Non League Matters - The Continuation of Tonys english Football Site 



  Main Index MAIN
INDEX
Search Posts SEARCH
POSTS
Who's Online WHO'S
ONLINE
Log in LOG
IN

Home: Non-League Football Discussion: Restructuring Discussion:
ATTENDANCES

 

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All


brianpoole
Junior Team Sub


May 9, 2011, 11:55 AM

Posts: 19
Location: Morecambe
Team(s):

Post #1 of 33 (3572 views)
Shortcut
ATTENDANCES Can't Post or Reply Privately

As I have said elsewhere, I have been shocked at the poor crowds at even the highest levels of the pyramid!

What do people think about a minimum average home attendance qualification for promotion up the pyramid alongside the usual ground grading rules?
Say, 100 for promotion from Step 5 to Step 4; 250 for Step 4 to Step 3; 500 for Step 3 to Step 2; and 1,000 for Step 2 to Step1.
My suggested figures are debatable of course but the general premise that only those clubs that can attract a decent level of support from their local communities (rather than "sugar daddies" for example) should be worthy of promotion is surely the way forward for the future. Isn't it?


(This post was edited by brianpoole on May 9, 2011, 11:57 AM)


cope1
Man City Transfer Target!

May 9, 2011, 1:45 PM

Posts: 7281
Location:
Team(s):

Post #2 of 33 (3493 views)
Shortcut
Re: [brianpoole] ATTENDANCES [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

It's an interesting idea, but I'm not sure if I agree with it. I think it might be better to impose limits on what amount of money investors can pump into a club. Otherwise a well run club which has defied all the odds will be denied which isn't right. I do agree though, that clubs hurtling up the divisions on the back of a sugar daddy do no one much good, and therefore certain restrictions should be imposed at some stage.


Mishi
Man City Transfer Target!

May 9, 2011, 1:54 PM

Posts: 6950
Location: South East London.
Team(s): Dulwich Hamlet

Post #3 of 33 (3477 views)
Shortcut
Re: [cope1] ATTENDANCES [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

So what happens when you have a run of,say, five home games in quick succession, due to playing 'catch up' as a reslut of bad weather & cup ties causing postponements? Suddenly people can't afford to go to every game, starting pick & choose their matches due to lack of funds.

Do you sudden impose automatic demotion on a club whose crwods drop below your threshold?

And how do you quantify 'gates'? Season ticket holders included? I'll just give 300 season tickets out to the local primary school. Sorted. Staying up.

Call me old fashioned if you like, but as much as I hate the likes of the Notreally-Police going up, with their promotion party being 88 people, including Merstham fans, that's not a reason to keep them down.

Likewise, sugardaddies. If I won the double rollover on the National Lottery & suddenly became a multi-millionaire I would put money into the Club I've supported all my life.



Grounds visited: 745
Last new ground:Horsham FC; The Camping World Community Stadium, Horsham, West Sussex. (Isthmian League Premier Division)
Last game: Saturday 21st September 2019: Dulwich Hamlet 6, Bognor Regis Town 1. [ FA Cup 2nd qualifying round]
Matches watched this season: 46
2017/18-New English grounds: 7 & foreign: 0




Moorsider
First Team Star


May 9, 2011, 2:10 PM

Posts: 2115
Location: Boroughbridge N Yorks
Team(s): Kirkbymoorside (Wearside League)

Post #4 of 33 (3456 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Mishi] ATTENDANCES [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

The idea has some merit but to do it strictly on attendances alone could cause problems. As someone has already mentioned handing out tickets to local primary schools to boost the numbers could be done to ensure promotion. Surely a clubs finances are inspected to ensure a viable cash flow is in place to sustain life at a higher level before promotion is allowed ?


acmold
Man City Transfer Target!

May 9, 2011, 2:21 PM

Posts: 14497
Location:
Team(s):

Post #5 of 33 (3446 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Moorsider] ATTENDANCES [In reply to] Can't Post or

And you only have to read the posts in "where have you been" to see that "headcounts" in many cases come out way below the offical attendances figures recorded on league websites.


I can think of one football league club who very rarely (if ever) have anywhere near the number of fans in the ground they claim, they us the "Mishi" method by handing out wads of free tickets to youngsters - who don't turn up !.


cope1
Man City Transfer Target!

