2012 attendances

[oriel]

it must be hard to try and estimate the attendances from the press box in Oriel(way back in the stand).There was over 1300 at the match and if i was to round it up to even numbers i would go 1400.Not great but an improvment on what we where getting.

Agreed, 1,000 was an amazing estimate by ET. Def lower than the Rovers game last week, but I think 1,300-1,400 would not be too far off.

Big improvement on the early summer crowds of 800 or so.

[Dunny]

Would agree with bullit and Oriel. Around 1300-1400 imo

[Mark]

2,100 in Tallaght

[Mark]

200 or so in Limerick I'm told. I'm sure someone will have an official number later.

[donnrua]

541 at the Limerick game last night

[blue til i die]

See if you can get your hands on an official attendance. I find sometimes that extratime estimates are way off.

Probably why they call it an estimate :confused: Blame the clubs for not giving official attendances.

[bullit]

See if you can get your hands on an official attendance. I find sometimes that extratime estimates are way off.

Attendance given on the website is 1,139.I can only guess that they dont count season tix holders.

[Cuyahoga]

Longford v Waterford UTD attendance 400 estimate( extratime.ie)

[Shannonsider]

541 at the Limerick game last night

That is the official attendance by the way.

[donnrua]

when you consider the fact that we were playing the worst team to play in the league in many years it wasn't that bad of an attendance!!!!!

[dong]

when you consider the fact that we were playing the worst team to play in the league in many years it wasn't that bad of an attendance!!!!!

No it's not.
It's dismal.

[nigel-harps1954]

Around 400 in Finn Park last night for a cracker of a match.

[Jofspring]

No it's not.
It's dismal.

Not great but not dismal. As mentioned we were playing a terrible team that would have no pull crowd wise with maybe a traveling support of three. The Longford match in two weeks should see a big improvement if we stay top. Even Shamrock Rovers get hit by a few thousand supporters for games that aren't considered big ones. Us in the FAI Cup (approx 1,200) with us bring around 120 and Athlone (600 approx) last year compared to normally over 3,000.

[A face]

when you consider the fact that we were playing the worst team to play in the league in many years it wasn't that bad of an attendance!!!!!

I dont know .... i just think at the base minimum all LOI clubs should be getting 1,000 through the gate every game. And if thats not happening then the club needs to recognise this as a crisis and immediately needs to be addressed.

[osarusan]

I dont know .... i just think at the base minimum all LOI clubs should be getting 1,000 through the gate every game. And if thats not happening then the club needs to recognise this as a crisis and immediately needs to be addressed.

Make it 7,000 while you're at it.

[Cuyahoga]

Make it 7,000 while you're at it.
A Face is right, if all the first division clubs were to get 1,000 regularly at their home games they wouldnt have too many worries, you could add a few premier division clubs to that list aswell.

[osarusan]

A Face is right, if all the first division clubs were to get 1,000 regularly at their home games they wouldnt have too many worries, you could add a few premier division clubs to that list aswell.

Would bigger crowds be a good thing? Of course.

To just pluck a number of 1,000 from nowhere and say that not meeting this number is a crisis is idiocy.

[Charlie Darwin]

An arbitrary figure of 1,000 is insane and takes no account of the difference in catchment areas between clubs.

[A face]

Would bigger crowds be a good thing? Of course.

To just pluck a number of 1,000 from nowhere and say that not meeting this number is a crisis is idiocy.

1000 isn't a figure plucked out of the sky, i'm not in the habit of doing that to be honest. 1000 is roughly the figure that most LOI clubs need to be reaching since the licencing / extra scrutiny on clubs finances has started ...... coming out with a figure of 7000, now thats a figure thats plucked out of the sky and practically impossible for at least 40% of clubs right now no matter what they tried.

Y'see, .... 1000 is realistic and a target which is practical for most clubs. If its not then that clubs will join Dublin City, Kildare County, Cobh, Sporting Fingal and Monaghan in a very short space of time i'd be guessing.

[A face]

An arbitrary figure of 1,000 is insane and takes no account of the difference in catchment areas between clubs.

Exactly, couldn't agree with you more, and before time that will catch up with a club and they'll go the very same way Momaghan did, and Sporting Fingal .... And Dublin City ...... and Kildare County ..... And Cobh Ramblers ..... and Kilkenny City ...... and then it wont even be worth a post on a forum, they'll just be gone and we wont be having this conversation.

