The Egg chasers relegation

[tmesis]

I enjoy both rugby and football. Just takes a broader mind set than many on here seem to possess.

Not really. It is perfectly permissible to be of the opinion that rugby is an infinitely less enjoyable spectacle than football. Imho, even the worst football matches tend to be more of an enjoyable and satisfying watch than the best rugby matches..

I'd disagree. A bad football match is painfully terrible due to so little of any interest happening. The low scoring, which is such a virtue in that it makes that scoring so much more important, becomes a curse when it looks like nobody is going to come close to scoring.

In higher scoring sports, the game will at least "tick over" generating some interest in the progression of the game. In contrast, a big win for one side is often a little boring, even for the winning side, whereas in a football match fans get excited by reaching those ever-rarer goal tallies.


I'll admit, I used to find rugby boring too. It wasn't until I went to a game in Bath four years ago, after a day out in the city, that I began to appreciate it. Watching a game at the Madejski isn't fun though, although that's more to do with how horrible the Madejski is with just 6500 there than the game itself.

[Old Biscuitman]

I enjoy both rugby and football. Just takes a broader mind set than many on here seem to possess.

Not really. It is perfectly permissible to be of the opinion that rugby is an infinitely less enjoyable spectacle than football. Imho, even the worst football matches tend to be more of an enjoyable and satisfying watch than the best rugby matches..

I'd disagree. A bad football match is painfully terrible due to so little of any interest happening. The low scoring, which is such a virtue in that it makes that scoring so much more important, becomes a curse when it looks like nobody is going to come close to scoring.

In higher scoring sports, the game will at least "tick over" generating some interest in the progression of the game. In contrast, a big win for one side is often a little boring, even for the winning side, whereas in a football match fans get excited by reaching those ever-rarer goal tallies.


I'll admit, I used to find rugby boring too. It wasn't until I went to a game in Bath four years ago, after a day out in the city, that I began to appreciate it. Watching a game at the Madejski isn't fun though, although that's more to do with how horrible the Madejski is with just 6500 there than the game itself.

[Old Biscuitman]

Not really. It is perfectly permissible to be of the opinion that rugby is an infinitely less enjoyable spectacle than football. Imho, even the worst football matches tend to be more of an enjoyable and satisfying watch than the best rugby matches..

I'd disagree. A bad football match is painfully terrible due to so little of any interest happening. The low scoring, which is such a virtue in that it makes that scoring so much more important, becomes a curse when it looks like nobody is going to come close to scoring.

In higher scoring sports, the game will at least "tick over" generating some interest in the progression of the game. In contrast, a big win for one side is often a little boring, even for the winning side, whereas in a football match fans get excited by reaching those ever-rarer goal tallies.


I'll admit, I used to find rugby boring too. It wasn't until I went to a game in Bath four years ago, after a day out in the city, that I began to appreciate it. Watching a game at the Madejski isn't fun though, although that's more to do with how horrible the Madejski is with just 6500 there than the game itself.

[Old Biscuitman]

I'd disagree. A bad football match is painfully terrible due to so little of any interest happening. The low scoring, which is such a virtue in that it makes that scoring so much more important, becomes a curse when it looks like nobody is going to come close to scoring.

In higher scoring sports, the game will at least "tick over" generating some interest in the progression of the game. In contrast, a big win for one side is often a little boring, even for the winning side, whereas in a football match fans get excited by reaching those ever-rarer goal tallies.


I'll admit, I used to find rugby boring too. It wasn't until I went to a game in Bath four years ago, after a day out in the city, that I began to appreciate it. Watching a game at the Madejski isn't fun though, although that's more to do with how horrible the Madejski is with just 6500 there than the game itself.

Of course it is permissible Mr FS. Our preferences are different thank goodness, but they overlap. For myself, sometimes I get bored to death with London Irish, but I do equally with Reading football. Then often the opposite. Vive la difference!

[tidus_mi2]

Irish lost 12-6 to Worcester, certainly not great for them but they got a losing bonus point, pretty much means it's a two horse race between themselves and Newcastle for relegation and they really need to beat Newcastle if they want to stay up.

[Barney]

Another massive crowd of 5000 at the Madstad today. Get rid of rugby asap.

