Hillstone Dev

[Inspiral_Carpet]

3600 home fans was what I referred to.

 

Have it your way if you want: Crowds are falling but not falling; it's worrying, but then again, not at all worrying.

 

That's right. 3600 home fans is what you referred to. "3600 home fans and falling" is what you said. That suggests our "normal" home attendance is now 3600 and going down. I think I get what you were saying.

 

Two following home crowds of 4171 and 4542 show that the 3600 figure was not the norm. It was a nadir for the Season and only a fool would take that as a benchmark to prove that the fans have deserted the Club.

 

In other words, yet again, you are wrong.

 

Yes I agree the crowd levels are worrying. I never said otherwise but don't let that fact put you off. Facts rarely do.

[Corporal_Jones]

I stand corrected. My knowledge of Latics stuff is about 10% of yours!

 

I remember getting the stats out in an old debate with The Corp when he was trying to claim our crowds were higher in "better" Seasons. As I proved at the time, that wasn't the case. Thought we'd not dipped below 5400 though but clearly we did in 2000/01.

 

 

 

You proved nothing of the kind. During the Wadsworth and Dowie seasons the crowds were higher than at present and higher than under Ritchie. They remained higher than now in the season after the summer of hell.

 

I suggest you get the stats out again.

[Corporal_Jones]

That's right. 3600 home fans is what you referred to. "3600 home fans and falling" is what you said. That suggests our "normal" home attendance is now 3600 and going down. I think I get what you were saying.

 

Two following home crowds of 4171 and 4542 show that the 3600 figure was not the norm. It was a nadir for the Season and only a fool would take that as a benchmark to prove that the fans have deserted the Club.

 

In other words, yet again, you are wrong.

 

Yes I agree the crowd levels are worrying. I never said otherwise but don't let that fact put you off. Facts rarely do.

 

 

 

Stop pretending you don't understand that when I refer to home fans I am excluding the away crowd.

[Corporal_Jones]

As for the Port Vale game played earlier in the Season - the home fans totalled 4703. You were trying earlier to make out that we would only have got 3600. Again, facts don't fit with your arguments.

 

 

 

As you well know, I was talking about what the likely crowd would have been if we'd played Port Vale last SaTurday and not Huddersfield.

 

It would not have been 4700.

[real]

You proved nothing of the kind. During the Wadsworth and Dowie seasons the crowds were higher than at present and higher than under Ritchie. They remained higher than now in the season after the summer of hell.

 

I suggest you get the stats out again.

 

 

Holy Cow!

 

Are you seriously suggesting that after the sepnding splurges of Waddie and Dowie our crowds have dropped?

 

So THEY were the hard/faithfulcore?

 

Come off it jonesy, we hit 3000 home fans-ish in 2000-01, that was the showing of the hardcore.

 

Again, I say it, how do YOU define hardcore? By usin people who don't turn up come what may or those that DO?

 

You want to see yerself as h/c, even if you step off the treadmill? Ok, do just that, just don't expect me to swallow it. Hardcore is what it says on the the tin. Not all of us have always been h/c, but those of us who are honest don't pontificate on behalf of h/c when we know we are not, nor do we claim to repreesent h/c who are clearly not.

[boundaryblue80]

Corporal....it really, really does come down to what people believe is the "hardcore supporters".....I've said it for many years, never on here but on JK etc.....the hardcore (be there at all costs) Latics fan is 2,500........somewhere around that mark. Might shock you and many others to hear that but I've said it a few times. And you get the rolling fans (highly committed supporters) of maybe another 2,500 where some are there one week, then when they can't make it others fill in the next week after. Work, family, committments etc. (but strangely any committment does disappear conveniently when it suits) whatever determines that which means one fan can't make it, but they'll be there another week. And vice versa for the next rolling fan. And then you get your gloryhunter fickledoms. You get the rough idea of what I'm saying (altho maybe not, coz it won't fit with your argument of the "hardcore" you say is disappearing!)

 

But that 2,500-ish that are like I am......Saturday (Tues night or whenever we play) is sacred. Will never work on it, will arrange all around it (home games we're talking about here.) Many travel up (OAFCMetty, Diego_S)....some want to but can't, but would. They most likely have season tickets but accept they can't make some games. Wife/family know they come 2nd to Latics (or get involved etc.) We'll always have 2,500 definites and maybe then another definite rolling 1,000 or so from about 2,500 who will be there. Don't kid yourself the hardcore is any bigger than that. The facts have never suggested that!

Edited April 4, 2008 by boundaryblue80

[Inspiral_Carpet]

You proved nothing of the kind. During the Wadsworth and Dowie seasons the crowds were higher than at present and higher than under Ritchie. They remained higher than now in the season after the summer of hell.

