2214 empty seats?

[SWTT]

I forsee the re-opening of the debate as to whether we actually need a 25K satdium at the moment - especially if we can't fill it for important games like this.

But we did fill it, the game was a sell out as far as Argyle fans were concerned. Had the capacity welcomed more, I'm sure we would have sold them. Alas scraping play off spots in the basement division shouldn't really be our limit of ambition, thus making the pro 16,388 post-HHP capacity debate as redundant as the plan itself - unless, of course, 4th tier number maker up-ers is our true place within the footballing hierarchy?

 

[LostPilgrim]

I forsee the re-opening of the debate as to whether we actually need a 25K satdium at the moment - especially if we can't fill it for important games like this.

Comparing apples and oranges. And creating a straw man.

We don't need a 25k stadium in leagues 1/2. Never have. In fact, we could get away with just the horseshoe as only Exeter games push that capacity.

I challenge you to find someone who said we should have a 25k stadium in leagues 1/2. Most were arguing against the proposals on the grounds that our ability to increase the capacity easily in the future would have been removed.

When we get to the Championship we always get, and then squander, a significant boost in average attendance. Capping us at 17000 would have lost the club circa £2m in revenue in our first season back in the Championship last time.

Would we have had signed Crawford/Akos in those circumstances? Without Crawford/Akos would we have survived that first season?

All counter factual but it's basically a debate about whether we want to be a lower league club or a higher league club. If the former then just knock the grandstand down and the horseshoe will suffice for general attendance. Just add in some modern changing rooms and executive boxes and be done with it.

Thing is we are a growing club. We had a higher average attendance this year than we did in 1995/96; impressive given many don't consider this a "promotion" season. Compared to the Hodges era we have over 2000 extra supporters every home game.

All like for like attendances since the 80s suggest we are growing. So it just seemed odd to claim ambition whilst locking out thousands of punters next time that ambition is realised...

 

[jerryatricjanner]

In 1995/1996 season we averaged just 300 a game less than the 7,400 we averaged this season but as this season included non attending season ticket holders our actual attendance at the game was at most about 6,600 so it is a very misleading claim to make. Or turn it around and if non attendees had been included in 1996 about 7,900 would have been the modern day official attendance.
I might be wrong on this but I think during the Hodges era attendances generally were at a low ebb throughout the game.

 

[SWTT]

Presumptious with the figures there, but regardless you can't sell a non attending ST holders ticket so LP's point on lost revenue and cut off fans remains valid - depending on whether we're currently at the height of the club's ambition or not.

 

[djg145]

Yes its a valid point that Season Tickets seats have been SOLD for every home game.

As for the decison to count them as ATTENDING every game is up for debate.

I think the answer (imho) is in the wording - the figures given for every match are ATTENDANCE, they are not the number of SEATS SOLD.

It's a bit like saying we sent out 45 million voting cards, so 45 million people voted.

If your going to count ATTENDANCE then that MUST be the people coming through the turnstiles, not difficult to do is it, everytime the stile turns it counts.

Using the SEAT SOLD method, gives a very misleading figure, which automatically makes the figures better then they really are. Which gives people a totally false impression.

 

[Biggs]

I forsee the re-opening of the debate as to whether we actually need a 25K satdium at the moment - especially if we can't fill it for important games like this.

You're aware that was a game in the fourth tier of English football, right? The fourth. Not the top league, not even the second one. Not even the THIRD tier of English football, but the fourth. There's 50 feet of crap, and then there's us.

Why on earth should we expect to fill it at such a low level? Our aspiration is the Championship and Premier League (it IS possible). That's when we'll need it.

(having said that, it looked pretty full to me)

 

[Mark Pedlar]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Darlington_Arena

nuff said

 

[SWTT]

Unsure how the inclusion of ST holders (attending or otherwise) is misleading? Surely it gives a truer indication of the revenue the club receives through admissions?

 

[SWTT]

If you seriously think Argyle are comparable with Darlington then you have a very very very low opinion of our club. Surely the play off final at Wembley gives an indication as to the VAST differences between the support of the two clubs? Weak argument, nuff said.

 

[Biggs]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Darlington_Arena

nuff said

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madejski_Stadium

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Stadium

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KC_Stadium

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falmer_Stadium

Nuff said

 

[LostPilgrim]

Yes its a valid point that Season Tickets seats have been SOLD for every home game.

As for the decison to count them as ATTENDING every game is up for debate.

I think the answer (imho) is in the wording - the figures given for every match are ATTENDANCE, they are not the number of SEATS SOLD.

It's a bit like saying we sent out 45 million voting cards, so 45 million people voted.

If your going to count ATTENDANCE then that MUST be the people coming through the turnstiles, not difficult to do is it, everytime the stile turns it counts.

Using the SEAT SOLD method, gives a very misleading figure, which automatically makes the figures better then they really are. Which gives people a totally false impression.

Is there link to show we "count" attendance different now to 15/20 years ago? Or am I going to have to call PASOTI fact?

 

[jerryatricjanner]

Unsure how the inclusion of ST holders (attending or otherwise) is misleading? Surely it gives a truer indication of the revenue the club receives through admissions?

Sam are you being deliberately awkward? It is quite simple. I pointed out that to say attendances were up on 1996 was misleading which it clearly is. To claim an average attendance of 7,400 including season ticket holders who don't go to the match is higher than an average attendance of 7,100 where every one of those is at the match is hardly like for like is it? That 7,400 figure includes about 15% of the 4,000 season ticket holders who weren't in attendance(about 600) so if using the old method it would show attendances were several hundred lower than 1996 rather than higher. It's not that difficult to understand surely?

 

[LostPilgrim]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Darlington_Arena

nuff said

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madejski_Stadium

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Stadium

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KC_Stadium

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falmer_Stadium

Nuff said

I'm 95% sure I have Division 3 attendance figures for us, Hull, Swansea, Brighton and Darlington somewhere. Will check when at home but I think we can all guess what they show... (IIRC our lowest EVER average attendance beat Darlington's Div 3 promotion winning one)

Can you construct another straw man for us in the meantime Mark?

 

[SWTT]

Unsure how the inclusion of ST holders (attending or otherwise) is misleading? Surely it gives a truer indication of the revenue the club receives through admissions?

Sam are you being deliberately awkward? It is quite simple. I pointed out that to say attendances were up on 1996 was misleading which it clearly is. To claim an average attendance of 7,400 including season ticket holders who don't go to the match is higher than an average attendance of 7,100 where every one of those is at the match is hardly like for like is it? That 7,400 figure includes about 15% of the 4,000 season ticket holders who weren't in attendance(about 600) so if using the old method it would show attendances were several hundred lower than 1996 rather than higher. It's not that difficult to understand surely?

Where's that 15% figure come from?

 

[LostPilgrim]

To claim an average attendance of 7,400 including season ticket holders who don't go to the match is higher than an average attendance of 7,100 where every one of those is at the match is hardly like for like is it?

Again, truth or PASOTI fact?

That 7,400 figure includes about 15% of the 4,000 season ticket holders who weren't in attendance(about 600) so if using the old method it would show attendances were several hundred lower than 1996 rather than higher.

If truth (with backup) did 2014/15 feel like a promotion season or a flirt with play off season?