[Nameless]

If we are using crowd size to decide who plays at the stadium it will be empty next season as we're hardly packing it out.
Still , just a dozen years or so before the LI contract is up....
How annoying will it be for you cavemen that the biggest crowd of the season may well be for a rugby match !

[Sutekh]

Probably wrong, but I have the impression that a 5000 turn out is generally good for rugby, even at the top level.

[Nameless]

I'd have thought the average in the Prem would be 12-15,00 but the averages are skewed by the number of big set piece games played at Twickenham and Wembley that drew very big crowds.
The likes of Leicesterand Wasps get very good crowds anyway, Leicester have 20,000 + STH

[sandman]

Probably wrong, but I have the impression that a 5000 turn out is generally good for rugby, even at the top level.

Seems pretty poor for a sport that is soo much better than that football thing.

[tmesis]

Probably wrong, but I have the impression that a 5000 turn out is generally good for rugby, even at the top level.

Seems pretty poor for a sport that is soo much better than that football thing.

It's poor mainly because it' not true. The lowest average this season is 5800 at Sale.

The Irish have an average crowd listed as 12000, but that's a little contrived as it includes 42000 for a double-header at Twickenham, for which they were nominally one of two home teams that day. Take that away and their average is just over 9000.

Averages are...

Leicester 21,729
Harlequins 20,368
Northampton 15,537
Wasps 14,581
Gloucester 13,390
Bath 13,328
Saracens 13,080*
L Irish 12,846*
Exeter 10,849
Worcester 8,747
Newcastle 6,159
Sale 5,802

Harlequins' figure is boosted by the 70,718 they got for their Christmas game at Twickenham, but it's not a double-header, so it seems fair to include that.

Saracens will have theirs boosted in a couple of weeks by getting about 85000 for their game v Harlequins at Wembley.

About half of the clubs are also constrained by capacity.


Crowds aren't at football level, obviously, but the game has grown hugely since abandoning amateur status. It's quite staggering how grounds and crowds have changed since the early 90s. Saracen's ground would have just about been a Hellenic League standard. Leicester were the only club to have what looked like a proper ground back then.

[Nameless]

You have to laugh at the idea that Irish get anywhere near 13k on average !
They actually get about half that.
The only games that would have been at or above 10k would have been the LDH (ie two matches on one ticket at Twickenham), Paddy's Day (ie a non rugby P*ss up) and Sarries in New York (ie a very special one off fixture)
At the same time the RWC had sell outs pretty much every game and you cannot get tickets for internationals. Compares favourably with the football.

[tmesis]

You have to laugh at the idea that Irish get anywhere near 13k on average !
They actually get about half that.

Take that game away and the average is 9100. That is boosted by the St Patrick's Day crowd, but that still a genuine crowd figure, and is fine to include in an average.

Their crowds have been

6597 v Leicester
6641 v Bath
9842 v Northampton
5558 v Newcastle
5837 v Worcester
5892 v Exeter
17752 v Gloucester
5541 v Sale

...hmm, which certainly doesn't add up to an average of 9100.

ah yes, their aggregate also includes 14811 they got for the game they played in New York, so yes, their average at the Madejski is just over 7000.

[blueroyals]

Median is 6,244

[Nameless]

You have to laugh at the idea that Irish get anywhere near 13k on average !
They actually get about half that.

Take that game away and the average is 9100. That is boosted by the St Patrick's Day crowd, but that still a genuine crowd figure, and is fine to include in an average.

Their crowds have been

6597 v Leicester
6641 v Bath
9842 v Northampton
5558 v Newcastle
5837 v Worcester
5892 v Exeter
17752 v Gloucester
5541 v Sale

...hmm, which certainly doesn't add up to an average of 9100.

ah yes, their aggregate also includes 14811 they got for the game they played in New York, so yes, their average at the Madejski is just over 7000.

Those are tickets distributed, which includes free tickets given to schools and clubs many of which aren't used.
Obviously anything to increase sales is legitimate but the reality is that no more than 4-5000 attend LI home games on a regular basis.
It's consistent amongst all sports though, attendance figures quoted are inflated by reporting 'tickets issued' which often doesn't equal tickets sold and rarely equals actual attendance.

[tmesis]

Those are tickets distributed, which includes free tickets given to schools and clubs many of which aren't used.
Obviously anything to increase sales is legitimate but the reality is that no more than 4-5000 attend LI home games on a regular basis.
It's consistent amongst all sports though, attendance figures quoted are inflated by reporting 'tickets issued' which often doesn't equal tickets sold and rarely equals actual attendance.