 

I suggest you get the stats out again.

 

No need Corp. Have a look at past threads if you like.

 

Your argument at the time (although I grant that it changes as often as the tide) was that the Crowds are higher when we are more succesful on the pitch. The fact that we had a higher average Crowd in the relegation threatened Talbot sacking Season than two later, more succesful Seasons prove you wrong.

 

And let's not forget that you were keen to remove the Dowie Season from the debate due to the excesses of Chris Moore. An experiment that proved that massive investment in the Team does not guarantee success on the pitch.

 

Stop pretending you don't understand that when I refer to home fans I am excluding the away crowd.

 

Fortunately, I understand what you mean even if you don't. The 4171 and 4542 figures are home fans only. Not the total crowd. But hey, let's not let the facts get in the way eh Corp?

 

So you are still wrong.

 

As you well know, I was talking about what the likely crowd would have been if we'd played Port Vale last Saturday and not Huddersfield.

 

It would not have been 4700.

 

Your reasoning is nearly always wrong (can you see a theme developing?) so I'll stick to facts (ie the crowd we actually got when in the middle of a far worse run than present) as opposed to pie in the sky guesswork. Particularly as your own argument about "3600 and falling" is so clearly wrong.

 

Like I say, only a fool would take a home attendance of 3600 on a Tuesday night against Bournemouth (3rd consecutive match at BP as well) as a measure of the normal crowd.

 

Possibly, that attendance had more to do with pay-on-the-day punters picking and choosing matches as there were an awful lot of home games at the time or exiled Season Ticket Holders who find it difficult to get to BP for a midweek game?

 

Realism Corp. Then again, that wouldn't fit with your doom and gloom prophecies would it.

[Lags]

The fact of the matter is the crowds are indeed falling. The second half of the season tells you they're down, noticeably. It doesn't matter a jot if it's hardcore or non hardcore thats voted with it's feet. But I'll tell you what will matter, the ST sales for 2008/2009. I just hope and pray we keep the same numbers and that next season Shez and the boys get it right and win our home matches with a little more style more often. That's what the paying punters enter the ground for.

[Corporal_Jones]

Holy Cow!

 

Are you seriously suggesting that after the sepnding splurges of Waddie and Dowie our crowds have dropped?

 

So THEY were the hard/faithfulcore?

 

Come off it jonesy, we hit 3000 home fans-ish in 2000-01, that was the showing of the hardcore.

 

Again, I say it, how do YOU define hardcore? By usin people who don't turn up come what may or those that DO?

 

You want to see yerself as h/c, even if you step off the treadmill? Ok, do just that, just don't expect me to swallow it. Hardcore is what it says on the the tin. Not all of us have always been h/c, but those of us who are honest don't pontificate on behalf of h/c when we know we are not, nor do we claim to repreesent h/c who are clearly not.

 

 

 

 

Have I said that I have any intention of stopping attending matches?

 

It's difficult to believe the extent of the denial some people will go to sometimes. Talk about wearing blinkers. It doesn't matter how you define hardcore; when a club like ours dips below 4000 home fans it has severe implications, particularly when it is going to take a spectacular run-in to get many of the recently desrting thousand back any time soon. I don't really care who regards the non-attenders as hardcore or not under the circumstances.

 

When was it that the home support hit 3000 around 2001? I can, off the top of my head recall only one game, against Wycombe in the FA Cup.

Edited April 4, 2008 by Corporal_Jones

[Corporal_Jones]

The fact of the matter is the crowds are indeed falling. The second half of the season tells you they're down, noticeably. It doesn't matter a jot if it's hardcore or non hardcore thats voted with it's feet. But I'll tell you what will matter, the ST sales for 2008/2009. I just hope and pray we keep the same numbers and that next season Shez and the boys get it right and win our home matches with a little more style more often. That's what the paying punters enter the ground for.

 

 

 

The problem is that it isn't solely down to how Latics sides perform. In large part it's that we are, more than most, affected by the malaise afflicting the whole of football, whereby it all seems increasingly futile for the majority of clubs at any level who lack the financial clout to consistently compete.

 

Fair enough, there are those will will alwys watch a club no matter what, but those Latics fans who seemed to think that we would eventually start to climb again seem to have concluded that the damage done by getting bogged down in this division for so long looks likely to see us mired here permanently. No amount of talk about hypothetical plans for the club and/or team will easily convince them of anything, unfortunate as the fact is.

 

Worrying times indeed.

Edited April 4, 2008 by Corporal_Jones

[Corporal_Jones]

No need Corp. Have a look at past threads if you like.

