[Archived] Poll - Falling Attendances.

[RevidgeBlue]

Right! I pretty much agree with theno. I kind of see it in reverse though.

The merger club would play in the football league, and the identity of the merging clubs, Rovers and Burnley and/or Preston, would be maintained through reserve and junior football. All this would need the sanction of the FA of course.

The new club would alternate their playing venue, and either play with a strip that, within reason, incorporated enough of the color schemes of the merged club, or alternate strips as required.

This is not something new... it will be obvious that I am adopting the same model that is being used in Rugby League in Australia. I know it is not totally the same, but I can tell you that a lot of Balmain Tigers and Western Suburbs Magpies fans were dead against the West Tigers merger that happened about half a decade ago, citing the tradition of the clubs (the Tigers were a league founder club I think).

It's taken sometime for them to achieve success, but this season, they are on the cusp of making the Grand Final, which is of course the ultimate prize in Australia Rugby League if it is won. They are being universally lauded now, and a lot of fans have returned. It was the same for other merged clubs. They all still retain their individual identities in the reserve and youth leagues.

I will be called naive, but I see few reasons (there are some granted) why this wouldn't work in English football, especially for a relatively depressed areas such as parts of Lancashire.

Even if the existing supporters give up on the merger club, eventually, they will be replaced by younger, likely more affluent supporters. Also eventually, the merger club will have it's share of success. A new generation of kids will have a local team, one that mum and dad can reasonably take them to home games, that is successful. And that local team will be the local team for a large swath of Lancashire.

And what it's going to take to be the dominant partner of such an merger. Trading off some temporary success for long-term gain. It's the hardest thing to do any facet of life. I am not saying that it must happen. But I am saying that perhaps one of the best things that could happen right now is for business people, who by the nature of their game are the ultimate pragmatists, to identify a similarly workable scenario and take it out of the supporters hands.

After all, how many Manchester United fans expected their club would be owned by an American, and in millions of pounds of debt?

348207[/snapback]

That's the most ridiculous post I've ever seen on the subject. The new club has nothing whatsoever to do with the original one, and you're reliant on bypassing a generation of fans in the hope that you will be able to convert the next generation. You might as well just close the gates and turn off the lights now as adopt that type of approach.

Quite why it worked in Australia I'm not certain but then culture and tradition have never been the strongest points of Australian life.

This is a Blackburn Rovers messageboard. You should be thinking of ways to try and promote Blackburn Rovers rather than advocating the club be disbanded.

[Oklahoma]

Maybe I'm over simplifying (don't know if this word actually exists) but the solution for the fall in atendances in all Europe has to be made by UEFA and/or FIFA and it will have to concern this:

- the players wages and transfer fees, that are in a ridiculous high.

- protecting the attacking style of play.

- reducing the ticket price.

After that is solved, more people will go to see games.

[RevidgeBlue]

Also...

What if I said that all those that claim they will never support a merger club are being disingenuous? What if I said that human nature works quite contrary to such a claim.

There would nothing to be ashamed of for a Lancastrian from Blackburn supporting a club that played some of its' footy in Blackburn, and claimed to be the most representive football club for Lancashire.

It only will take a few of the supposed stay aways to figure that out. If any form of success is achieved, their Rovers supporting mates are hardly going to be able to maintain their protest against basking in the glory. They'll likely be mocked.

Similarily, there is an element of competition to it all too. Say the Preston fans are seen as "get behinding" LU more than Rovers fans. Well, when LU play at Ewood, there will be quite a few more fans determined to prove that Preston fans don't monpolise the support of the club.

It's all about what the fans really want. And that is success. In the long run, it is more likely to be achieved with a evolved club, in my opinion.

I'd be interested to hear peoples thoughts on this. How about you theno, is this your line of thinking too?

348217[/snapback]

Again total rollocks.

Why would anyone give a stuff about the bragging rights when and if LU play at Ewood Park or not? It's not their club.

I can't see any point whatsoever in supporting a new side such as LU on the off chance it might be more successful. It's no different whatsoever to deciding to switch allegiance to MU/Chelsea because it's the only way you can see some "success".

Shaddy if you're that bothered about us not winning things I suggest you bog off now and go and support one of the "big 3."

Stone me this is meant to be a Brfc messageboard for brfc fans. Talk about the enemy within.