May 9, 2011, 2:39 PM

Posts: 7281
Location:
Team(s):

Post #6 of 33 (3436 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Mishi] ATTENDANCES [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

I'm sure things like temporary dips in attendances could be catered for. Either you could take the average over a number of years (say 3 years) or you just make sure it's at the low end, meaning you rule out only those who have no chance at all of surviving. Similarly, how to calculate it is isn't really an issue. You just decide who it includes. The same goes for clubs dropping below the threshold. If you drop below over a number of years then you're not just having a bad spell, you haven't got the fanbase.

As for winning the lottery, if I did I'd pump it into SAL clubs. If I pumped it into Boreham Wood that would enable them to develop facilities and hopefully attract more fans. If the fans didn't come then so be it - they'd have to stay where they are.

All that aside, I would prefer restrictions on 'investment' in the first place, like I say.


UKPunk
Man City Transfer Target!

May 9, 2011, 2:53 PM

Posts: 11786
Location:
Team(s):

Post #7 of 33 (3427 views)
Shortcut
Re: [cope1] ATTENDANCES [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

The size of the attendance often has little bearing on how a club is likely to perform at a given level. As an example, Spurs made a profit last season despite having a capacity of less than 37,000 at the Lane. Other clubs with much higher capacities made a loss. So I don't think average attendances should have any bearing on whether a club is allowed promotion or not. If a club is run properly they should be rewarded rather than penalised.

It would be far more constructive to have a rule whereby clubs are not allowed to get beyond a certain level of debt without incurring points deductions. The more debt, the more points you lose. But I expect that would fall foul of some EU law. Crazy



1-0-1-0-4-25-40-65-181-289=606

Last game: Mon 20/8/18
4. Basford United 1 Hednesford Town 2


brianpoole
Junior Team Sub


May 9, 2011, 3:12 PM

Posts: 19
Location: Morecambe
Team(s):

Post #8 of 33 (3408 views)
Shortcut
Re: [UKPunk] ATTENDANCES [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

I agree with cope1 and UKPunk about rules and restrictions on investment and debt levels but they are separate issues and should be addressed irrespective of my notion about promotion!

Mishi is right too, it could be 'average' gates over a specified period to allow for postonements and other unforeseen circumstances.

As for 'give-away' tickets, clubs would have to demonstrate that their average attendance figures only included paying customers in just the same way as they submit accounts and demonstrate financial competence and viablity.

The idea is intended to show clubs' involvement in their communities just as the FA Charter awards do.


casualobserver
Youth Team Sub


May 9, 2011, 4:32 PM

Posts: 138
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Team(s): Richmond Football Club, Heart of Midlothian

Post #9 of 33 (3366 views)
Shortcut
Re: [acmold] ATTENDANCES [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately


In Reply To
I can think of one football league club who very rarely (if ever) have anywhere near the number of fans in the ground they claim, they us the "Mishi" method by handing out wads of free tickets to youngsters - who don't turn up !.


I think I know which club you mean - do they play in Buckinghamshire by any chance? Mad


(This post was edited by casualobserver on May 9, 2011, 4:34 PM)


Mister TwoU
First Team Star


May 9, 2011, 5:26 PM

Posts: 2492
Location: Malvern exile.
Team(s): Malvern Town F,C,

Post #10 of 33 (3325 views)
Shortcut
Re: [casualobserver] ATTENDANCES [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

I think the only way to factor something like this in would be to insist upon a 'bond' being deposited in escrow by each team, the amount of each bond calculated to cover each team's operational expenses for the season ahead.
The successful deposit of the bond would allow the team to be issued a 'licence' to play for the coming season at specified level.

Naturally, you'd expect very many teams to be 'weeded out' upon implementation of this system, being demoted down to a less rigorous series of competitions. However, as soon as they are able to meet a bond in successive seasons, the licences should be granted and the licenced league slowly expanded to accommodate them.



Professional cretin.


jimmyjazz
Chelsea Transfer Target


May 9, 2011, 5:29 PM

Posts: 3397
Location: Milton Keynes
Team(s):

Post #11 of 33 (3322 views)
Shortcut
Re: [acmold] ATTENDANCES [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately


In Reply To


I can think of one football league club who very rarely (if ever) have anywhere near the number of fans in the ground they claim, they us the "Mishi" method by handing out wads of free tickets to youngsters - who don't turn up !.


I wonder who that could be. Cool


Richard Rundle
Man City Transfer Target!