 

Your argument at the time (although I grant that it changes as often as the tide) was that the Crowds are higher when we are more succesful on the pitch. The fact that we had a higher average Crowd in the relegation threatened Talbot sacking Season than two later, more succesful Seasons prove you wrong.

 

And let's not forget that you were keen to remove the Dowie Season from the debate due to the excesses of Chris Moore. An experiment that proved that massive investment in the Team does not guarantee success on the pitch.

Fortunately, I understand what you mean even if you don't. The 4171 and 4542 figures are home fans only. Not the total crowd. But hey, let's not let the facts get in the way eh Corp?

 

So you are still wrong.

Your reasoning is nearly always wrong (can you see a theme developing?) so I'll stick to facts (ie the crowd we actually got when in the middle of a far worse run than present) as opposed to pie in the sky guesswork. Particularly as your own argument about "3600 and falling" is so clearly wrong.

 

Like I say, only a fool would take a home attendance of 3600 on a Tuesday night against Bournemouth (3rd consecutive match at BP as well) as a measure of the normal crowd.

 

Possibly, that attendance had more to do with pay-on-the-day punters picking and choosing matches as there were an awful lot of home games at the time or exiled Season Ticket Holders who find it difficult to get to BP for a midweek game?

 

Realism Corp. Then again, that wouldn't fit with your doom and gloom prophecies would it.

 

 

 

I suggest that you take a look at the statistics posted on the previous page if you don't think crowds rose above what they previously were during the seasons we did relatively well. How many times can you repeat the same idiocies when the facts are there in black and white?

 

I don't recall claiming that the Dowie season can be excluded for any reason. I do. however, remember commenting on the way that the hope engendered by the Dowie season and sheer dogged loyalty after the summer of crisis saw crowds remain surprisingly high for some time afterwards.

 

The number of games, including mid-week ones in bad weather blah blah is a factor, but the key fact is that it is because of inconsistency on the part of the team, and a general air of hopelessness about the club, that they were quite so low. This is (roll on the drums) why crowds never dipped so low, even for mid-week games, when we were performing better and more people believed we had a chance of getting out of the division.

 

You don't think that crowds of below 4000, or even below 5000 have negative implications for the club (even if we don't see them immediately) then fair enough. We will see. I would prefer it if the happy clappers' rosy scenarios were correct.

Edited April 4, 2008 by Corporal_Jones

[Inspiral_Carpet]

I suggest that you take a look at the statistics posted on the previous page if you don't think crowds rose above what they previously were during the seasons we did relatively well. How many times can you repeat the same idiocies when the facts are there in black and white?

 

I don't recall claiming that the Dowie season can be excluded for any reason.

 

The number of games, including mid-week ones in bad weather blah blah is a factor, but the key fact is that it is because of inconsistency on the part of the team, and a general air of hopelessness about the club, that they were quite so low. This is (roll on the drums) why crowds never dipped so low, even for mid-week games, when we were performing better and more people believed we had a chance of getting out of the division.

 

You don't think that crowds of below 4000, or even below 5000 have negative implications for the club (even if we don't see them immediately) then fair enough. We will see. I would prefer it if the happy clappers' rosy scenarios were correct.

 

I don't take kindly to being called an idiot by someone like yourself Corp. Particularly when you are the one who time after time is completely misunderstanding FACTS.

 

2006/07 - 6334 (Finished 6th)

2005/06 - 5796 (Finished 10th)

2004/05 - 6462 (Finished 19th)

2003/04 - 6566 (Finished 15th)

2002/03 - 6699 (Finished 5th)

2001/02 - 5800 (Finished 9th)

 

In other words, since 2004/ 05, our average crowd has decreased despite 2 subsequent significantly more succesful Seasons. In other words, increased numbers of paying punters through the door are not necesarily guaranteed by more success on the pitch. Even when we try to buy our way out of the Division.

 

How can you still argue against black and white fact?

 

As for the rest, still you maintain that the lowest attendance of the Season is a benchmark. Quite unbelievable especially as the next two games proved you wrong. Black and white facts once again.

 

I'm amazed also that it took you so long to throw out the happy clapper mantra but at least you proved consistent. Read other posts. Nobody is trying to paint a rosy picture. Prove me wrong and point to any posts that say life at Latics is great and things are fine as far as attendances go. I've said the downward trend in attendances is worrying. I also believe matters are far from right with regard to the manager and some of the players.

 

It's called realism Corp but unfortunately, you are consistently stuck in a rut and so have to invent things to attempt to cover your own weak arguments which are based on piss and wind and not fact.