Edited September 20, 2005 by RevidgeBlue

[Rovers_4_life]

Yesterday evening i asked the question:

How many season ticket holders do we have ?

Nobody has mentioned it so i ask again. Surely somebody knows.

Thanks

348210[/snapback]

Dunno the exact figure but the season ticket sales were 7% down on last years. I know thats not much help without any figures but thats as much as i know.

[stuwilky]

Dunno the exact figure but the season ticket sales were 7% down on last years. I know thats not much help without any figures but thats as much as i know.

348235[/snapback]

Lee said approx 12500 on the official MB.

[Shaddy]

That's the most ridiculous post I've ever seen on the subject. The new club has nothing whatsoever to do with the original one, and you're reliant on bypassing a generation of fans in the hope that you will be able to convert the next generation. You might as well just close the gates and turn off the lights now as adopt that type of approach.

Quite why it worked in Australia I'm not certain but then culture and tradition have never been the strongest points of Australian life.

This is a Blackburn Rovers messageboard. You should be thinking of ways to try and promote Blackburn Rovers rather than advocating the club be disbanded. 

348229[/snapback]

I didn't say that club should be disbanded. It just shares its' place in the professional football league with a partner club, as an off-shoot club. It maintains its' independant structure as a club, and fields its' own teams in the non-professional areas of football (such as reserves and youth teams). But both clubs have obligations to the merger club, or joint venture as it is also termed. That means sharing cost burdens, and splitting profits, as well as making juniors from respective localities of jurisdiction (Blackburn, Darwen, Preston, Burnley, etc...) available to play in the joint-ventures first team.

I love the Rovers, but admittedly, I am never going to be as hardcore being an Australian migrant son, who now lives in Taiwan and has only attended one game at Ewood. I can understand your reaction as a Blackburn native.

Again, turning to Australian Rugby League, when the game was experiencing trouble (including sharp decline in crowds), there were all sorts of mergers being touted. That included talk of my local team, the Bulldogs, who represent the Canterbury and Bankstown districts of Sydney, merging with one of a number of rival clubs.

Fortunately, it was highly improbable the Bulldogs would have to merge with a rival to have the sound economics that became a requirement of the revamped league. The Bulldogs are/were amongst the richest Rugby League clubs in Sydney.

The clubs with what some could say the most tradition, such as Manly, North Sydney, St. George, Balmain and Western Suburbs all bit the bullet and entered "joint-ventures". South Sydney fell by the wayside for a good few seasons until court action saw them re-instated.

For most of those clubs, they experienced the difficulties associated with a changing population demographic of their local market areas. The areas had become more affluent, ethnically diverse, and the population more detached from the working class roots of Rugby League in Sydney (in fact, Western Suburbs relocated two decades ago to what are now considered the real western suburbs of Sydney, Liverpool and Campledown, having originally described western areas of what is now considered inner city Sydney).

Now, I can't help but feel that Rovers are not in the same relative position of my RL team, the Bulldogs. In my evaluation, the club seem to be in a position more like one of the teams I listed as having merged. That's where I am coming from. I offer it as a case study.

Also, I am genuinely petrified of the consequence for Rovers the season that they drop out of the Premier League. It is surely a question of when not if for me.

In fact, it's not even only like that for me... there is no sure thing in this world. Who is to say that Rovers don't suddenly lose the safety net that is the Walker trust fund. What if the other business ventures covered by the trust start demanding a greater chunk of the trust money, and its' portion dries up?

Exactly how will Rovers recover? The club can't do like Leeds and agree some type of financing based on a full house at Ewood for X years. Who would Rovers be kidding then? The club finished 6th and the support declined and continued to do so.

Whilst I confess my support of Rovers isn't hardcore, I can promise you I could never cheer on any other club in England... other than a club that has been endorsed by the Rovers themselves. That's what I am on about.

But, don't worry Revidge. I hold no sway on matters at all anyway.

Edited September 20, 2005 by Shaddy

[Shaddy]

But, don't worry Revidge. I hold no sway on matters at all anyway.

348240[/snapback]

Oh, and one last point. I do have an alternative to all this. I mentioned it in a post a while back. The club needs to ignore segments of the fan base and downsize.

What would you prefer, a bunch of expensive foreign players earning x factor as much, playing the crap football being played now, or a bunch of local youngsters, perhaps playing similarly crap, but being a greatly reduced burden on the club in terms of wages.

