Attendances (Multiple Merged Threads)

[bratman]

30 minutes ago, Josef K said:

There looked a decent crowd on at Rovers this afternoon and i didn’t think it was a bad game. 

Thought it was a poor crowd tbh, guessing at 6k

[meast]

On 18/05/2022 at 14:30, Damien said:

That really shouldn't be the case if the council own 40% and Huddersfield Giants own 20%.

It is, but we are the junior/minor partners in the stadium and ultimately it's run as a business, HTAFC have the finances to be able to pay for shiny new seats etc, Huddersfield Giants don't.

The SMC aren't going to turn down a 6 figure sum from HTAFC in order to appease the Giants.

[meast]

1 hour ago, Josef K said:

There looked a decent crowd on at Rovers this afternoon and i didn’t think it was a bad game. 

Lots of empty seats and terraces, but it's not Huddersfield so it will be a good crowd no doubt

I would have said around 6500-7,000, not bad but for a club that seemingly on the up and doing things right, it's not particularly great either.

I wonder if some of them are still in Leeds singing about how great their support is and how (apparently)  "Huddersfield get battered everywhere they go", 

[Scubby]

1 hour ago, meast said:

Lots of empty seats and terraces, but it's not Huddersfield so it will be a good crowd no doubt

I would have said around 6500-7,000, not bad but for a club that seemingly on the up and doing things right, it's not particularly great either.

I wonder if some of them are still in Leeds singing about how great their support is and how (apparently)  "Huddersfield get battered everywhere they go", 

7199 announced on the PA during the game if I heard correctly 

[Eddie]

Anglian Vipers v Bedford Tigers A attendance was around 75, including the legend that is @groundhopper  

[Josef K]

There was 11,469 at FC

[Chronicler of Chiswick]

13 hours ago, Scubby said:

7199 announced on the PA during the game if I heard correctly 

That's the figure that the 'Observer's' quoting. Wonders will never cease - a match report!

[JM2010]

What's the overall averages for the 3 leagues so far this season and how do they compare to other seasons?

[Scubby]

40 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

Because they dont play in an oversized box that looks awful on tv.  If Huddersfield didnt commercially damage the product playing in an oversized stadium,  they would not be criticised. 

This is a strange post. How is Souths and the Dogs getting 15k in an 85k stadium no problem to the NRL - it doesn't seem to be commercially damaging it one bit?

What if Wigan had moved to a 8k stadium in 1980 because their crowds were 3-4k?

Edited May 22, 2022 by Scubby

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

They’re now giving away Cup Final tickets for free. See other post on the forum. This is next-level incompetence. 

[meast]

13 hours ago, Eddie said:

Anglian Vipers v Bedford Tigers A attendance was around 75, including the legend that is @groundhopper  

Anglian vipers should be kicked out then, they should be filling their ground etc  

[meast]

1 hour ago, ShropshireBull said:

Because they dont play in an oversized box that looks awful on tv.  If Huddersfield didnt commercially damage the product playing in an oversized stadium,  they would not be criticised. 

I look forward to hearing their reply when you let them know of your suggestion to commercially undamage the product

 

enquiries@giantsrl.com  

[meast]

21 minutes ago, Scubby said:

This is a strange post. How is Souths and the Dogs getting 15k in an 85k stadium no problem to the NRL - it doesn't seem to be commercially damaging it one bit?

What if Wigan had moved to a 8k stadium in 1980 because their crowds were 3-4k?

Because it's not Huddersfield?

[meast]

9 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

Because Australia isnt the UK and RL drives subscriptions in Australia,  it doesnt here. Plus Bunnies are moving to the 45000 Sydney Football Stadium next year. 

He keeps bringing it up so I am telling him the reality.  Why are we talking about 40 years ago? Huddersfield have been in that stadium for a long time and crowds have gone down. 

The people who pay for the sport or anyone else who would (TV companies) dont like the optics of significantly below capacity crowds.  There was a period between 07-2012 where giants peaked at 7k. They are now back to 5k in a 24k capacity stadium.  

