Derby have a population of just over 248,000 and average crowds are around 22,000 so i'd say most cities/towns have around the same % watching their clubs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stretfordpotterer on Sept 11, 2013 12:08:57 GMT
2011 census had the Stoke-on-Trent population at 249,000 That is irrelevant - it is the catchment area which is important and that would include NUL and various outlying districts. Probably a catchment of 400k - 450k shared with the Vale and, to a lesser extent, Crewe. Then there are exiles like me. I have a round trip of 270 miles each home game but many others have even further to travel. 372000 including Newcastle and Kidsgrove |
|
|
|
Post by stokiejoeofalsager on Sept 11, 2013 12:09:33 GMT
out of that population, i'd say 30% don't like football and 15% support a top four club. as a guestimate of course. so that nearly halves the audience.
|
|
|
|
Post by Birchesheadpotter on Sept 11, 2013 12:48:04 GMT
We are a one club city fuck them up the road. In actual fact, we are the smallest City in England to have two football league teams. I'd argue that this has a little to do with our 'poor' numbers. |
|
|
|
Post by Beardy200 on Sept 11, 2013 12:52:51 GMT
Ooh another 'big club' thread. Exciting stuff.
|
|
|
|
Post by coupe on Sept 11, 2013 13:26:28 GMT
I have been watching Stoke since 1962 and we have always had a lot of floating supporters, under Waddo we could attract 42,000 one week and the next home game we would get 17,000.Also the Albion game mentioned where there was 4,000 locked out the attendance was 22,000 it was a autoglass midweek game and the club underestimated the interest of the fans from both sides.
|
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Sept 11, 2013 13:29:41 GMT
I have been watching Stoke since 1962 and we have always had a lot of floating supporters, under Waddo we could attract 42,000 one week and the next home game we would get 17,000.Also the Albion game mentioned where there was 4,000 locked out the attendance was 22,000 it was a autoglass midweek game and the club underestimated the interest of the fans from both sides. Actually mate, I'm thinking of the midweek league game in the season before we got promotion. Definitely wasn't the Autoglass game. It was the league fixture the season before that. If we won, we went top of the league having been on a great run prior to that. We ended up flunking promotion but that night game was a sell out with thousands locked outside. |
|
|
|
Post by Sergeant Muttley on Sept 11, 2013 13:33:07 GMT
I have been watching Stoke since 1962 and we have always had a lot of floating supporters, under Waddo we could attract 42,000 one week and the next home game we would get 17,000.Also the Albion game mentioned where there was 4,000 locked out the attendance was 22,000 it was a autoglass midweek game and the club underestimated the interest of the fans from both sides. Actually mate, I'm thinking of the midweek league game in the season before we got promotion. Definitely wasn't the Autoglass game. It was the league fixture the season before that. Had we won, we went top of the league having been on a great run prior to that. We ended up flunking it but that night game was a sell out with thousands locked outside. I thought we won that night match 1-0 dave the one your on about with Steino scoring? |
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Sept 11, 2013 13:35:51 GMT
Yes mate we did. I was meaning flunking promotion rather than the game itself.
Fine memories of a great night.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sergeant Muttley on Sept 11, 2013 13:37:52 GMT
Yes mate we did. I was meaning flunking promotion rather than the game itself. Fine memories of a great night. Ok mate crossed wires  but yes what a great night that was. |
|
|
|
Post by dbstoke on Sept 11, 2013 17:01:24 GMT
Only about 8% of Stoke on Trents population go to matches .The usual reasons rear there heads, price/membership cards/parking/its cold/no pubs/spent all me money on fags and beer.But we have never had high crows on a regular bascis.In the Waddo years we rarly averaged 20000.In Lous spell it was about 16000 so the fall in attendances has now shown that ground extensions and we are a big club is bollocks.We need to except what we are and not what we never will be. The blame in One word ........Kitson  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2013 17:27:30 GMT
The blame in One word ........Kitson back to your |
|
)
but yes what a great night that was.