Lee mentioned a no. of player contracts are up at the end of this season. Hopefully Bellamy can keep us up, and maitain his sell on value. IMO, the club should then look to replacing the out of contract squad members with as many internal recruits as possible. And barring that, whatever astute picks they can get on the cheap from across the football league.

They shold be looking at running operations somewhere between a premier league and championship club, by next season. They can no longer play games of risk against increased ticket sales, because it is not going to happen.

Edited September 20, 2005 by Shaddy

[MIROVER]

John Nicholson's Take

348174[/snapback]

Strip aggression, passion and strutting arrogance out of the game and you've got a negative, pish-poor, wet fart of a game.

Spot on article. Mirrors alot of my thoughts with all that is wrong with our beautiful game. It is becoming a game for puffs thus we end up with the drivel thats on offer now.

[RevidgeBlue]

I have to disagree with that as well. IMO the Club has to run itself in such a way as to try and snatch as much of the Premiership TV money as possible. We are never going to get comparable amounts of money from any other source.

I would agree that players are going to start to have to be signed on one year rolling deals or "Your pay goes down by 75% if we are relegated" type deals.

I don't suppose we will be any different from the other 16 non champions league clubs in that respect.

[sausagemandog]

Lee said approx 12500 on the official MB.

348236[/snapback]

Thanks

[thenodrog]

Stone me this is meant to be a Brfc messageboard for brfc fans. Talk about the enemy within.

348233[/snapback]

The enemy within are the apathetic ones Simon, not shaddy or I. They are the ones who cannot even be arsed enough to support the club never mind suggest solutions to our problems Simon.

[thenodrog]

That's the most ridiculous post I've ever seen on the subject.

348229[/snapback]

You are wrong there Rev. The following effort by cletus wins hands down.........

The main reason the Newcastle match had only 20725 on, was that it was 'live' on telly. To be honest, Newcastle`s fans were fantastic, even if they only brought 3-4000 with them (something Rovers wish they could muster). If the game wasn`t on telly, i bet they would have sold all 8000 on offer.

Lots of Rovers fans i`ve spoken to said they were going to watch it on telly instead of going down Ewood. My best mate 'jibbed out' & left me to brave it alone, cos "the game was an excuse for all his family to go to his parents, have Sunday lunch & watch the footy (about 6 regular Roverites  who stayed away there!)"...can`t say i blame them either! They had a better day than i did aswell! 

Rovers have simply got to slash the prices, soon...& BIG time!!

348163[/snapback]

Cletus you make a very valid point about TV saturation and then fcku it all up with your last sentence which simply seems to have been some sort of afterthought / parting shot! Totally illogical. You say your tribe would have gone if it hadn't been on the telly then you say the reason is because the prices are too high. Make your mind up.

[thenodrog]

Waggy is right on this one, either free or a token charge to cover administration and tickets and the like, say £1 per person or even, say £10 per order with no limit on the number of tickets.

348151[/snapback]

Tell you what and you two will have to agree with this. What about a sponsor a kid for a fiver? Just like people adopting animals at the zoo? Rather than pass the buck Stu why not get the club to start a scheme for supporters to go halves with the club by chucking a fiver in every fortnight to buy an empty seat for a kid who couldn't go otherwise?

To give you something extra to look forward to the seat number that you possess would be put in a hat and a draw made every week with the prize of watching a match from the directors box or an away trip for two on the players coach etc .

You'd never miss it, disadvantaged kids would be overjoyed, the club would actually make money and add new supporters.

Can I put your name down Stu?

Move over Beamo........... it's time for some fresh ideas.

[Billinge End Blue]

I was very impressed with the Geordie support on Sunday - the fact that many of them would've had copious quantities of ale prematch should not be ignored but how different was their approach and attitude to supporting at the game than 90% of our support.

The point I'm trying to make is that even if Rovers had somehow contrived to win, the majority of Geordies would've had a good day out... whereas we are stuck with a feeble supporting experience for all home supporters at Ewood (that said, they probably have a similar feeble supporting experience to us when at St James Park).

I'm not harking back to a halcyon era but the atmosphere generated by the 5000 gates of the mid eighties was vastly superior, even when the performances and results on the pitch were as poor as what we are seeing these days. It was possible to have fun, catch up with mates, songs and laughter even in defeat / adversity. After the third goal did anyone in the Blackburn End sing 'Oh if your going to Old Trafford, clap your hands....? Of course not. In the modern world football, not just Rovers, is less important to more people.

