Rovers' mouth piece - the LT

[jim mk2]

I remember a towards end of season game against Charlton circa 2002. We were going well, though not top 6, nice day, we won 1-0 thanks to a Duff goal.

Not many up fom London but there were more than 26,000 on Ewood IIRC. Cannot imagine that now. 

[philipl]

56 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

Nonsense again from Smith, we didn’t ‘lose 10,000 fans between 1995 and relegation in 99’ at all

Our average crowd on relegation was roughly the same as it was in the title winning season. Even in the second tier for two seasons until 2001 we averaged around 20,000. With average crowds back to title winning levels between 2001 and 2003.

Of course it will all be lapped up under the line on the LT website.

https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/16990084.there-is-a-new-rovers-to-support-simon-smith-column/?ref=mr&lp=12

 

I don't mind reading pieces by people I disagree with.

I do object to people who get easily checkable facts wrong and then developing extended arguments.

We all make mistakes but the Simon Smith column is just one big mistake.

[tomphil]

Opinion pieces easily mistaken as fact again.

Poor stuff from Mr Superfan.

[tomphil]

41 minutes ago, jim mk2 said:

I remember a towards end of season game against Charlton circa 2002. We were going well, though not top 6, nice day, we won 1-0 thanks to a Duff goal.

Not many up fom London but there were more than 26,000 on Ewood IIRC. Cannot imagine that now. 

Er....Oxford Utd ?

[jim mk2]

Just now, tomphil said:

Er....Oxford Utd ?

 

Que ??

Delving into the archives it was the 2002-03 season

2002/2003

Sat 12 Apr

Blackburn Rovers

1 - 0

Charlton Athletic

League

[philipl]

Charlton in 2002/3 was an ordinary game.

Oxford last season was £10 and a promotion to celebrate. Huddersfield with nearly 30,000 (I think) in 2000 was a closer parallel to Oxford.

I keep repeating that it is less than a decade since Rovers' average attendance was over 26,000 repeatedly. 

Edit- I was mistaken, we had two seasons (2009/10 and 2010/11) running at 25,000- see post with the table below.

Edited October 18, 2018 by philipl

[Mattyblue]

Not the case. Only once, 2009/2010 because of ‘Taking Back Ewood’ cheap STs.

In fact, that was our only average over 25,000 since 2003.

[philipl]

4 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

Not the case. Only once, 2009/2010 because of ‘Taking Back Ewood’ cheap STs.

In fact, that was our only average over 25,000 since 2003.

We are both wrong- I should have said 25,000 averages:

2010’s average: 18.484

2014-2015	14.912	Championship/Level 2
2013-2014	14.962	Championship/Level 2
2012-2013	14.997	Championship/Level 2
2011-2012	22.551	Premier League/Level 1
2010-2010	25.000	Premier League/Level 1

2000’s average: 24.019

2009-2010	25.428	Premier League/Level 1
2008-2009	23.479	Premier League/Level 1
2007-2008	23.944	Premier League/Level 1
2006-2007	21.675	Premier League/Level 1
2005-2006	21.015	Premier League/Level 1
2004-2005	22.315	Premier League/Level 1
2003-2004	24.376	Premier League/Level 1
2002-2003	26.225	Premier League/Level 1
2001-2002	25.976	Premier League/Level 1
2000-2001	20.740	Championship/Level 2

[tomphil]

Wasn't that Charlton match a tenner or something or maybe i'm mixing it up with another ?

Seem to think we played them in the second tier and they were being crowned champs and brought up a whopping 800 and the crowd was about 18k but that was normal prices.

