2024 attendance thread

[Sports Prophet]

2 hours ago, EggFace said:

Just looked on Rugby League/AFL Table crowd stats and you are right with the Gong crowds but maybe the that was do to with St.Merge winning 5 out of 27 games ?...love to see the game in Woooongong prosper.

Yeah I do wonder if the people of Illawarra have wholeheartedly bought into the Dragons brand.

The ‘Gong has grown by 25% since 1995 to approx 315,000 today. Honestly, I would have tipped larger growth than that over that time. There was 6% growth to 2006, then 17% growth from 2007 - 2024 which is closer to the 10% per ten years I would have expected. 

The Steelers were hardly drawing lots of fans by 1995, although they were perennial outsiders throughout most of their history.

I theorise that the population growth over the last 30 years have been predominantly Sydney migrants and had the Steelers still been a standalone entity, there would be much more openness for those migrants which were RL fans to adopt the Steelers as a second club than would be willing to do so with the club as a Dragons brand. In turn there would have been more likelihood of families taking on the Steelers as the primary club as the new generation started schooling.

You are right @EggFace, I expect the underperformance of the Dragons these last ten years have had a lot to do with the average crowds in Wollongong and Kogarah. As someone else said, it looked packed on the weekend at Wollongong yet was under 75% capacity. Goes to show how many you can cram onto a hill, because I don’t think there were any seats left.

[Worzel]

8 hours ago, Sports Prophet said:

Yeah I do wonder if the people of Illawarra have wholeheartedly bought into the Dragons brand.

The ‘Gong has grown by 25% since 1995 to approx 315,000 today. Honestly, I would have tipped larger growth than that over that time. There was 6% growth to 2006, then 17% growth from 2007 - 2024 which is closer to the 10% per ten years I would have expected. 

The Steelers were hardly drawing lots of fans by 1995, although they were perennial outsiders throughout most of their history.

I theorise that the population growth over the last 30 years have been predominantly Sydney migrants and had the Steelers still been a standalone entity, there would be much more openness for those migrants which were RL fans to adopt the Steelers as a second club than would be willing to do so with the club as a Dragons brand. In turn there would have been more likelihood of families taking on the Steelers as the primary club as the new generation started schooling.

You are right @EggFace, I expect the underperformance of the Dragons these last ten years have had a lot to do with the average crowds in Wollongong and Kogarah. As someone else said, it looked packed on the weekend at Wollongong yet was under 75% capacity. Goes to show how many you can cram onto a hill, because I don’t think there were any seats left.

I’ve never quite understood why the Dragons were so ungenerous with the branding. The Illawarra is an afterthought, even the red “away” kit is an old St George one rather than doing the obvious thing and using a Steelers jersey style. I think they’ve only used that in a couple of the post-JV seasons. 

The fact they wear the red V when playing in Wollongong is especially weird. I mean, if it’s a partnership and you play 6 games in Illawarra, how hard is it to think about wearing the Steelers red jersey in those matches? Even Wests have been more generous to Balmain, and they’re funding everything (whereas WIN properly support the Dragons)

[Worzel]

Hull KR’s first two attendances confirmed, for those who are irritated by them not publishing it weekly! 

[langpark]

6 minutes ago, Worzel said:

Hull KR’s first two attendances confirmed, for those who are irritated by them not publishing it weekly! 

A bit confusing... Today they have announced over 10k have been sold for Friday night, but it has not yet been declared a sellout.  So, what their actual capacity is, is anyone's guess.

[up the robins]

1 minute ago, langpark said:

A bit confusing... Today they have announced over 10k have been sold for Friday night, but it has not yet been declared a sellout.  So, what their actual capacity is, is anyone's guess.

I believe we have reduced the away allocation and used it for ourselves.

[Worzel]

11 minutes ago, langpark said:

A bit confusing... Today they have announced over 10k have been sold for Friday night, but it has not yet been declared a sellout.  So, what their actual capacity is, is anyone's guess.

The ground capacity is 10,200

That will have been the Hull FC attendance last weekend, as they filled the away corner. Other matches are dependent on the away team's sales, unless they return some of their allocation, as is happening this weekend where London have allowed us to sell their section given they won't be bringing many on a Friday night. 

 

Edited April 3 by Worzel
Typo

[JonM]

10 hours ago, Sports Prophet said:

Didn’t know the joint held that many. This looks to be the best immediate promotion performance for years and sustaining itself into year 2. Great job Leigh.

Capacity is higher than London, Salford, Hull KR, or Castleford (and not much different to Gilbert Brutus currently).