Hull KR dont get criticised because 7-8k in a 10 capacity stadium makes a great atmosphere and looks good on tv, enhancing the product.  6k in a 24k ground doesnt.  I will stop mentioning it when people pretend to stop understanding why there is clearly a difference. 

If Huddersfield got 8,000 and Hull KR got 5,000 would Huddersfield still have poor crowds compared to Hull KR?, would Hull KR get criticised if they had 7,000 in a 24,000 seat stadium like Huddersfield do? 

Huddersfield's crowds aren't the biggest, we all know that, historically, they never have been, back in the 50's and early 60's, the last true great teams of Huddersfield, average crowds touched around 10,000, sometimes under, sometimes over.

From the 70's until the mid 90's, we rarely averaged over 2,000, for most of the 80's we struggled to get 1,000 people watching, crowds have increased since then but our hardcore fan base for the last 20 years has been around 4,000.

Given that we have only 1 LLS to show for in that time, despite being competitive for most of it, I'm not sure why anyone expects us to suddenly start pulling in more support than we have since our real glory days 70 years ago?

Edited May 22, 2022 by meast

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

Build a n

 

We lost 14 million on the tv deal but lets not worry about how woeful some clubs make the product look? Great take.

 

Hudds were in SL when the deal increased to £200m.

[meast]

3 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

Build a n

 

We lost 14 million on the tv deal but lets not worry about how woeful some clubs make the product look? Great take.

 

Are you seriously suggesting that Huddersfield not filling their 24,000 seat stadium every week has damaged the sport financially?

[Eddie]

1 hour ago, meast said:

Anglian vipers should be kicked out then, they should be filling their ground etc  

It would look rubbish on tv that’s for sure! 

[meast]

1 hour ago, ShropshireBull said:

Now this is legtimate.  I dont think anyone is expecting you to grow massively which is what makes the stadium inappropriate no?

Plus, everyone on here I am sure would love if Giants went on a tear and started getting 10k plus but as you said, it isnt going to happen.

So, being aware of the stature Giants will be, the game has a responsibility to ensuring we make the best product for the people who pay  (the tv company) and the matchday experience. That means a stadium probably half the size.

Honestly if the footy club went up and you could sell your stake in the ground to build something at Fartown that would be best for everyone. 

Believe me, a lot of Huddersfield fans would love us to pull in 10,000 but even then, we'd stilled be pulled apart for our crowds due to the fact that we'd still have 14,000 empty seats, there's nothing we can do about the stadium, we are looking into possibly compacting the stands that are in use, but the empty seats will still be there.

We would love to be able to build our own smaller ground somewhere, but that won't happen, and if it does, then it certainly wouldn't be at Fartown as the infrastructure isn't there anymore.

[dealwithit]

It’s all well and good to say Hudds should play in a smaller stadium, but the reality is there isn’t a viable alternative. 

[meast]

It just won't be happening, we have to make better use of a stadium that is far too big for us, and until 5 years ago the same was true of Huddersfield Town.

[meast]

24 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

And this is why people criticise, if there is no hope of improvement then the sport cannot afford many more teams like Huddersfield in terms of woeful optics if we want a decent tv deal. 

But why criticise Huddersfield, the club and it's fans for something they can't have control over?

If we played in a 10,000 capacity ground then our crowds wouldn't be an issue, the real issue is the size of the stadium, not the Giants' support level which is not that bad.

 

You seem to live in a bit of a RL utopia where you live on what ifs, speculations and high levels of unreal possibilities.

If you think Huddersfield don't deserve to be part of the sports' elite for the simple fact that our stadium is too big, despite the fact we are one of the top 4 teams currently, we are about to play in, and hopefully win the challenge cup, we have an excellent academy system which is producing top class players, not just for us, but for other clubs too then sorry, but you're deluded.