Edited October 18, 2018 by tomphil

[philipl]

And going back in history courtesy: https://ewoodpark.jimdo.com/attendances-average-attendances-1888-2013/

1990's average: 20.337

1999-2000	19.253	Championship/Level 2
1998-1999	25.764	Premier League/Level 1
1997-1998	25.253	Premier League/Level 1
1996-1997	24.947	Premier League/Level 1
1995-1996	27.552	Premier League/Level 1
1994-1995	25.653	Premier League/Level 1
1993-1994	17.319	Premier League/Level 1
1992-1993	16.247	Premier League/Level 1
1991-1992	13.250	Division 2/Level 2
1990-1991	8.100	Division 2/Level 2

1980's average: 9.003

1989-1990	9.607	Division 2/Level 2
1988-1989	8.864	Division 2/Level 2
1987-1988	9.503	Division 2/Level 2
1986-1987	6.773	Division 2/Level 2
1985-1986	5.826	Division 2/Level 2
1984-1985	9.648	Division 2/Level 2
1983-1984	7.623	Division 2/Level 2
1982-1983	7.353	Division 2/Level 2
1981-1982	8.655	Division 2/Level 2
1980-1981	11.688	Division 2/Level 2

1970's average: 10.038

1979-1980	10.311	Division 3/Level 3
1978-1979	8.640	Division 2/Level 2
1977-1978	12.227	Division 2/Level 2
1976-1977	10.130	Division 2/Level 2
1975-1976	10.489	Division 2/Level 2
1974-1975	12.651	Division 3/Level 3
1973-1974	7.432	Division 3/Level 3
1972-1973	9.214	Division 3/Level 3
1971-1972	8.256	Division 3/Level 3
1970-1971	8.334	Division 2/Level 2

1960's average: 15.380

1969-1970	12.523	Division 2/Level 2
1968-1969	10.617	Division 2/Level 2
1967-1968	13.531	Division 2/Level 2
1966-1967	14.721	Division 2/Level 2
1965-1966	13.513	Division 1/Level 1
1964-1965	16.110	Division 1/Level 1
1963-1964	21.543	Division 1/Level 1
1962-1963	16.001	Division 1/Level 1
1961-1962	15.906	Division 1/Level 1
1960-1961	19.343	Division 1/Level 1

1950's average: 25.096

1959-1960	27.299	Division 1/Level 1
1958-1959	30.544	Division 1/Level 1
1957-1958	22.708	Division 2/Level 2
1956-1957	23.091	Division 2/Level 2
1955-1956	23.001	Division 2/Level 2
1954-1955	26.928	Division 2/Level 2
1953-1954	26.123	Division 2/Level 2
1952-1953	23.157	Division 2/Level 2
1951-1952	23.228	Division 2/Level 2
1950-1951	24.830	Division 2/Level 2

1940's average: 25.055

1949-1950	22.651	Division 2/Level 2
1948-1949	22.421	Division 2/Level 2
1947-1948	27.883	Division 1/Level 1
1946-1947	26.367	Division 1/Level 1
WORLD	WAR	TWO 1939-1945

 

[Mattyblue]

Not to be a stickler, but I’m correct, no?

 

Back to the point at hand, we actually had a bigger average in the relegation season than the title winning one.

Just sums up the tripe Smith comes out with.

Edited October 18, 2018 by Mattyblue

[jim mk2]

Point I was trying to make was the Charlton game was bit of a nothing match against unglamorous opponents yet we still had 26,000 plus on. Club was in a good place under Souness before he went into Col Kurtz mode and I don't know if there were any special offers that day but I doubt it. 

[JHRover]

2 hours ago, Mattyblue said:

Nonsense again from Smith, we didn’t ‘lose 10,000 fans between 1995 and relegation in 99’ at all

Our average crowd on relegation was roughly the same as it was in the title winning season. Even in the second tier for two seasons until 2001 we averaged around 20,000. With average crowds back to title winning levels between 2001 and 2003.

Of course it will all be lapped up under the line on the LT website.

https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/16990084.there-is-a-new-rovers-to-support-simon-smith-column/?ref=mr&lp=12

 

Difference is Matty you know the truth or if not you spend time researching the facts. The buffoons in the Telegraph have only been on the scene for the last few years and probably don't spend much time researching the truth or go back into the history books.

