AFL caught fiddling crowd numbers again

[The Future is League]

They give out a crowd figure of over 16,000 at a ground that that has a crowds capacity on 10,000

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leederville_Oval

[lucky 7]

21 hours ago, The Future is League said:

They give out a crowd figure of over 16,000 at a ground that that has a crowds capacity on 10,000

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leederville_Oval

 

No surprise there and also they have a history of fiddling junior playing numbers to get more tax payers money. Its innate with the them

[The Future is League]

3 hours ago, lucky 7 said:

No surprise there and also they have a history of fiddling junior playing numbers to get more tax payers money. Its innate with the them

They have been doing for many years

[The Future is League]

More crowd fiddling numbers from the AFL

https://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/gather-round-sold-out-claims-exposed-by-vision-of-empty-seats/news-story/72bbb0b374bf33437e3cfca783b6dd80

[Maximus Decimus]

To be fair, it looks to be a classic example of a double-header. There are many sports that report the crowds this way.

I went to the opening game of the 2013 World Cup between England and Australia and there were 43,000 or so there. I stayed for the following Wales-Italy game and it is generous to say 10,000 were still there. On this forum, I was in the minority for arguing that they shouldn't both be counted as 43,000 when it comes to the average.

Most sports exaggerate, but I've never understood the legality of it as I thought it was linked to tax. I saw an A-league game recently that was announced as 3,300 and no lie 1,000 was a generous figure. However, surely if it was about tax that would cost them money?

[Futtocks]

1 hour ago, Maximus Decimus said:

However, surely if it was about tax that would cost them money?

Maybe the potential to attract bigger sponsorships by pretending to be more successful than they are is worth taking a tax hit in the short term? I dunno.

Also, some sports just can't bring themselves to admit that things aren't totally rosy. See the increasingly common non-reporting of Super Rugby attendances except when a decent crowd is achieved, for instance.

[The Future is League]

9 minutes ago, Futtocks said:

Maybe the potential to attract bigger sponsorships by pretending to be more successful than they are is worth taking a tax hit in the short term? I dunno.

Also, some sports just can't bring themselves to admit that things aren't totally rosy. See the increasingly common non-reporting of Super Rugby attendances except when a decent crowd is achieved, for instance.

I think you hit it on the head when you said "Pretending to be more successful than they are" Its fool Gold in my opinion as in this case it's clearly fudged crowd figures.

[Futtocks]

2 minutes ago, The Future is League said:

I think you hit it on the head when you said "Pretending to be more successful than they are" Its fool Gold in my opinion as in this case it's clearly fudged crowd figures.

The claim "it's the fastest-growing sport in the country" used to be trotted out regularly by at least 20 different sports for a while, but I think the rise of the internet has made it easier for people to find out for themselves.

[The Future is League]

1 minute ago, Futtocks said:

The claim "it's the fastest-growing sport in the country" used to be trotted out regularly by at least 20 different sports for a while, but I think the rise of the internet has made it easier for people to find out for themselves.

Also the rise of the mobile phones with cameras has exposed the lies about crowd numbers.

[Maximus Decimus]

47 minutes ago, Futtocks said:

Maybe the potential to attract bigger sponsorships by pretending to be more successful than they are is worth taking a tax hit in the short term? I dunno.

Also, some sports just can't bring themselves to admit that things aren't totally rosy. See the increasingly common non-reporting of Super Rugby attendances except when a decent crowd is achieved, for instance.

Non-reporting is slightly different, as I'm sure they have to give it to the taxman.

With clearly falsifying numbers or at least making them look better (by including all ST holders for instance regardless of attending) wouldn't it cost quite a lot if you did it a lot?

I might be 100% wrong, maybe they have to do nothing of the sort, and I've got the wrong end of the stick. After all, wouldn't it constitute fraud if they were caught openly lying? I'm sure those figures are used for sponsorships etc.

I suspect that whether they need to be legally declared or not, that they include all sorts of things like ST holders and free tickets given out but not taken up.

After all, with the quality of camera phones now it only takes someone with far too much time on their hands to actually count the number...

[Futtocks]

4 minutes ago, Maximus Decimus said:

someone with far too much time on their hands to actually count the number...

One area where Rugby League is a true world leader.

[lucky 7]

On 17/04/2023 at 02:23, Maximus Decimus said:

To be fair, it looks to be a classic example of a double-header. There are many sports that report the crowds this way.

I went to the opening game of the 2013 World Cup between England and Australia and there were 43,000 or so there. I stayed for the following Wales-Italy game and it is generous to say 10,000 were still there. On this forum, I was in the minority for arguing that they shouldn't both be counted as 43,000 when it comes to the average.

Most sports exaggerate, but I've never understood the legality of it as I thought it was linked to tax. I saw an A-league game recently that was announced as 3,300 and no lie 1,000 was a generous figure. However, surely if it was about tax that would cost them money?

The AFL do have history when it comes to fiddling crowd numbers and junior playing numbers

[Sports Prophet]

On 03/10/2022 at 19:22, The Future is League said:

They give out a crowd figure of over 16,000 at a ground that that has a crowds capacity on 10,000

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leederville_Oval

 

You can’t even quote your own research correctly. That link you shared says the capacity is 15k, not 10k.  

Not that I would take a Wikipedia article as gospel for confirming the capacity of a ground with predominantly unseated spectator area. That would be like thinking Henson Park has a capacity of 30,000 just because Wikipedia says so.

17k for the WAFL GF, looks about right to me.

 

Edited May 5, 2023 by Sports Prophet

[The Masked Poster]

I stand corrected. AFL has a competitor for worst sport ever - Women's AFL. 

Honestly, I wouldn't watch this sport if it was happening in my garden - and they proposed to pay me £100000000000000000000 to watch. 

 

Ok I'm exaggerating slightly about the last bit. Suffice to say, I'd rather watch the England RU team from the early 90's.