[A face]

Sligo v Cork City ... 2227

[Macy]

Low crowds will only catch up with clubs if they've budgeted for a higher figure. Income isn't what makes clubs unsustainable, it's spending. Mons survived fine when they had a budget based on realistic income - when they budgeted for massive sponsorship and/ or a unrealistic increase in crowds they became unsustainable.

[nigel-harps1954]

Averages after week 18: (Missing UCD v Pats and Harps v Wexford from this weekends fixtures)


PREMIER DIVISION


Bohs - 1644 (2011 - 1,488; 2010- 1,835; 2009 - 2,366; 2008 - 1,993; 2007 - 1,924; 2006 - 1,463; 2005 - 1,976)
Bray - 1000 (1,121; 952; 1,169; 1,106; 1,200; 1,027; 1,550)
Cork - 3126 (2,128 FD; 1,693 FD; 2,681; 3,142; 2,897; 2,941; 3,644)
Derry - 1711 (2,135; 1,965 FD; 2,436; 3,363; 2,614; 3,229; 2,698)
Drogheda - 1014 (811; 859; 1,106; 1,631; 1,919; 1,751; 1,682)
Dundalk - 1097 (1,355; 1,877; 2,371; 1,459 FD; 1,406 FD; 1,078 FD; 474 FD)
Pat's - 1620 (1,346; 1,756; 1,631; 1,795; 1,910; 1,342; 1,599)
Rovers - 3322 (3,779; 3,794; 3,611; 1,468; 1,715; 1,089 FD; 1,539)
Shels - 1371 (781 FD; 737 FD; 972 FD; 986 FD; 888 FD; 1,690; 1,949)
Sligo - 2333 (2,103; 1,807; 1,756; 1,960; 1,448; 1,806; 1,794 FD)
UCD - 481 (558; 610; 272 FD; 546; 663; 546; 653; 306 FD)


FIRST DIVISION


Athlone - 300 (200; 354; 462; 387; 670; 421; 316)
Harps - 452 (433; 644; 480; 1,607 PD; 1,164; 428; 1,347 PD; 1,106) -
Limerick - 644 (569; 598; 429; 517; 670; 364; 669)
Longford - 406 (315; 230; 260; 406; 885 PD; 681 PD; 1,004 PD)
Mervue - 253 (349; 123; 166)
SD Galway - 216 (125; 122 - As Salthill Devon FC)
Waterford - 410 (466; 619; 434; 670; 1,181 PD; 915 PD; 1,513 PD)
Wexford - 365 (216; 343; 494; 767; 810)


PREMIER AVERAGE: 1702
FIRST DIVISION AVERAGE: 381


OVERALL AVERAGE: 1146

[nigel-harps1954]

The day every first division club gets over 1,000 people through the gates is the day I tie my hair to my toes and hang from two poles letting people use me as a hammock.

[A face]

The day every first division club gets over 1,000 people through the gates is the day I tie my hair to my toes and hang from two poles letting people use me as a hammock.

And until that very day clubs who dont strive to get at least that very modest attendance (in the scheme of things) will continue to struggle. Yes they might be able to just about keep going, and shave all costs right down to the wire, and scrimp and scrape and juggle the funds and hope on a wing and a prayer, or have to go cap in hand to someone in the community if heaven forbid there were too many fines in one month for the club to contend with, or the insurance cost were just a bit too big this year or some other curve-ball is thrown at them. Yes clubs can 'exist' on a shoe string budget, and stamina and endurance and staying-power are the words to describe them but they are graveyards of ambition until they get their acts together and get people through the gates.

If clubs can sell an advert in their programme on the strength of 1000 people potential seeing it, rather than a local business taking pity and taking out the advert as a means of donating the money then clubs will be alot better off. Thats my argument. As soon as clubs can get 1000 people through (ideally 2000) then they can exist and florish. Until then its always ..... and i mean always, backs to the wall because it IS stamina and endurance and staying-power that allow clubs to exist.

I started a thread recently about LOI clubs relationships with schoolboys football. I started it because i think that that is where LOI clubs need to look at to bump up attenances, people who are involved in the game, and they know what it is to run a club and ensure there is training gear, buses, first aid kit, bog standard stuff to run a club, in place to enble the team to go and play and they can relate to whats needed for a team to exist.