They're being naughty at the moment. In the absence of any discontent at results and performances they're stirring it up about numbers through the turnstiles. Meanwhile positivity galore in their Stanley columns. Don't recall much doom and gloom around Burnley's gates rarely breaking past 12,000 on their way to promotion or the rows of empty seats in the Premier League yet they're getting well stuck in to crowds at Rovers even though they have risen, albeit not as much as hoped.

 

[philipl]

Dingles currently averaging under 20,000 for Premier League games.

Stanley crawling away upwards from 1,xxx gates.

[bazza]

Has he got an amazing dancing bear?

[JBiz]

12 hours ago, Mattyblue said:

Nonsense again from Smith, we didn’t ‘lose 10,000 fans between 1995 and relegation in 99’ at all

Our average crowd on relegation was roughly the same as it was in the title winning season. Even in the second tier for two seasons until 2001 we averaged around 20,000. With average crowds back to title winning levels between 2001 and 2003.

Of course it will all be lapped up under the line on the LT website.

https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/16990084.there-is-a-new-rovers-to-support-simon-smith-column/?ref=mr&lp=12

 

I’m quite sure it’s just another opinion - maybe if the owner had built on our championship win instead of letting us slip the other way, maybe we’d have more fans?

I personally don’t agree with him on that, but i certainly do on the impact of the Rao’s. Starting to think Simon Smith ran off with the mrs though tbf, with a few posters wife’s looking at this thread.

[Mattyblue]

He said we lost 10,000 fans between 1995 and 1999, not that we failed to build on our success post 95. Damn right we messed up the second half of the 90s, but not the point he was making.

His point was the ground is so full of empty seats because we started losing fans from 95 onwards - categorically not true, in fact we had a higher average attendance than 1995 on numerous occasions until 2003 (including the relegation season itself) and again in 2009/2010.

Never met the bloke, he sounds like a committed fan himself, merely pointing out that he either exaggerates or simply spoutes untruths as the basis of his argument most weeks. Use Blue Eyed Boy as a comparison, folk might not always agree with his opinions, but he is a stickler for facts. If you aren’t going to research them, don’t just make them up to help support your piece.

‘Always had crap support have Rovers’, is the kind of shite I’ve often heard and inaccurate articles in the area’s paper just perpetuate such myths.

 

Edited October 18, 2018 by Mattyblue

[JBiz]

“The rudderless period between winning the Premiership and being relegated in 1999 cost Rovers 10,000 fans and the Steve Kean catastrophe 10,000 more.”

I don’t read that as a statistic more a statement of a chunk of support was lost/not built on, in fact I’m quite sure it’s meant to be interpreted as the success wasn’t built on since it’s in reference to building a 30k+ all seater, and it being empty. Just like statistically Kean didn’t lose us 10,000 fans but it felt like it soon after.

If there’s anything I could criticise about this weeks effort it’s; “Seeing the stadium brings back memories of better days and no doubt is not a happy place for some fans to be.”

Poorly worded, I think he missed “a full” before stadium. The final part is just a standard “you” and “your” club sentiment which I agree with but find a tad patronising if I’m honest.

Still - after two articles I feel less inclined to read because of quality, not some particular agenda towards agitating fans.

 

[47er]

Biz---that quote is simply UNTRUE. Its presented as a fact and its completely wrong.

[blueboy3333]

3 minutes ago, Biz said:

I don’t read that as a statistic

You wouldn't?but it quite clearly is. 

[JBiz]

8 hours ago, blueboy3333 said:

You wouldn't?but it quite clearly is. 

I’m not really bothered if people disagree it’s merely an opinion, turning this into “you wouldn’t” argument is hardly surprising when half of my point is many here simply cannot accept alternative opinions- some more vociferously than others judging by this thread.

Whilst a few of you enjoy finding something to froth at the mouth about, I’d prefer my reactions with a hint of tranquility. 

I mean - why on earth would I be utterly bemused at a rounded up statistic used to point out we went from full stadiums in 95 to less than 20k in the first season of the championship?

