[Archived] Poll - Falling Attendances.

[thenodrog]

Along that lines, and we are talking direct at season ticket holders, one way to get the hovverers back is to introduce the free travel to one particular away game like they have in the past. I mean, Villa away this season could be the one where we could maybe guarantee a 3-4k following if free travel was offered for being a ST holder.

If people want to financially help BRFC then stuff free travel to away games and attending away games in general. Then simply spend the £50 that the awayday costs by taking a non attending mate(s) with you to home games or just spend the money in the club shop / blues bar etc.

Boring but true.

[Alan75]

It would be more productive to provide free transport to Ewood from North Lancs,

[Tris]

The bottom line is that there's too much football on television now and crowds are decreasing (partly) as a result.

The bottom line is that TV viewers dictate what the broadcasters and the pubs and bars show.

Despite the fact that Sky can show more live games than ever before, sports bars all over the country want to screen matches from NC+, AJ2 and the rest.

[Scotty]

The bottom line is that there's too much football on television now and crowds are decreasing (partly) as a result.

The bottom line is that TV viewers dictate what the broadcasters and the pubs and bars show.

Despite the fact that Sky can show more live games than ever before, sports bars all over the country want to screen matches from NC+, AJ2 and the rest.

Are you denying that crowds have been adversly affected by the amount of football on TV? If you are then you're wrong.

[Paul]

I think Tris is saying if there was no demand the football would not be broadcast. Fans PREFER to spend the cash on drink and watch the game in the pub which is a more worrying scenario than the simple "there's too much footie on TV"

Of course Scotty is right there is too much footie on TV but don't ignore the fact the media in all forms have killed the goose which laid the golden egg. We are bombarded by complete and utter tripe from TV, radio, internet and print. 99% of the detail is irrelevant or downright untrue. Couple this with the appalling standard of journalism applied in these media forms - for example the tabloids, Talk Sport, Century Sport etc. - and it's so obvious why many fans are turned off the beautiful game.

Five Live's excellent discussion programmes covering sport in general are often well worth the listen. The strange thing is those very same journalists who write rubbish in the tabloids have intelligent and articulate comments to make on the radio. Now I wonder what this says about Murdoch, his empire and other publishing organisations. Manipulation? Heaven forbid.

[dave birch]

I must be careful in what I say, but I agree entirely with your comments Paul.

It says a lot about the ethics of those that work for "him".

[MCMC1875]

I must be careful in what I say, but I agree entirely with your comments Paul.

It says a lot about the ethics of those that work for "him".

Has he been known to send the boys round?

[Paul]

Just as a little addition to my post above. Listening to Five Live's sports pages review this morning, and I loosely quote from both reports:

"The Sun is reporting Rio Ferdinand was ready to walk off the pitch against Spain. He went on to say it isn't the players decision but if Sven called us off I would have gone"

On Granada TV (10.30pm local news) Rio Ferdinand interviewed in the studio, on camera:

"Until I came off in the 63rd minute I was not really aware of the problem. I was sat on the bench looking around and thinking 'What is going on here?' The main trouble was coming from right behind our dugout"

We can conclude either:

1. Rio Ferdinand has given two conflicting interviews, in which case he is dishonest

2. The Sun prints untruths and is dishonest.

[dave birch]

MC, twas the "Murdoch" reference...... The black owner of the media

[Roaming Rover]

Maybe he just forgot Paul

[Tris]

The bottom line is that TV viewers dictate what the broadcasters and the pubs and bars show.

Are you denying that crowds have been adversly affected by the amount of football on TV? If you are then you're wrong.

You seem to have a very one dimensional repertoire when it comes to having a discussion about anything.

Like Manchester Blue in another thread, obviously I'm just "wrong" ... even though there is barely a link between what I posted and your "in yer face" reply.

Maybe - just maybe - there are other factors which influence attendance figures which are far more influential than having 138 live Premier League games on TV (this season) instead of 106 (last 3 seasons).

Edited November 19, 2004 by Tris

[Scotty]

The bottom line is that TV viewers dictate what the broadcasters and the pubs and bars show.

Are you denying that crowds have been adversly affected by the amount of football on TV? If you are then you're wrong.

You seem to have a very one dimensional repertoire when it comes to having a discussion about anything.

Like Manchester Blue in another thread, obviously I'm just "wrong" ... even though there is barely a link between what I posted and your "in yer face" reply.

