Opinion A list of clubs that are immune to large attendance downturns in struggling times.

[Thommo 42]

The OP is not measuring attendance, but rather the variance in attendances for a club when its performing poorly vs performing well. So actual figures are meaningless to quote.

All clubs, including Collingwood, have a downturn when they are losing. I would argue that West Coast and Freo are most immune to this, but mainly because their crowds are artificially limited by stadium size when they are winning, so they never fill their true demand. I'm sure they could sell out a 60k stadium in good times.

I went to Pies Hawks in 05 and it was a woeful crowd, and we both sucked.

 

[Teffy]

Of course, but you're going to encounter resistance when you start a troll thread.

It's been 69 consecutive rounds since Richmond's even been in the ****ing eight, so don't lecture us about struggling. Our numbers are holding up OK; suggest you look in your own backyard. You destroy a lot of goodwill from neutral supporters regarding your club's battle to survive with this sort of stuff.

Ron, what constitutes a "troll thread" in your eyes?

Any thread that somehow shows your club in a lesser light?

Any thread that shakes up your beliefs?

I repeat, this is NOT a troll thread, it was started with honorable intentions to point out and test my belief on this issue.

The OP is not measuring attendance, but rather the variance in attendances for a club when its performing poorly vs performing well.

That is part of my reasoning.

The other part of my reasoning is highlighting the inconsistencies of some supporters of certain clubs that choose point the finger and make unreasonable judgements upon others. Statistics point out that under similiar criteria, their clubs are not that much better off.

A percentage chart of downswings in relation to the clubs, relevant to ladder position over the last decade, would be interesting.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Ron, what constitutes a "troll thread" in your eyes?

Any thread that somehow shows your club in a lesser light?

Any thread that shakes up your beliefs?

I repeat, this is NOT a troll thread, it was started with honorable intentions to point out and test my belief on this issue.



That is part of my reasoning.

The other part of my reasoning is highlighting the inconsistencies of some supporters of certain clubs that choose point the finger and make unreasonable judgements upon others.

Right... So it's not a troll thread, but it's designed to get back at people for talking down North's crowd figures. Gotcha. It's a troll thread

 

[Teffy]

Right... So it's not a troll thread, but it's designed to get back at people for talking down North's crowd figures. Gotcha. It's a troll thread

I have supplied data that highlights inconsistencies.

Rather than formulating what is going on in the mind of someone you don't know and have never met, I challenge you to refute the argument on it's merits.

I'm not interested in responding to any more of this troll rubbish. It will be ignored.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Methinks the lady doth protest too much

 

[Puntroad]

"Hard Core" member ladder

Collingwood - 26,000
Carlton - 18,000
Richmond - 18,000
North - 15,000
Bulldogs - 15,000

I would really like to know where you pulled those "hardcore member" numbers from...

This thread is about attendances, not memberships.

It's just a rough number I have gleaned off the top of my head from attendances when a clubs side was at rock bottom. They're not exact figures.

That's quite an argument you have there

 

[Teffy]

"Member" has been altered to "attendees".

"Hard Core" attendees ladder

Collingwood - 26,000
Carlton - 18,000
Richmond - 18,000
North - 15,000
Bulldogs - 15,000

These are what I consider to be the "Hard Core" member element of a clubs overall membership tally.

Apologies for the confusion.

Carry on.

 

[rofltown]

this is some horrible trolling

even for bigfooty

 

[GhostofJimJess]

Why do you have such a big problem in admitting that ALL clubs have sizeable downturns when they are struggling? It's an undeniable fact.

"Hard Core" attendees ladder

Collingwood - 26,000
Carlton - 18,000
Richmond - 18,000
North - 15,000
Bulldogs - 15,000

So I'm guessing by these numbers (which may not be too inaccurate BTW) that you regard these "hard-core" attendees as those who can be relied upon and destined to keep showing up even in struggling times?

Given that Collingwood averages 61K per match so far in 2011, that's quite a significant gap. Why then do you believe that they are immune from large attendance downturns? Based on these figures, neither of which are mine, they appear to be most vulnerable.

From my understanding of the thread, only West Coast and Adelaide - both of whom I'm led to believe sell-out membership quotas prior to each season due mainly to limited seating capacity - seem to be immune to "struggling times".

But then again, many may argue that neither the Crows nor Eagles have ever truly endured sustained "struggling times" to have this faith genuinely tested.

 

[telsor]

I have supplied data that highlights inconsistencies.

It's just a rough number I have gleaned off the top of my head

Solid data.

 

[ioppolo]

WC games may have a few empty seats at times, but those members who don't rock up have still paid.

We had 32,007 rock up to watch us get beaten by North Melbourne in round 21 last year, good crowd for a team that couldn't not 'win' the Wooden Spoon.

 

[NobleBlood]

Not nominating Richmond is way harsh. Always loved their surprisingly high membership. When they're a really good side I wouldn't be surprised if they eclipsed Essendons total.

Agree with all your picks but.

 

[bodazoka]

We will be fine for the next 20 years IMO

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

StKilda, Geelong, Carlton, Richmond and even Essendon. All these clubs have poor attendances when they are struggling.

Poor is a relative term. Do you mean "lower than normal" poor, or "loss making" poor, or "less than 20,000 on a Friday night" poor?