[phiggins]

37 minutes ago, Worzel said:

Hull KR’s first two attendances confirmed, for those who are irritated by them not publishing it weekly! 

If they're holding attendance figures back, then announcing them at fans forum, wouldn't it be better if they communicated the actual attendance instead? So, the figure that will be used in IMG scoring?

[sweaty craiq]

12 hours ago, Sports Prophet said:

Didn’t know the joint held that many. This looks to be the best immediate promotion performance for years and sustaining itself into year 2. Great job Leigh.

Crowd restricted to 10500 at present due to stage and a couple of other bits. Just under 150 left

[Worzel]

4 hours ago, phiggins said:

If they're holding attendance figures back, then announcing them at fans forum, wouldn't it be better if they communicated the actual attendance instead? So, the figure that will be used in IMG scoring?

Hull KR are announcing attendances 3 times a season, alongside a basket of other measures. They’re under no obligation to release them every week and it’s a peculiarly rugby league obsession to be honest. I’m sure IMG get the data whenever they need it. It’s also clear it’s a positive metric so they’ve no need to hide it, and clearly have reasons for doing this that aren’t about image management. 

The fact Craig told the Supporters’ Council what the last two matches are is irrelevant, it’s not some official press release. The club release the minutes of all of these meetings, so we can see what was discussed, and I think it shows them in a good light around the level of transparency with the people who really matter: Rovers supporters. 

[phiggins]

10 minutes ago, Worzel said:

Hull KR are announcing attendances 3 times a season, alongside a basket of other measures. They’re under no obligation to release them every week and it’s a peculiarly rugby league obsession to be honest. I’m sure IMG get the data whenever they need it. It’s also clear it’s a positive metric so they’ve no need to hide it, and clearly have reasons for doing this that aren’t about image management. 

The fact Craig told the Supporters’ Council what the last two matches are is irrelevant, it’s not some official press release. The club release the minutes of all of these meetings, so we can see what was discussed, and I think it shows them in a good light around the level of transparency with the people who really matter: Rovers supporters. 

I wasn't having a dig at HKR. Just thought that given the figure is being given out after the event, the figure provided to IMG of actual people in the ground would likely be of more interest. Same applies to all clubs.

[M j M]

Not reporting attendances figures makes people more interested in what they are rather  than less, which seems to be what Rovers were going for. It's a peculiar way to do things really.

Edited April 3 by M j M

[JonNgog]

2 hours ago, Worzel said:

Hull KR are announcing attendances 3 times a season, alongside a basket of other measures. They’re under no obligation to release them every week and it’s a peculiarly rugby league obsession to be honest. I’m sure IMG get the data whenever they need it. It’s also clear it’s a positive metric so they’ve no need to hide it, and clearly have reasons for doing this that aren’t about image management. 

The fact Craig told the Supporters’ Council what the last two matches are is irrelevant, it’s not some official press release. The club release the minutes of all of these meetings, so we can see what was discussed, and I think it shows them in a good light around the level of transparency with the people who really matter: Rovers supporters. 

It’s not a rugby league obsession. Read any football weekly and you will see the attendance figure for every professional men’s match in England and Scotland. Not sure KR would get away with hiding this information in that sport.

[Worzel]

14 minutes ago, JonNgog said:

It’s not a rugby league obsession. Read any football weekly and you will see the attendance figure for every professional men’s match in England and Scotland. Not sure KR would get away with hiding this information in that sport.

They don't hide it, that's just emotive nonsense. They just don't happen to release it as often as you'd personally like. I'm not sure that's a matter of great concern for anyone to be honest. 

I'd announce the figures myself, but they've got a good reason for doing it this way so I'm cool with it. Other club's fans weird obsession with it really isn't Rovers' problem. 

[Worzel]

2 hours ago, M j M said:

Not reporting attendances figures makes people more interested in what they are rather  than less, which seems to be what Rovers were going for. It's a peculiar way to do things really.

No, their point is that clubs' self-published attendance figures aren't like-for-like comparisons to each other, so they're pointless (or worse sometimes involve clubs trying to game the system). They're making the case for a different method behind the scenes, whilst not playing the game out front. Perfectly professional way of going about things.  

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Worzel said:

They don't hide it, that's just emotive nonsense. They just don't happen to release it as often as you'd personally like. I'm not sure that's a matter of great concern for anyone to be honest. 

I'd announce the figures myself, but they've got a good reason for doing it this way so I'm cool with it. Other club's fans weird obsession with it really isn't Rovers' problem. 