Maybe - just maybe - there are other factors which influence attendance figures which are far more influential than having 138 live Premier League games on TV (this season) instead of 106 (last 3 seasons).

Of course there are other factors (which is why I put "partly" in brackets on my original statement) but, I'll ask again as you didn't answer, do you seriously believe that the amount of football now shown on TV is not adversely affecting attendances?

[Dan Furness]

Scotty I have to agree with you on that last point you made, however, I can think that we can safely add the current plight of our own team is a major factor in that as well. I mean, like waggy has said, His Polish friends would no doubt have jumped at the match tickets IF Rovers were say mid to upper placed in the league. As they are bottom, quite rightly they can watch the game for free and spend the entry money on 5 pints or more !

No matter what gimmick Rovers introduce to try and lure a better home attendance thee is always going to be problems whilst we languish at the foot of the table.

Along that lines, and we are talking direct at season ticket holders, one way to get the hovverers back is to introduce the free travel to one particular away game like they have in the past. I mean, Villa away this season could be the one where we could maybe guarantee a 3-4k following if free travel was offered for being a ST holder. I am sure that although its not the top attractive offer in the form of free coach travel, giving a little back may help the public to make that choice of getting a ST knowing that the club are actually making an alternative effort to luring the stay away fans back.

Why should the club foot free transport? Why should they lay it on a plate for everyone? They have done so in the past and we still didnt sell the f****g allocation given to us (Sheff Wed).

I never used to agree with peoples perception of BRFC fans, but I certainly do now. We are nothing more than fans who want things put on a plate, and too many whiners. 'Family club' as many of my Burnley mates call us, jesus I can even relate to that. classic example being when we played Burnley at Ewood, quite rightly I was fired up for this, having a few beers early on to get the energy flowing and looking forward to my first derby at Ewood ever. No Nay Never fills the Blackburn End, me giving my season ticket up to sit with the g/f, sits in the Riverside, where I am promptly asked to 'sit down' to the song by people 'who have sat there a very long time'.

What the?

Really does amaze me sometimes just how fickle our fans are (not all but a good majority). Same again at PNE pre-season, I even turned to our own 'fans' and sung 'YOUR SUPPOSED TO BE AWAY'

I just think asking for free transport is another ######-take from fans who have been spoonfed since the Walker era (myself included but I still wouldnt expect the club to bend over backwards for me)

good idea 1864, but I just dont see why they should bother. They knock tickets down to a tenner, people still complain and vote with their feet and still dont go. Id give my right arm to be able to go every single game, i cant this season.

BRFC - Only club where 'Corporate Fans' sit in the stand

rant over

[3rdpillar]

The sad state of football is that every club needs its fairweather supporters. So no matter how much those of us who would stick with the club through thick and thin dislike them, the club really needs to go out and win them back.

"fairweather supporters", Definition: supporters that cant justify the spiraling costs of attending matches with the enjoyment of spending their 'hard earned' on something/anything else.

[luxor]

Try the following:-

Own Goal! How Egotism and Greed Are Destroying Football, Simon Freeman

Broken Dreams: Vanity, Greed and the Souring of British Football, Tom Bower

[Tris]

I'll ask again as you didn't answer, do you seriously believe that the amount of football now shown on TV is not adversely affecting attendances?

No - the amount of football shown live on TV is not adversely affecting attendances. Happy ?

Over the last ten years, the number of live TV games on all channels and in all competitions has grown and grown.

As there have been more and more games live on TV, the number of fans going to games has risen and risen, which makes a total hash of your misguided theory.

Total average attendance (Prem, Div1, Div2 and Div3) has gone like this :

1994/5 44,071

1995/6 48,104

1996/7 50,095

1997/8 53,889

1998/9 55,574

1999/0 55,532

2000/1 57,496

2001/2 61,290

2002/3 62,402

2003/4 63,809

Now if - based on one third of the current season - you want to start pontificating that the addition of ONE live PL game per week since this season started has caused that figure of 63,809 to disintegrate, then not only are you "wrong" - you're just plain stupid

A.) because it hasn't disintegrated. and B.) beacuse a 10 year trend backed up by hard facts and figures is far more reliable than a few saddos having a dig at tosser Murdoch after 10 weeks of one season.

Edited November 20, 2004 by Tris

[philipl]

Sorry Tris, what are those numbers?