May 9, 2011, 5:54 PM

Posts: 8469
Location:
Team(s):

Post #12 of 33 (3299 views)
Shortcut
Re: [casualobserver] ATTENDANCES [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately


In Reply To

In Reply To
I can think of one football league club who very rarely (if ever) have anywhere near the number of fans in the ground they claim, they us the "Mishi" method by handing out wads of free tickets to youngsters - who don't turn up !.


I think I know which club you mean - do they play in Buckinghamshire by any chance? Mad


Or more likely, do they play in darkish green and have had 10 points deducted?


leohoenig
Administrator

May 9, 2011, 6:23 PM

Posts: 13552
Location: Outer Cheltenhamshire
Team(s): Cheltenham Town

Post #13 of 33 (3276 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Richard Rundle] ATTENDANCES [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

Or are we talking about a Yorkshire side who has sold a large number of cheap season tickets, and will always include them in their attendance figures wether they attend or not.
(Of course, the same happens to my favourite team in Cheltenhamshire, but the numbers are much smaller)



Fat AND Pompous.
The proof that you can have too much of a good thing
Now blogging at http://www.leohoenig.com



jrev61
Man City Transfer Target!

May 9, 2011, 6:58 PM

Posts: 7909
Location: Northampton
Team(s): None

Post #14 of 33 (3252 views)
Shortcut
Re: [UKPunk] ATTENDANCES [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately


In Reply To
The size of the attendance often has little bearing on how a club is likely to perform at a given level. As an example, Spurs made a profit last season despite having a capacity of less than 37,000 at the Lane. Other clubs with much higher capacities made a loss. So I don't think average attendances should have any bearing on whether a club is allowed promotion or not. If a club is run properly they should be rewarded rather than penalised.

It would be far more constructive to have a rule whereby clubs are not allowed to get beyond a certain level of debt without incurring points deductions. The more debt, the more points you lose. But I expect that would fall foul of some EU law. Crazy

Great idea. Say a point deducted for every 10 million pounds of debt.
Manchester United minus 60 points every season.Smile



jrev61


Andrelux
First Team Regular

May 9, 2011, 7:26 PM

Posts: 1213
Location: Luxembourg
Team(s): Brentford (for my sins - obviously done something really bad in a past life

Post #15 of 33 (3233 views)
Shortcut
Re: [leohoenig] ATTENDANCES [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately


In Reply To
Or are we talking about a Yorkshire side who has sold a large number of cheap season tickets, and will always include them in their attendance figures wether they attend or not.
(Of course, the same happens to my favourite team in Cheltenhamshire, but the numbers are much smaller)

Generally speaking, that's a trick most clubs pull. You tend to notice it most where cup games are not included in the season ticket. Then watch the attendance figures go through the floor. But then (and here's the cynic in me) I've always felt that attendances for cup matches have been under-reported. Before the days when there were large numbers of season ticket holders, you could guess the attendance at Brentford matches to within 500 - i.e. 10% - simply by looking at the queues to get in, which corners were filled or weren't, how long it took you to get a burger or have a slash at half time... but generally speaking, you weren't far off the mark. About 6000 in today, you'd think, and then the crowd was announced as 5,900 and something. But then when there were cup matches, all bets were off. Blimey, must be at least 8000 in today, you'd think to yourself, then the official crowd was announced as 6,237. Nothing to do with how the pot of receipts needed to be divvied up, obviously.


deviousbadger
Junior Team Sub


May 9, 2011, 9:08 PM

Posts: 28
Location: People's Republic of South Hornchurch
Team(s): Southend United, Billericay Town, Corinthian-Casuals

Post #16 of 33 (3176 views)
Shortcut
Re: [brianpoole] ATTENDANCES [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately


In Reply To
As I have said elsewhere, I have been shocked at the poor crowds at even the highest levels of the pyramid!

What do people think about a minimum average home attendance qualification for promotion up the pyramid alongside the usual ground grading rules?
Say, 100 for promotion from Step 5 to Step 4; 250 for Step 4 to Step 3; 500 for Step 3 to Step 2; and 1,000 for Step 2 to Step1.
My suggested figures are debatable of course but the general premise that only those clubs that can attract a decent level of support from their local communities (rather than "sugar daddies" for example) should be worthy of promotion is surely the way forward for the future. Isn't it?


As people have already said, small clubs don't necessarily need to have a sugar daddy to rise up the leagues - plenty of lesser-supported teams have done it in the past without throwing money at the team by being generally well run and having a talented management team.

I think that denying promotion on the basis of attendance figures is unfair. What makes a well-supported team that finishes first on merit more worthy than a poorly supported village side finishing in the same position?