 

[flamethrower]

How do you define "struggling times"? A bad month? A bad year? A bad decade? A bad century?

The Chicago Cubs have not won anything since 1908 and still sell out almost all 81 home games every year, so they would be number 1.

The Washington Redskins would be 2nd drawing 84,000 to every home game despite being a "basket case" with an owner from hell. The Cincinnati Bengals would be next in the NFL.

At AFL level, no club is totally immune. Even the Magpies see their crowd figures reduced by 25 to 50% when the team is struggling, but they have so many diehards that a 50% drop still sees 40,000+ at their games.

 

[smasha]

Haha massive ownage.

That game was brilliant too btw- conditions ull rarely see in any sport.

I was there.
Richmond supporters best in the league.

 

[Jisha]

I wish I could rate individual posts because that deserves 5 stars.

Absolutely horrible conditions that afternoon and it is simply ridiculous for the OP to compare that game to any other poor crowd figure.

 

[gaelictiogar]

The OP is not measuring attendance, but rather the variance in attendances for a club when its performing poorly vs performing well. So actual figures are meaningless to quote.

All clubs, including Collingwood, have a downturn when they are losing. I would argue that West Coast and Freo are most immune to this, but mainly because their crowds are artificially limited by stadium size when they are winning, so they never fill their true demand. I'm sure they could sell out a 60k stadium in good times.

I went to Pies Hawks in 05 and it was a woeful crowd, and we both sucked.

Absolutely right Thommo. Everybody struggles when struggling. Everyone gets a bandwagon when up and about. This is the simple truth and anything else is either trolling or wishful thinking.

 

[Teffy]

.............Everybody struggles when struggling. Everyone gets a bandwagon when up and about. This is the simple truth...........

Thanks for that comment. I agree 100%.

However, I would draw a line where clubs attract sub 20K attendance figures, during an onfield downturn, and claim that there are only 4 or 5 clubs that are not in this category.

 

[PortBrillance]

Crows? They are having one of their worst home attendance's in their short history. Was poor crowds last year also. Both this year and last year they will have one of their worst finishes since 1991. Totally the opposite to "immune"

Do your research, failed thread

 

[Vinnie Vegas]

At AFL level, no club is totally immune. Even the Magpies see their crowd figures reduced by 25 to 50% when the team is struggling, but they have so many diehards that a 50% drop still sees 40,000+ at their games.

If you look at our crowd sizes the years before and after we finished bottom four for two years in 2004-05, the last time we could be seen as really struggling, our average home crowds were down to 42305 from 50366 in 2002-03, and went back up to 53,890 in 2006-07, so for the four years bookending our fall, we were averaging 52128 to our home games. That makes for slightly less than a 20% reduction in our struggling years, which is nowhere near the figure that you quoted.

It's not really fair to compare more recent results to the last time we were struggling, because our membership has almost doubled since then, so obviously our attendance is going to be better now.

 

[gaelictiogar]

Thanks for that comment. I agree 100%.

However, I would draw a line where clubs attract sub 20K attendance figures, during an onfield downturn, and claim that there are only 4 or 5 clubs that are not in this category.

Well all I'm doing is stating a fact Teffy whereas to be honest you are being provocative with "real Big 4s" and made up stats about "core memberships" etc.

The simple reality is that success swells any crowd and failure does the opposite. No need to try to suggest that EG North have only 3,000 fans fewer than EG Carlton. That is patently not so. EG Carlton have had some awful attendances V Interstaters but were mired in spooning form at the time. Bizarrely Richmond like awful. If you want to make comparisons look at averages.

 

[Teffy]

Well all I'm doing is stating a fact Teffy whereas to be honest you are being provocative with "real Big 4s" and made up stats about "core memberships" etc.

There's nothing wrong woth being "provocative" as long as it is done within BF guidelines.

The gist of this thread is about the number of die hards that show up when a side is on the bones of its backside.

Adelaide, West Coast, Freo, Collingwood and possibly Essendon are the only clubs that haven't had sub 20K attendances over the last decade. If this is incorrect then I welcome you to correct me.

The simple reality is that success swells any crowd and failure does the opposite. No need to try to suggest that EG North have only 3,000 fans fewer than EG Carlton. That is patently not so. EG Carlton have had some awful attendances V Interstaters but were mired in spooning form at the time. Bizarrely Richmond like awful. If you want to make comparisons look at averages.

"Die hard" fans that show up through thick and thin? That is patently correct.

I have not suggested anywhere that North have as many "fair weather" fans as Carlton, or many other so called "bigger clubs".

 

[fletchisgun]

So going by your 'hardcore' fan tally essendon and hawthorn have less diehard fans, richmond only has 3,000 more and collingwood 10,000 more than North Melbourne? I accept that every club falls away when they are unsuccessful but the fact of the matter is that your numbers are clearly out of whack. There is no way North has more diehard supporters than Essendon and Hawthorn.

 

[troywheatley]

I worked this out a few years back for the period since 82 - Hawthorn was the most immune, followed by Brisbane, Essendon and Adelaide. Sydney and Collingwood were the least immune, though as much as I'd like to bag the Pies it might have something to do with them regularly playing at big venues.