Especially considering the article is “light hearted” referencing scientists “regenerating” fantastic players of old to bring some fans from those era’s back!

It’s hardly a Henry Winter 5000 word piece on the changing demographics and fan base, is it? It’s not intended to be either - I’m sure you (BB) and other know this well - but what is life without someone or something to cathartically hate and moan about eh!

[Mattyblue]

But we rarely had a full stadium in 1994/1995, ergo an average crowd of 25,000, actually lower than the relegation season.

Then still 20,000 in the second tier, very respectable, then again averages higher than title winning support once back up in 2001.

Thats not a question of ‘rounding’ up decreasing numbers, but just competely wrong as our crowds actually INCREASED in the PL between 1998 and 2003 to levels higher than 1995.

Now what is correct is that Venky’s have lost us 10,000 ST holders. And for a bit of historical context, crowds also dropped substantially between Souness’ later period from about 2003 until the ‘Taking Back Ewood’ campaign of cheap STs in 2009 - quite apt considering the discussions re crowds, pricing etc going on currently.

I’m boring myself now but the facts are facts and I’m very protective of our reputation when it comes to this stuff and articles like that just don’t help.

Edited October 19, 2018 by Mattyblue

[47er]

10 minutes ago, Biz said:

I’m not really bothered if people disagree it’s merely an opinion, turning this into “you wouldn’t” argument is hardly surprising when half of my point is many here simply cannot accept alternative opinions- some more vociferously than others judging by this thread.

Whilst a few of you enjoy finding something to froth at the mouth about, I’d prefer my reactions with a hint of tranquility. 

I mean - why on earth would I be utterly bemused at a rounded up statistic used to point out we went from full stadiums in 95 to less than 20k in the first season of the championship?

Especially considering the article is “light hearted” referencing scientists “regenerating” fantastic players of old to bring some fans from those era’s back!

It’s hardly a Henry Winter 5000 word piece on the changing demographics and fan base, is it? It’s not intended to be either - I’m sure you (BB) and other know this well - but what is life without someone or something to cathartically hate and moan about eh!

"frothing at the mouth"---gross hyperbole.

Rest of it-----spin .You're shameless.

[K-Hod]

25 minutes ago, Biz said:

I’m not really bothered if people disagree it’s merely an opinion, turning this into “you wouldn’t” argument is hardly surprising when half of my point is many here simply cannot accept alternative opinions- some more vociferously than others judging by this thread.

Whilst a few of you enjoy finding something to froth at the mouth about, I’d prefer my reactions with a hint of tranquility. 

I mean - why on earth would I be utterly bemused at a rounded up statistic used to point out we went from full stadiums in 95 to less than 20k in the first season of the championship?

Especially considering the article is “light hearted” referencing scientists “regenerating” fantastic players of old to bring some fans from those era’s back!

It’s hardly a Henry Winter 5000 word piece on the changing demographics and fan base, is it? It’s not intended to be either - I’m sure you (BB) and other know this well - but what is life without someone or something to cathartically hate and moan about eh!

It's not an opinion that his facts are wrong though mate? Fact checking wouldn't even take him a minute on the internet......

Edited October 19, 2018 by K-Hod

[tomphil]

Club grew very rapidly in a short space of time 92-95 and obviously got to take into account the old Ewood was restricted capacity and still 4/5k in the old DE were for away fans. Never quite understood why they didn't make that half and half at the time because it was half empty most weeks in first Prem season yet rest of ground sold out.

We don't really know how many we could've got then and the whole new Ewood was only finished around when ? 94 is ?  So the growth continued on the back of the title winning success although obviously some crap seasons, managers, players and relegation dented it but Souness restored order and got people believing again until he predictably lost the plot.

They surprisingly dropped again under Hughes despite Bellamy, Savage etc and some good money being spent BUT guess what.....yeah they hiked the price of ST's etc in one big jump thinking it was a good time to do so.

It back fired big time..........