An addition of he four average attendances for Divs 1 to 4?

[waggy]

tris must be a spin doctor or bloody ###### when he wrote those figures,i reckon every footie fan [apart from tris] knows football on tv has hit saturation point.

i used to look forward to seeing,pne/preston/blackpool/burnley on tv,i could not even be bothered turning the telly over last night.jack frost or pne!

this weekend there will be something like 7- 10 games on tv,far too many.i will watch one today and that will most probably be the rugger

[Manchester Blue]

Waggy you are arguing a completely separate point to the one Tris is making. Has football on tv reached saturation point? Quite possibly but Tris is arguing that you can't blame football on TV for any perceived drop int crowds at the games. As those figures show for 10 years it has no effect so you've got to look at other areas before pointing the finger.

[Tris]

Sorry Tris, what are those numbers?

An addition of he four average attendances for Divs 1 to 4?

English Football League attendances - link

Waggy, as MB says this wasn't really about how many games are on and whether or not TV viewers choose to watch them.

However I would just point to two things which suggest there is plenty of demand for live football.

Sky - despite having the right to show 138 PL games and goodness knows how many CocaCola League games ... they still chose to do a deal with the Conference to show 15 games from the 5th level of the pyramid this season.

And despite the saturation coverage of the Champions League on Tues and Weds night, Channel 5 and ITV2 are still scrapping for Thursday night viewers by going head to head with Boro and Newcastle UEFA cup games.

So although Waggy you may be happier to be watching jack frost and some dodgy egg chasing, but it seems many people just can't get enough of the beautiful game on the box.

I guess Rovers fans will be quicker than most to blame TV for crowd decline, because our crowds have been worst hit.

[Scotty]

I'll ask again as you didn't answer, do you seriously believe that the amount of football now shown on TV is not adversely affecting attendances?

No - the amount of football shown live on TV is not adversely affecting attendances. Happy ?

Over the last ten years, the number of live TV games on all channels and in all competitions has grown and grown.

As there have been more and more games live on TV, the number of fans going to games has risen and risen, which makes a total hash of your misguided theory.

Total average attendance (Prem, Div1, Div2 and Div3) has gone like this :

1994/5 44,071

1995/6 48,104

1996/7 50,095

1997/8 53,889

1998/9 55,574

1999/0 55,532

2000/1 57,496

2001/2 61,290

2002/3 62,402

2003/4 63,809

Now if - based on one third of the current season - you want to start pontificating that the addition of ONE live PL game per week since this season started has caused that figure of 63,809 to disintegrate, then not only are you "wrong" - you're just plain stupid

A.) because it hasn't disintegrated. and B.) beacuse a 10 year trend backed up by hard facts and figures is far more reliable than a few saddos having a dig at tosser Murdoch after 10 weeks of one season.

These articles seem to disagree with you Tris.

Empty Seats - who cares?

Big Turn Off

The game that ate itself

Most of them have been posted on here before but, as you must not have read them, I'll post them again.

Your argument above includes attendance figures for the Coca-Cola Leagues, where football is more affordable and less of it is shown on TV. So their crowds are up. If you just deal with The Premiership though crowds are clearly down and the amount of football shown on TV, along with the associated strange kick-off times, is a major factor. You seem to be the only one who can't see that.

[Tris]

Most of them have been posted on here before but, as you must not have read them, I'll post them again.

Your argument above includes attendance figures for the Coca-Cola Leagues, where football is more affordable and less of it is shown on TV.  So their crowds are up.  If you just deal with The Premiership though crowds are clearly down and the amount of football shown on TV, along with the associated strange kick-off times, is a major factor.  You seem to be the only one who can't see that.

You're so kind, however I've read them all already.

I can't believe you can only refer to the Observer to defend your erroneous point of view. That paper has been anti-Sky and anti-Murdoch since the year dot. Opinionated articles from a biased source do nothing to back up your stance.

As you think the figures quoted above, for attendance across the 4 leagues aren't valid in this discussion, then let's take the PL on its own.

1994/5 24,294

1995/6 27,570

1996/7 28,463

1997/8 29,141

1998/9 30,586

1999/0 30,757

2000/1 32,906

2001/2 34,450

2002/3 35,462

2003/4 35,020

Those figures have blossomed despite early and late Sunday kick offs, Monday night football and with each new contract, more Sky games.