 

1 hour ago, Worzel said:

No, their point is that clubs' self-published attendance figures aren't like-for-like comparisons to each other, so they're pointless (or worse sometimes involve clubs trying to game the system). They're making the case for a different method behind the scenes, whilst not playing the game out front. Perfectly professional way of going about things.  

I'm not sure whether you really believe this or are on a wind up.

[Worzel]

44 minutes ago, Dave T said:

 

I'm not sure whether you really believe this or are on a wind up.

They’ve explicitly said it. So no I’m not.

I’d publish the numbers myself, said that many times in this thread, so it’s not a hill I’d die on. But the club’s position is that they think weekly attendance figures are misleading because:

1) It’s not the actual IMG measure.

2) Some clubs inflate them with frees etc so you’re never comparing like-for-like. 

3) Other data is of equal importance and it’s better to communicate a bundle of information together for greater context and insight 

Now you can disagree with them on any or all of those points, but people are making out there’s no logic to the club’s position when there clearly is, and then others are saying they’re hiding stuff when they’re clearly not (as the numbers are positive to there’s no motive, and the club releases the numbers later so nothing is hidden)

This stuff’s really not that complicated. 

[dboy]

23 minutes ago, Worzel said:

They’ve explicitly said it. So no I’m not.

I’d publish the numbers myself, said that many times in this thread, so it’s not a hill I’d die on. But the club’s position is that they think weekly attendance figures are misleading because:

1) It’s not the actual IMG measure.

2) Some clubs inflate them with frees etc so you’re never comparing like-for-like. 

3) Other data is of equal importance and it’s better to communicate a bundle of information together for greater context and insight 

Now you can disagree with them on any or all of those points, but people are making out there’s no logic to the club’s position when there clearly is, and then others are saying they’re hiding stuff when they’re clearly not (as the numbers are positive to there’s no motive, and the club releases the numbers later so nothing is hidden)

This stuff’s really not that complicated. 

Bunkum.

1. Yes, it literally IS the IMG metric.

2. No, only persons in attendance is the, ya know, attendance.

3. That's just a word soup - no idea what you think you are trying to say there.

[Archie Gordon]

At a time when the game is arguably becoming more invisible, not publishing (very good) attendances is plainly daft.

[Eddie]

11 hours ago, JonNgog said:

It’s not a rugby league obsession. Read any football weekly and you will see the attendance figure for every professional men’s match in England and Scotland. Not sure KR would get away with hiding this information in that sport.

Right down the tiers of non league too. 

[gingerjon]

8 minutes ago, Eddie said:

Right down the tiers of non league too. 

I've just checked and it's part of the requirement of membership of the Southern Combination Football League (that's the lowest level locally from which you can, in theory, be promoted and promoted and promoted from into the Football League) that you announce result, names and times of scorers, and attendance.

[bratman]

Tbh I find it quite funny how annoyed people are with delayed attendance figures.

[East Hull Robins]

It’s a bit strange the reaction I must admit. 
 

IMG/RFL do get these figures weekly though I do know that. It’s just the public announcement which isn’t made weekly. 
 

anyhow, now we know.

9.7k rough average for two crappy weather night games including a Thursday, FC game over 10.2k due to full away been sold and London over 10k home tickets sold 

So far this year then we can safely predict KR’s league average will come out about the 10k mark. Which is good news all round

 

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, bratman said:

Tbh I find it quite funny how annoyed people are with delayed attendance figures.

 

27 minutes ago, East Hull Robins said:

It’s a bit strange the reaction I must admit. 
 

IMG/RFL do get these figures weekly though I do know that. It’s just the public announcement which isn’t made weekly. 
 

anyhow, now we know.

9.7k rough average for two crappy weather night games including a Thursday, FC game over 10.2k due to full away been sold and London over 10k home tickets sold 

So far this year then we can safely predict KR’s league average will come out about the 10k mark. Which is good news all round

 

It's weirder for people to suggest this is all perfectly normal and nothing to see here. 

I'm not one who cares so much about attendances, other than a passing interest, but crowds have been announced for decades in many sports - it's a bit weird to suddenly change approach.

[JM2010]

36 minutes ago, East Hull Robins said:

It’s a bit strange the reaction I must admit. 
 

IMG/RFL do get these figures weekly though I do know that. It’s just the public announcement which isn’t made weekly. 
 

anyhow, now we know.

9.7k rough average for two crappy weather night games including a Thursday, FC game over 10.2k due to full away been sold and London over 10k home tickets sold 

So far this year then we can safely predict KR’s league average will come out about the 10k mark. Which is good news all round

 

I’m not sure why people are moaning about Hull KR. They’re doing a lot of things right