[meast]

6 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

Any elite sport that carried stadiums at 20% capacity isnt an elite sport and yes Giants academy is fantastic. But Salford were in a final a few years back and we are all just as critical as them. If the sports goes to franchising and actually starts growing again, Giants are the team that you would be looking at as the problem. If you think TV deals can be improved or more money can come in carrying teams that are operating at 30% capacity then sorry, but you're deluded.

Salford and Wakefield have poorer crowds than Huddersfield, but they have smaller grounds so get far less criticism.

Maybe we should we looking for and encouraging attendance growth across the sport rather than pulling clubs down for not pulling big crowds in, in reality, even the top clubs' crowds could and probably should be better.

But you carry on blaming Huddersfield for the game not pulling in millions on TV and advertising revenue 

[Damien]

20 hours ago, meast said:

It is, but we are the junior/minor partners in the stadium and ultimately it's run as a business, HTAFC have the finances to be able to pay for shiny new seats etc, Huddersfield Giants don't.

The SMC aren't going to turn down a 6 figure sum from HTAFC in order to appease the Giants.

But surely all of that should be done as a percentage, you pay a percentage of costs and a percentage of profits.

As an aside why when Ken Davy owned 40% of the Huddersfield Town shares did he not just keep them for the Giants then they'd have owned 60%? At the very least in time it may have become possible for them to get Town to buy them out (as may have have when Town got to the Premier League for example) and maybe develop a ground elsewhere. Its not meant to be a criticism, I'm genuinely interested as the more teams that own their own grounds the better as far as I'm concerned. 

 

[daz39]

4 hours ago, Damien said:

But surely all of that should be done as a percentage, you pay a percentage of costs and a percentage of profits.

As an aside why when Ken Davy owned 40% of the Huddersfield Town shares did he not just keep them for the Giants then they'd have owned 60%? At the very least in time it may have become possible for them to get Town to buy them out (as may have have when Town got to the Premier League for example) and maybe develop a ground elsewhere. Its not meant to be a criticism, I'm genuinely interested as the more teams that own their own grounds the better as far as I'm concerned. 

 

He kind of did and that's where the animosity comes from.

Ken rescued town at the last minute and knew that without them the stadium wasn't viable to run, he therefore decided in case it happened again, to form a new company called Huddersfield Sporting Pride, he then put Towns 40% and the Giants 20% shares into the new company thus meaning if Town did go bust again the stadium shares and therefore the stadium were safe.

When Towns saviour Dean Hoyle, who wasn't interested originally, decided he wanted to step in and become the white knight and buy the club once Ken had got it settled again the issue of the shares came up, Town's chairman and supporters association decided that Ken should give the shares back, Ken didn't want to as he believed they were safe where they wereand they accused him of stealing them and called him a crook, he actually bought them for £1 off the administrators, the town supporters association even posted Ken's home address online to encourage fans to 'persuade'him to sell them back for £1.

It was a nasty vendetta against Ken and the hatred and vitriol spread against him was horrible and sickening, in the end he did sell them back but the divide had been caused and there is still a split between the fans and clubs.

[Damien]

2 minutes ago, daz39 said:

He kind of did and that's where the animosity comes from.

Ken rescued town at the last minute and knew that without them the stadium wasn't viable to run, he therefore decided in case it happened again, to form a new company called Huddersfield Sporting Pride, he then put Towns 40% and the Giants 20% shares into the new company thus meaning if Town did go bust again the stadium shares and therefore the stadium were safe.

When Towns saviour Dean Hoyle, who wasn't interested originally, decided he wanted to step in and become the white knight and buy the club once Ken had got it settled again the issue of the shares came up, Town's chairman and supporters association decided that Ken should give the shares back, Ken didn't want to as he believed they were safe where they wereand they accused him of stealing them and called him a crook, he actually bought them for £1 off the administrators, the town supporters association even posted Ken's home address online to encourage fans to 'persuade'him to sell them back for £1.

It was a nasty vendetta against Ken and the hatred and vitriol spread against him was horrible and sickening, in the end he did sell them back but the divide had been caused and there is still a split between the fans and clubs.

Thanks for that. Sounds disgraceful behaviour towards someone that saved them.