I've seen plenty of clubs in my area go pop because of sugar daddies - Hornchurch are a prime example - so I'm all for regulating this sort of behaviour. Keep attendance out of it though - leave the big-club-itis attitude to the premier league fans.


Veteran
Man City Transfer Target!

May 9, 2011, 11:38 PM

Posts: 6228
Location:
Team(s):

Post #17 of 33 (3110 views)
Shortcut
Re: [brianpoole] ATTENDANCES [In reply to] Can't Post or

This has got to be one of the most crackpot suggestions ever posted on here.

Apart from the difficulty auditing/verifying attendance figures, late season manipulation involving "rent a crowd" and the inevtable problem when a club loses support once it goes up and struggles, isn't it about time we got back to promoting and relegating clubs on the basis of how many POINTS they get by PLAYING. Some of the ground grading nonsense is bad enough, but to add this sort of thing would be lunacy.

What really needs to be addressed is why attendances are down. I think we all know the main reason - that wretched box in the corner of the living room and fans being constantly brainwashed into believing all the Premiershi* hype !

Sadly I don't know the answer, although one likes to think Sky going bust might help ......


buncranaboy
Qatar World Cup bid member!


May 10, 2011, 12:34 AM

Posts: 17971
Location: South Birmingham
Team(s): Barnstoneworth United; Bostock Stanley

Post #18 of 33 (3085 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Veteran] ATTENDANCES [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately


In Reply To

What really needs to be addressed is why attendances are down. I think we all know the main reason - that wretched box in the corner of the living room and fans being constantly brainwashed into believing all the Premiershi* hype !

Sadly I don't know the answer, although one likes to think Sky going bust might help ......



I disagree entirely. In fact I'm not sure attendances HAVE gone down following the introduction of Sky - at least at the top five levels. I'm sure someone will now come up with comparative attendance tables for the early nineties and today. Hopefully.

Below that, local fans are being priced out of the game by pie-in-the-sky admission charges for very average fare - many posters on here have seen top flight football on the continent for less that it costs to watch a level 8 game in England. I used to watch Kiddy Harriers often in midweek during the eighties and ninteies but buggered if I'm going to pay 14 or whatever for a routine revisit at that level of football. A tenner I might consider but, even then, not very often. Sky is much cheaper, actually. Tongue


acmold
Man City Transfer Target!

May 10, 2011, 9:54 AM

Posts: 14497
Location:
Team(s):

Post #19 of 33 (2998 views)
Shortcut
Re: [buncranaboy] ATTENDANCES [In reply to] Can't Post or

I think it's a bit of both, many so called "fans" now watch from their armchairs instead of getting off of their backsides. And clubs from the top of the Premiership down to step 5 have increased their prices way, way ahead of the inflation rate. Like Paddy many of my midweek revisits have been cut out due to the admission charges.


brianpoole
Junior Team Sub


May 10, 2011, 10:08 AM

Posts: 19
Location: Morecambe
Team(s):

Post #20 of 33 (2993 views)
Shortcut
Re: [acmold] ATTENDANCES [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

Thank you all for your, mostly constructive, observations.

I like jrev61's idea of a points deduction for debt. On a slidng scale relating it to level of debt would be best but difficult to prove!

My idea, deviousbadger (and others) is - I repeat - to demonstrate clubs' commitment to their communities.

As for veteran, whilst I agree with the notion that TV has been a pernicious influence on our national game, a view -clearly - shared by others, I don't much care for my suggestion being called "crackpot" or the implication about "lunacy"!


(This post was edited by brianpoole on May 10, 2011, 10:11 AM)


AdamKing
Junior Team Star


May 11, 2011, 9:53 PM

Posts: 105
Location: Gloucester Docks
Team(s): Arsenal, Gloucester City, Cambridge United

Post #21 of 33 (2769 views)
Shortcut
Re: [brianpoole] ATTENDANCES [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

I agree that attendances are a major problem in non-league. I went to see Studley at their Beehive ground a few years back and there were about 12 people in all there!

The problem is that non-league has no real appeal, bar the 'hardcore' element of fans who go week after week no matter what. People would rather waste hundreds of pounds each weekend going to watch the glamour sides such as Man Utd, Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool etc. at the expense of the club round the corner which could do with more fans coming through the turnstiles.