 

Toodle pip old boy.

[Corporal_Jones]

I don't take kindly to being called an idiot by someone like yourself Corp. Particularly when you are the one who time after time is completely misunderstanding FACTS.

 

2006/07 - 6334 (Finished 6th)

2005/06 - 5796 (Finished 10th)

2004/05 - 6462 (Finished 19th)

2003/04 - 6566 (Finished 15th)

2002/03 - 6699 (Finished 5th)

2001/02 - 5800 (Finished 9th)

 

In other words, since 2004/ 05, our average crowd has decreased despite 2 subsequent significantly more succesful Seasons. In other words, increased numbers of paying punters through the door are not necesarily guaranteed by more success on the pitch. Even when we try to buy our way out of the Division.

 

How can you still argue against black and white fact?

 

As for the rest, still you maintain that the lowest attendance of the Season is a benchmark. Quite unbelievable especially as the next two games proved you wrong. Black and white facts once again.

 

I'm amazed also that it took you so long to throw out the happy clapper mantra but at least you proved consistent. Read other posts. Nobody is trying to paint a rosy picture. Prove me wrong and point to any posts that say life at Latics is great and things are fine as far as attendances go. I've said the downward trend in attendances is worrying. I also believe matters are far from right with regard to the manager and some of the players.

 

It's called realism Corp but unfortunately, you are consistently stuck in a rut and so have to invent things to attempt to cover your own weak arguments which are based on piss and wind and not fact.

 

Toodle pip old boy.

 

 

 

I didn't call you an idiot-I said that you insist on repeating idiocies. Which, of course, you do.

 

So despite what the above figures say, you continue to claim that crowds did not rise by almost a thousand when we finished 5th, compared to the previous season when we finished ninth? Okay. If that's what you want, who am I to argue? (I notice that you conveniently leave out the figures for the Ritchie and Warnock seasons, which were on average, at least a thousand below what they were in the Dowie season. Once again-never mind.)

 

The crowd holding up during the 2003-4 season is already dealt with above-attendances which were built on the gradual drift back to BP inspired by the hope that the Dowie side engendered, plus relief at coming through the summer of hell. Hundreds of people had evidently got back into the habit, for some strange reason, and were prepared to give things a chance. Similar factors apply to the following season, especially after the talking up of promotion that went on during the previous close season. What happened during the Ronnie season needs no comment, while last season we topped the lague for a time. And lo and behold! What happened? Attendances rose once more.

 

But you are right-there is no connection between increased attendances and relative success on the pitch. Anybody who suggests otherwise is guilty of treason against the club.

 

As argued in the past, attendances did not automatically double, as you would seem to want, when the product on the pitch improved, but nor would they at almost any club of Latics' stature when you take into account all present day factors. What you do see is that, in contrast to the no hope days under Ritchie/Brierley, the Moore years and afterwards saw up to a thousand people drift back to consistent attendance at BP. These figures could have been built on given consistent progress, and the figures again show that when progress falters, as it has since February 2007...(give us another roll on the drums...) the crowds go down. Magic! (I suspect that you'll argue that progress faltered under Talbot, but, as explained above, the apparent trajectory of the club counts for more than the league position sometimes, and the TTA takeover gave rise to significant hopes; hopes that seem to have been dashed by the throwing away of our best chance of promotion and this damp squib of a follow-up season.)

 

As for realism, I think you'll find that I'm one of the few posters on OWTB who is prepared to look stark reality in the face.

Edited April 4, 2008 by Corporal_Jones

[Inspiral_Carpet]

I didn't call you an idiot-I said that you insist on repeating idiocies. Which, of course, you do.

 

So despite what the above figures say, you continue to claim that crowds did not rise by almost a thousand when we finished 5th, compared to the previous season when we finished ninth? Okay. If that's what you want, who am I to argue? (I notice that you conveniently leave out the figures for the Ritchie and Warnock seasons, which were on average, at least a thousand below what they were in the Dowie season. Once again-never mind.)

 

The reason that I chose the last 3 Seasons was because they are more pertinent to today. In other words, the here and now under TTA; new TV deals, current pricing etc.

 

If you want to continually live in the past then fine. You do that - but don't be surprised when others find your arguments irrelevant due to your ignoring of more modern fact.

 

If you want to gloss over the fact that recent Seasons prove you wrong (just like the 3600 and falling claim) then fine. It's so noticeable that you ignore these points now that you have been proven wrong.

 

But you are right-there is no connection between increased attendances and relative success on the pitch. Anybody who suggests otherwise is guilty of treason against the club.