This season, the average figure so far (according to ESPN) stands at 33,609.

The logical way to explain that fall is :

OUT Leeds 32,622 IN WBA 25,638

OUT Wolves 30,983 IN Palace 23,914

OUT Leicester 28,874 IN Norwich 23,819

However, you're clearly not doing logic, so I'd suggest that cost of tickets is why crowds have fallen, and games on TV have **** all to do with it.

Edited November 20, 2004 by Tris

[Scotty]

The last article I linked in my previous post - entitled The Game That Ate Itself - shows that there is more to the decline in Premiership crowds this season than just the difference between the promoted and relegated teams' crowds. The Observer's perceived bias has nothing to do with it.

This season is the first with the new TV deal. The new TV deal means there are more early and late kick-offs than before, and there is now the chance for Sky viewers to watch extended highlights of every Premiership game, something that has never been available before.

Time will tell whether the current decline in Premiership crowds is just a blip or something more serious. Personally, I think it's the latter. I agree with you that cost is by far the main factor for this decline however, I also think that people would be more inclined to pay the current prices if they didn't have the chance to watch most of the game on TV.

I can only speak for myself, but the only Rovers league games I tend not to go to these days are the away games that are on TV. I simply can't justify spending the money when I can watch the game anyway. I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking that, and I'd say I'm one of the more committed fans.

I also agree with some of the previous posters who say they are bored with the amount of football on tv. I used to watch virtually every live game that was shown on tv, now I probably only watch 1 or 2 a week. Even then I often find myself switching channels halfway through because I've lost interest.

There are a number of things wrong in the game at the moment. Champions League money, league uncompetitiveness, cost of tickets, players behaviour etc are all causing people to lose interest in the game at the highest level. I'd say that too much football on TV is another reason. Not the main one, but it's certainly a factor.

[Tris]

I think your last post is much more reasonable than what you put forward earlier.

And in this context it's a good moment to drag a couple of paragraphs out of the Observer articles you've referred to, for the benefit of those who are slating Sky for all the ills in the game (hello Paul )

It is important to remember that the extra 32 live games were forced on a reluctant Premier League by a European Commission that at one point wanted every Premiership match available, as it happened, to armchair viewers, even though there is no demand for such a radical change. The result: more is less. The quality of Premiership fixtures being screened live is being sacrificed to satisfy Brussels' insistence on a greater quantity of them.

Every game in Serie A is available on pay-per-view and fans - 'consumers' would be a better word - prefer not to watch at the stadium. Last week's midweek games drew an average of little more than 20,000 - lower than the English figure back in 1992, the season before the Premiership began

France has had every top level league game available live on multichannel TV for several years now. However the French league went that way because attendances at grounds have always been rubbish, and making every game available was a way of increasing revenue rather than threatening it.

I was living in France at the start of that TV contract. I flew back regularly to see the Rovers in Division 1 ... and for the cost of each trip back I could have paid for a season ticket at Nancy, my local team in France, who were in the top division at the time.

Back to the main issue - TV. No-one has to subscribe to Sky, and no-one has to watch football on TV. Clearly enough people do both to make this debate somewhat irrelevant.

Because when push comes to shove, financially it would be better for Rovers to play in the Premier League in front of 10 fans at Ewood than in the lower division in front of 10,000.

[American]

Even then I often find myself switching channels halfway through because I've lost interest.

There are a number of things wrong in the game at the moment. Champions League money, league uncompetitiveness, cost of tickets, players behaviour etc are all causing people to lose interest in the game at the highest level. I'd say that too much football on TV is another reason. Not the main one, but it's certainly a factor.

Ever think you're probably losing interest because the quality isn't as good any more? The Prem is becoming like it's neighboring league up north and the people see that. A few good teams, and the rest just fighting to stay up (and yes, I know you put that as a factor, but to me it's becoming the biggest factor). I don't watch as many matches myself anymore just because most of the matchups don't interest me. Even the third most entertaining match I saw this year (Norwich-Everton), I just stumbled upon because nothing else was on. The first 2 I'd have watched anyhow, #1 was Spurs-Arsenal, and #2 was Rovers-Liverpool.

And for an American perspective, last season I was able to watch almost every ice hockey game played in the NHL if I wanted to and I watched more than I ever have. They have packages like that for every major sport now and a lot of our sport's attendances are growing and hitting all time highs.