So you have it on good authority that London Irish give away 2000-3000 tickets for every single game - sorry 2000-3000 unused tickets for every game?

I've only been to one London Irish game, and it didn't strike me that the crowd was higher than the announced figure.

[Nameless]

The crowd will never be higher than the announced figure.

But the announced figure is never the number in the ground.

You can decide for yourself the various ways that comes about, but it is a fact.

I do know someone who, for job reasons, sees the actual attendance figures. There is nothing sinister, no one is trying to pull a scam and I believe it's the way all stadium report 'attendances'. It's tickets issued, not actual bodies in the ground.

[tmesis]

I do know someone who, for job reasons, sees the actual attendance figures. There is nothing sinister, no one is trying to pull a scam and I believe it's the way all stadium report 'attendances'. It's tickets issued, not actual bodies in the ground.

Burnley used to publish tickets sold and the actual attendance. The difference wasn't that great, perhaps 1000 at most in a 15000 crowd.

While I'm sure the Irish do do the odd promotion, I find i hard to believe they are giving away 3000 tickets every single week. It would be nigh on impossible to field a professional top-flight squad on paying crowds of just 4000 a game.


I'd say there were quite a few actual attendances that were higher than the quoted figures in the past. There certainly were at Reading in the 80s.

[Nameless]

Years ago actual crowds would be much higher than published because clubs deliberately under called cash payments so they didn't pay the VAT. it's hard to do that now as few people pay cash on the door and clubs have to provide properly reconciled sales figures.

whether you believe me or not it's a fact that there is a largish gap between published figures and physical attendance. Complimentary tickets not used isn't the whole reason for it, and as I said it's not a LI or rugby specific thing and it's been talked about on HNA for years that the same happens at football .

It obviously is possible to run clubs on crowds of 4000. Plenty of football clubs do it, most county cricket clubs would die for crowds of 4000 in total over a 4 day match. It's why TV money is key as well,as non match day revenue.

[Fox Talbot]

Nameless is broadly right - the clubs and the authorities are playing a game of Truth or Marketing with us.

The worse the product the more cheap / free tickets are handed out and the greater the gap between their figures and physical attendance. A couple more examples:
- Bradford City for years have sold very cheap season tickets - which is why there declared attendance in tiers 3 and 4 rarely goes below 13,000
- the gap between declared and actual attendance at some midweek cup matches at Old Trafford can be as high as 20,000. For safety reasons the police get the actual numbers and this leaked out some time ago

- there might be another instance coming right on our doorstep - this is conjecture, mind. Reading Women FC now play in a division where they are mandated to have an average home attendance of 800 or some sanction will be applied. Last season they typically had a gate of about 150 (including family and friends) at Farnborough. Now they play at Wycombe, equally distant and difficult to get to from Reading. How will they get the crowds up to 800?

I think I saw an ad for season tickets at £25! If you think you might go twice that's not a bad price compared with non-league football. But if you bought one you'd be counted as attending every home match - I suspect they have 8 League matches plus some others. Fair enough - or another case of deceit?

This season ticket holder would be reneging on the implicit contract of the season ticket by not attending the majority of matches to which they were entitled.
The club would be deceiving the governing body about the true level of attendances.
The governing body would be in on the act as they could see for themselves who was / wasn't there and would doubtless take the club's word - as the FL do with RFC's own attendances.
Then the media join in the deceit by publishing articles based on a press release about what a success it's all been - "fastest- growing" "targets met" etc..
And on that basis a few more people - because "popular" is another buzz word in marketing to go along with "new" and "cheap" - will be induced to go along.

Fine you might say, that's marketing and modern life, who is losing out? Well, other clubs and organisations who don't fiddle their figures. In the case of London Irish - IF they are dishing out that many free tickets in Reading FC's locality I think RFC should have a word about it. It's the sporting equivalent of dumping cheap steel. Families don't have an unlimited number of opportunities to go out to sports events. There aren't an unlimited number of families in the Reading area. Free tickets might persuade the undecided to do one thing rather than another. We all know how quickly a person can hooked on watching a club - we may be losing future Reading supporters. Judging by the Londoners gate figures it's not too many at the moment but that's because thankfully they are currently useless.