Now success seems to be the be all and end all. People decry boring tactics and I understand that but it shouldn't have become as significant as it has. The missing entertainment and social factor many people crave used to be largely self-generated by the fans.

The demographics of matchday attendance have changed drastically but there is still a need for a hardcore supporting experience, an outlet for youthful aggression off the pitch as well as on it (as per the football365 comment for players). This doesn't need to be entwined with the terracing debate but the club has to appeal to its former constituency many, many of whom are now watching the match (or any old match) live in the pubs.

[cletus]

Cletus you make a very valid point about TV saturation and then fcku it all up with your last sentence which simply seems to have been some sort of afterthought / parting shot! Totally illogical. You say your tribe would have gone if it hadn't been on the telly then you say the reason is because the prices are too high. Make your mind up.

Sorry Theno

I do tend to warble on abit.

Sundays game cost me £30 in all (& i`m off the beer at the moment!!)

My friend & his tribe decided to save the £120+ they would`ve spent on the game & instead opted to splash out £7 (or what-ever it was) to watch it on the box.

I`m sure many thousands of other Roverites & geordies did the same thing.

To compete with this cheaper (£7) option, Blackburn Rovers knew the game would be a lower attendance than normal, so why not slash the prices to get bums on seats? they`d still get their SKY money anyway.....& maybe sell a few more programmes, pies & beers.

[stuwilky]

Tell you what and you two will have to agree with this.  What about a sponsor a kid for a fiver?  Just like people adopting animals at the zoo?  Rather than pass the buck Stu why not get the club to start a scheme for supporters to go halves with the club by chucking a fiver in every fortnight to buy an empty seat for a kid who couldn't go otherwise? 

To give you something extra to look forward to the seat number that you possess would be put in a hat and a draw made every week with the prize of watching a match from the directors box or an away trip for two on the players coach etc .

You'd never miss it, disadvantaged kids would be overjoyed, the club would actually make money and add new supporters.

Can I put your name down Stu?

Move over Beamo........... it's time for some fresh ideas.

348274[/snapback]

Its an interesting idea tnd, I wont be putting my name down just yet, given that I am skint cos of paying for 2 full price adult season tickets already, and the fact that I am intended on getting my 4 year old to start to come to listen to daddy rant and rave on a saturday this season.

When one of his school friends wants to come I will gladly pay for it.

[bellamy11]

Whilst I'm not entirely sure whether or not it is meant in all seriousness, it is a decent idea, tnr.

Unfortunately, the problem would arise in that you are more likely to get sponsorships if the gate was larger (simply more people to offer it), and this is the problem in the first place.

All kids should be free, full stop. They can start paying round about age 12-14 (or rather be paid for). I'd imagine after a few years of free tickets, the child is rather decided on whether or not the life in the blue and white cloth is for him.

It is also absolutely definitely a problem that so many games are on TV. Fewer televised games = less TV revenue = less foreign "superstars" = more local lads = more heros?

[Manchester Blue]

TNR I'd go for the idea as well. I believe the children are our future, teach them well and let them lead the way.

Seriously though why not suggest it to the club?

[Neil Weaver]

Seriously though why not suggest it to the club?

348313[/snapback]

Would that be done via the ISA?

[AggyBlue]

The subject of falling gates in the Prem actually made News at Ten tonight, finally the message is getting through. The main cause is seen as Rip Off ticket prices.

I wonder if we'll get a refund on our season tickets if they put the match day prices down

Before I get my ear chewed off, the refund comment is tongue in cheek

[Exiled in Toronto]

I'm not sure how practical I think The drogs suggestion is, but even his most scathing critics must admit that the only two examples in recent times of a merger - Inverness Caledonian Thistle and Rushden & Diamonds - have been extremely successful. Both reached undreamt-of heights after mergers that were resisted by all four sets of fans.

Meanwhile, Dundee and Dundee United are nowhere.

[jim mk2]

I'm not sure how practical I think The drogs suggestion is, but even his most scathing critics must admit that the only two examples in recent times of a merger - Inverness Caledonian Thistle and Rushden & Diamonds - have been extremely successful. Both reached undreamt-of heights after mergers that were resisted by all four sets of fans.