Until LOI clubs get 1000 through the gate, this league will be on its knees ..... if its not a crisis for clubs, then its complete acceptance of their situation. I know its the target that City had in the first because it was the bare minimun that was needs when the club was absolutely crippled.

[Charlie Darwin]

Exactly, couldn't agree with you more, and before time that will catch up with a club and they'll go the very same way Momaghan did, and Sporting Fingal .... And Dublin City ...... and Kildare County ..... And Cobh Ramblers ..... and Kilkenny City ...... and then it wont even be worth a post on a forum, they'll just be gone and we wont be having this conversation.
Shelbourne... Shamrock Rovers... Derry City... Cork City... Bohemians - attendances mean jack **** compared to the corporate culture at a club. Clubs like Waterford and Longford operate within their means with attendances much lower than 1000.

I would be delighted if we had a league strong enough that clubs with attendances <1000 were no longer financially viable in our league, but that will only happen if all the other clubs pull up their socks to the extent that such clubs are too small to survive at the top level.

[A face]

Shelbourne... Shamrock Rovers... Derry City... Cork City... Bohemians - attendances mean jack **** compared to the corporate culture at a club.

Ok, the five clubs there, when they had problems they were living well beyond their means, or rule breaking or basic mismanagement ...... and that aint something any club can do ..... with 50 or 5000 in attendance ...... it just simply aint gonna happen for ya and serveral found that out to their cost. I know thats a completely seperate issue to what was being debated but fair play to ya, its no harm in stating it, no matter how obvious.


Clubs like Waterford and Longford operate within their means with attendances much lower than 1000.

And they dont have financial burden or problems? They dont stress over numbers or try to juggle the figures etc? They are perfectly viable clubs who can withstand anything thrown at them? Does the treasurer of those clubs sleep well every night? They dont live hand to mouth and if another epidemic of foot and mouth out broke out and they didn't have a home game for four months, even three months, they would be perfectly able to withstand that burden?

Dude, if you are gonna say yes, then i'm gonna say i dont believe ya. Thats where i'm at .... and that IS my point, i'm saying clubs need to get to a stage where the lowest average attendance is 1000, to just exist and be able to devote their energy and attention to playing football and developing players and improving the matchday experience and all that kind of stuff, not the trying to scrape money for a bus together for an away game, or money to pay a ref, or the local security company for the last few games because some club up the road sent a bus load of social degenerate test-tube fookwits to one of your home games and they broke up a bar and a shop during that visit, and since then local business and residents have been screaming for a knee jerk reaction and your club has to foot the bill. It all happens !!


I would be delighted if we had a league strong enough that clubs with attendances <1000 were no longer financially viable in our league, but that will only happen if all the other clubs pull up their socks to the extent that such clubs are too small to survive at the top level.

Nah man, you haven't done it .... you've not convinced me. I'll be honest all i got from that was 'mediocrity' and thats grand, fine by me if thats what you want. If you are saying that a viable strategy to managing a club is to hope the other clubs dont 'pull up their socks to the extent that such clubs are too small to survive at the top level' is the way to go then i'm gonna say i aint on the same page, i just dont think its a good game plan. So much so, if the chairman of my club came out with something like that then i would be looking to see who else is out there to do a better job. But that could be just me !! ;)

[Charlie Darwin]

Ok, the five clubs there, when they had problems they were living well beyond their means, or rule breaking or basic mismanagement ...... and that aint something any club can do ..... with 50 or 5000 in attendance ...... it just simply aint gonna happen for ya and serveral found that out to their cost. I know thats a completely seperate issue to what was being debated but fair play to ya, its no harm in stating it, no matter how obvious.
I think that's the point I was making. Attendances aren't what makes a club sustainable - prudent management is, whether you have 500 a week or 5000.



And they dont have financial burden or problems? They dont stress over numbers or try to juggle the figures etc? They are perfectly viable clubs who can withstand anything thrown at them? Does the treasurer of those clubs sleep well every night? They dont live hand to mouth and if another epidemic of foot and mouth out broke out and they didn't have a home game for four months, even three months, they would be perfectly able to withstand that burden?
Those clubs have problems, obviously, but they aren't related to baseline attendances. They cut their cloth according to their coat, and right now that is enough to sustain a high-ranking first division club. If the league progresses and PD teams start hosting regular crowds of 2000+, then there will be pressure on them, but right now they are big enough to sustainably challenge for the top table.