The only time you'll see fans 'latch' onto a club is when they're successful. Look at Tipton and Darlington this season - Tipton hardly get above 50 for home games, yet how many people went up to Carlisle to watch them in the FA Cup game at Brunton Park? Where did all the extra Darlington fans come from, when their team was at Wembley?

Give you an example - there are two girls at a bar, both single. One is overweight, frumpy and has more chins than China, the other is slim, blonde, sex on legs. Which one do you choose to ask out?

If non league isn't 'sexy' enough, it's not going to draw the crowds in. The problem then arises that clubs face a shortfall of cash and have to cut costs which knocks on to the coaching and playing staff - if they aren't being paid or only paid a pittance they'll be off.

As for the notion of a sugar daddy, well it's horses for courses in my view. Some clubs get lucky and others sadly don't. That's life. The better clubs will rise to the top, and the worst clubs will have to sweat nervously.

It would be great if there was a level playing field, but sadly that's unlikely to happen - different clubs can afford to pay more than others at the same level, so should you say there is only one amount of money per week that clubs can pay at Step 5/6 etc. What if, for example, a league is told to only pay 40 pppw (per player per week) and three of the clubs can't afford to pay it, whilst most of the others can afford it and three or four can easily afford it and bring in new players as well?

I agree that there should be stronger community ties with their local club, however you can take a horse (no I've not got a thing for horses..) to water but you can't make it drink. I'll never forget one lad in Gloucester, when I said 'it's a shame that most of the kids wear Man Utd shirts and not Gloucester ones.' The lad retorted 'well it's MY RIGHT to support who I want.'

Short of getting a third round home clash with the likes of Man Utd etc in the FA Cup, I'm not really sure how you can get people through the gates of their local clubs. A shame really, as we're fast becoming (if not already become) a 'sing when you're winning' nation.

If you read this all the way through, take a gold star... I really didn't intend this post to be like 'War and Peace.'



Your Talents Are The Wings Your Dreams Will Use To Fly


Andrelux
First Team Regular

May 11, 2011, 11:02 PM

Posts: 1213
Location: Luxembourg
Team(s): Brentford (for my sins - obviously done something really bad in a past life

Post #22 of 33 (2733 views)
Shortcut
Re: [AdamKing] ATTENDANCES [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately


In Reply To
Give you an example - there are two girls at a bar, both single. One is overweight, frumpy and has more chins than China, the other is slim, blonde, sex on legs. Which one do you choose to ask out?

Definitely the frumpy one first... then the gorgeous one. If you fail with no 2, there's always no 1 to fall back on.


buncranaboy
Qatar World Cup bid member!


May 12, 2011, 12:24 AM

Posts: 17971
Location: South Birmingham
Team(s): Barnstoneworth United; Bostock Stanley

Post #23 of 33 (2705 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Andrelux] ATTENDANCES [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately


In Reply To

In Reply To
Give you an example - there are two girls at a bar, both single. One is overweight, frumpy and has more chins than China, the other is slim, blonde, sex on legs. Which one do you choose to ask out?

Definitely the frumpy one first... then the gorgeous one. If you fail with no 2, there's always no 1 to fall back on.



Which one's most likely to be gagging?

Apart from you, that is..............


UKPunk
Man City Transfer Target!

May 12, 2011, 11:06 AM

Posts: 11786
Location:
Team(s):

Post #24 of 33 (2626 views)
Shortcut
Re: [buncranaboy] ATTENDANCES [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately


In Reply To

In Reply To

In Reply To
Give you an example - there are two girls at a bar, both single. One is overweight, frumpy and has more chins than China, the other is slim, blonde, sex on legs. Which one do you choose to ask out?

Definitely the frumpy one first... then the gorgeous one. If you fail with no 2, there's always no 1 to fall back on.

Which one's most likely to be gagging?

Apart from you, that is..............

Are you saying he's a big boy, Paddy? Wink



1-0-1-0-4-25-40-65-181-289=606

Last game: Mon 20/8/18
4. Basford United 1 Hednesford Town 2


brianpoole
Junior Team Sub


May 12, 2011, 3:11 PM

Posts: 19
Location: Morecambe
Team(s):

Post #25 of 33 (2536 views)
Shortcut
Re: [AdamKing] ATTENDANCES [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

Thanks you Adam.
Your loquaciousness in no way detacts from my argument about community involvement and rewarding clubs that attract genuinely greater numbers of paying customers!

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All
 
 


free hit counters

Search for (options) HOSTED BY SUMMIT SOCCER v.1.2.3