348322[/snapback]

Not entirely correct.

Rushen and Diamonds are penniless and rapidly heading back to non-league football after Max Griggs, the owner (he of Dr Martens fame) sold the club for a nominal £1 to a supporters trust just to get the club off his hands.

There are many fans of the old Rushden Town and Irthlingborough Diamonds who want nothing to do with the merged club.

[s_simpson_9]

I havn't read the entirety of this thread so I apologise if it has been mentioned before.

I also brace myself for a hammering.

A suggested solution could be a salary cap of some sort.

I have no idea what you could set the salary cap at ... but just bear with me.

It could be staggered in this manner ...

Players raised in the "local area" do not count to the salary cap (so if we bring back Dunny his wages dont count). I accept that the definition of "local area" could have teething problems as to how far the local area extends. To hell with it. Lets say Lancashire/Yaaarkshire/etc. So any player raised in Lancashire doesn't count (irrespective of whether that player went through an academy of another Club).

Players who have played at a Club for more than say five years dont count. So if we bring back Barry Ferguson ... he plays here for six years, his wages count to the salary cap for the first five years (but dont count any year after that). Also, Brad's salary wont count given that he has been here for five years.

The combined wages of all other players at the Club must be less than X million pounds.

All contracts entered into from today's date must contain "salary cap" clauses. Therefore, if the club drops a league, the players wages are automatically docked to cater for the salary cap in the lower league.

The distribution of TV rights remains the same. That way the Club's get richer and sort out debt problems and the games will become closer as the impact of the salary cap winds in (it will take a few years).

Once everyone is on salary cap contracts and the debt is sorted, ticket prices can come down and the salary caps can be reviewed.

[thenodrog]

Not entirely correct.

Rushen and Diamonds are penniless and rapidly heading back to non-league football after Max Griggs, the owner (he of Dr Martens fame) sold the club for a nominal £1 to a supporters trust just to get the club off his hands.

There are many fans of the old Rushden Town and Irthlingborough Diamonds who want nothing to do with the merged club.

348328[/snapback]

Rushden population 26000 and Irthlingborough 7000! A combined population of 33000........ roughly equal to Accy's! 'Many fans' indeed! I know Wellingborough is close by but those two towns taken in isolation hardly have enough supporters to make a do in the conference let alone the professional ranks.

[Kremmin]

I havn't read the entirety of this thread so I apologise if it has been mentioned before.

I also brace myself for a hammering.

A suggested solution could be a salary cap of some sort. 

I have no idea what you could set the salary cap at ... but just bear with me.

It could be staggered in this manner ...

Players raised in the "local area" do not count to the salary cap (so if we bring back Dunny his wages dont count). I accept that the definition of "local area" could have teething problems as to how far the local area extends. To hell with it. Lets say Lancashire/Yaaarkshire/etc. So any player raised in Lancashire doesn't count (irrespective of whether that player went through an academy of another Club). 

Players who have played at a Club for more than say five years dont count. So if we bring back Barry Ferguson ... he plays here for six years, his wages count to the salary cap for the first five years (but dont count any year after that). Also, Brad's salary wont count given that he has been here for five years.

The combined wages of all other players at the Club must be less than X million pounds.

All contracts entered into from today's date must contain "salary cap" clauses. Therefore, if the club drops a league, the players wages are automatically docked to cater for the salary cap in the lower league.

The distribution of TV rights remains the same. That way the Club's get richer and sort out debt problems and the games will become closer as the impact of the salary cap winds in (it will take a few years).

Once everyone is on salary cap contracts and the debt is sorted, ticket prices can come down and the salary caps can be reviewed.

348329[/snapback]

Definitely on the right track ...

People will pay the money for entertainment.

The biggest problem with the league at the moment is that Chelsea is killing the game!

Now we'd all be laughing our socks off if it was us so good luck to them but you can't have a league that runs for nine months that's decided in six weeks.

They've bought the best players available at any cost and then stuck the next best ones in the cupboard.

No-one can compete with them and everyone else is playing for second.

I know it's been raised here before but salary caps and equalisation programs are the best way to make a league vibrant and exciting.

Exactly how you run it in the context of English football is another issue with promotion/relegation and the bigger picture of the Champions League.

But when you have a competition where everyone thinks they're a chance of winning it, you can charge what you like!

They will come.