 

As argued in the past, attendances did not automatically double, as you would seem to want, when the product on the pitch improved, but nor would they at almost any club of Latics' stature when you take into account all present day factors.

 

Well we got the Holy Trinity at last. Shifting arguments; Claims that anyone who disagrees with you is a Happy Clapper and finally, ludicrous made up assumptions.

 

Ooh Present Day factors? So why do your arguments (and attempt at logic) belong in the deep and distant past?

 

As for realism, I think you'll find that I'm one of the few posters on OWTB who is prepared to look stark reality in the face.

 

If you say so.

 

I'll leave the last word to yourself (as usual). TTFN.

[garcon]

I think you two should get a room.

 

With a tv camera.

 

You could make it pay per view.

[Lags]

We also must factor in things like clubs we've played against in any given season (The stokes and Cardiffs when they were followed massively) The Celebration match, City in the cup and the cheap couple of quids matches and kids in free so forth. However I reckon this season as noticeably tailed off in attendence numbers.

I remember going back years and watching Latics we always had a fantastic home record, yet our away record was absolute pants. If we won away it was like Christmas and Birthday rolled into one. Had that been the case this season, but lost just as many but away from home the crowd would have held up quite a bit, cos the majority of Latics followers watch home games only. This day and age you've got to win your home games.

Edited April 4, 2008 by Lags

[LaticsPete]

The reason that I chose the last 3 Seasons was because they are more pertinent to today. In other words, the here and now under TTA; new TV deals, current pricing etc.

 

If you want to continually live in the past then fine. You do that - but don't be surprised when others find your arguments irrelevant due to your ignoring of more modern fact.

 

If you want to gloss over the fact that recent Seasons prove you wrong (just like the 3600 and falling claim) then fine. It's so noticeable that you ignore these points now that you have been proven wrong.

Well we got the Holy Trinity at last. Shifting arguments; Claims that anyone who disagrees with you is a Happy Clapper and finally, ludicrous made up assumptions.

 

Ooh Present Day factors? So why do your arguments (and attempt at logic) belong in the deep and distant past?

If you say so.

 

I'll leave the last word to yourself (as usual). TTFN.

 

And I bet he won't be able to rest until he does.....

[Corporal_Jones]

The reason that I chose the last 3 Seasons was because they are more pertinent to today. In other words, the here and now under TTA; new TV deals, current pricing etc.

 

If you want to continually live in the past then fine. You do that - but don't be surprised when others find your arguments irrelevant due to your ignoring of more modern fact.

 

 

 

How can you avoid looking beyond the past three years if you want to examine the kind of trends we're talking about? We have already seen that pricing and so on has less to do with the kind of crowds we get than the product on the pitch.

[Corporal_Jones]

This day and age you've got to win your home games.

 

 

 

We're the only club in the land that doesn't, and that's because, as noted on here several times a week, most of us are absolute rotters who are only interested in 'moaning.'

[LaticsPete]

We're the only club in the land that doesn't, and that's because, as noted on here several times a week, most of us are absolute rotters who are only interested in 'moaning.'

 

No body said the latter part of your statement (although won't stop you from spouting it) and as for the former.......Ah! I understand. You are inhabiting a parallel universe where these things that you spout are true.

[Corporal_Jones]

No body said the latter part of your statement (although won't stop you from spouting it) and as for the former.......Ah! I understand. You are inhabiting a parallel universe where these things that you spout are true.

 

 

Look-stop trying to have the last word, will you?

[martjs]

I don't take kindly to being called an idiot by someone like yourself Corp. Particularly when you are the one who time after time is completely misunderstanding FACTS.

 

2006/07 - 6334 (Finished 6th)

2005/06 - 5796 (Finished 10th)

2004/05 - 6462 (Finished 19th)

2003/04 - 6566 (Finished 15th)

2002/03 - 6699 (Finished 5th)

2001/02 - 5800 (Finished 9th)

 

In other words, since 2004/ 05, our average crowd has decreased despite 2 subsequent significantly more succesful Seasons. In other words, increased numbers of paying punters through the door are not necesarily guaranteed by more success on the pitch. Even when we try to buy our way out of the Division.

 

Speaking as a mathematician (cough), there does seem to be a season-to-season correlation between performance and attendance: the attendance increases from the previous season if the final league position is higher and decreases if the final league position is lower EXCEPT for 2005/6. As that does not follow the trend, I would ignore it

I wish I could draw a graph...

 

But in general, and I've said this before, fairweather Latics fans turn up for the "magic of the Cup" rather than high league positions. I wonder if this is something to do with instant gratification... As the Hudders cup match attendance showed, it is less to do with the "quality" of the opposition than previously thought.

 

Hope this helps!