Dude, if you are gonna say yes, then i'm gonna say i dont believe ya. Thats where i'm at .... and that IS my point, i'm saying clubs need to get to a stage where the lowest average attendance is 1000, to just exist and be able to devote their energy and attention to playing football and developing players and improving the matchday experience and all that kind of stuff, not the trying to scrape money for a bus together for an away game, or money to pay a ref, or the local security company for the last few games because some club up the road sent a bus load of social degenerate test-tube fookwits to one of your home games and they broke up a bar and a shop during that visit, and since then local business and residents have been screaming for a knee jerk reaction and your club has to foot the bill. It all happens !!

Nah man, you haven't done it .... you've not convinced me. I'll be honest all i got from that was 'mediocrity' and thats grand, fine by me if thats what you want. If you are saying that a viable strategy to managing a club is to hope the other clubs dont 'pull up their socks to the extent that such clubs are too small to survive at the top level' is the way to go then i'm gonna say i aint on the same page, i just dont think its a good game plan. So much so, if the chairman of my club came out with something like that then i would be looking to see who else is out there to do a better job. But that could be just me !! ;)
I agree with you, I think, I just think you are phrasing your argument wrong. It would be great if all LOI teams needed 1000 people per game to keep at the top table, but the fact is they can get by on a lot less and do. Any change to that status quo will need to come from all levels of the game, not just the bottom clubs increasing their attendances.

[osarusan]

Income isn't what makes clubs unsustainable, it's spending.

Exactly. The fact that A Face hasn't worked this out by now is baffling.


1000 is roughly the figure that most LOI clubs need to be reaching since the licencing / extra scrutiny on clubs finances has started

On what do you base this? On what numbers/evidence? Have you seen the books at first division clubs? Are you confident that a club like Mervue need the same figure to survive that a club like Limerick do? Do they have the same costs to run the club?

As I said, it's a figure you've plucked out of nowhere. It may have been the figure Cork needed when they were in trouble, but that's no reason to suggest that 1,000 the same figure is what everybody needs.


And they dont have financial burden or problems? They dont stress over numbers or try to juggle the figures etc? They are perfectly viable clubs who can withstand anything thrown at them? Does the treasurer of those clubs sleep well every night?
And these problems only apply to teams whose attendances are under 1000? You say that the issue of Cork, Derry, Shels etc going bust is completely unrelated, but it's absolutely central to the issue - budgeting is everything. There is no magic number after which all financial problems go away - no matter how big your crowds are, if you spend more than you bring in, you'll be in trouble.

[Lim till i die]

1000 isn't a figure plucked out of the sky, i'm not in the habit of doing that to be honest. 1000 is roughly the figure that most LOI clubs need to be reaching since the licencing / extra scrutiny on clubs finances has started ......

It is a completely arbitrary figure.

Plucked at random from your arse.

Which doesn't take anything else into account.

At all.

"Because I don't normally do that" and "because I say so" aren't good counter arguments to this fact.


Y'see, .... 1000 is realistic and a target which is practical for most clubs. If its not then that clubs will join Dublin City, Kildare County, Cobh, Sporting Fingal and Monaghan in a very short space of time i'd be guessing.

A load of straw clubs if you will.

Cobh aside (who were every bit as poorly ran as a Cork or a Bohs) all those clubs were either makey uppy or plonked in areas where no one was ever going to give a shiznit about them. And even Monaghan lasted 26 years.



And they dont have financial burden or problems? They dont stress over numbers or try to juggle the figures etc? They are perfectly viable clubs who can withstand anything thrown at them? Does the treasurer of those clubs sleep well every night? They dont live hand to mouth and if another epidemic of foot and mouth out broke out and they didn't have a home game for four months, even three months, they would be perfectly able to withstand that burden?

Absolute brain fart which could be applied to every club in the land.

[A face]

I think that's the point I was making. Attendances aren't what makes a club sustainable - prudent management is, whether you have 500 a week or 5000.

We've covered that ..... its a given, and stating the obvious and as i said no harm in stating that.


Those clubs have problems, obviously, but they aren't related to baseline attendances.

My point is, that if their spending stayed the same and they managed to get 1000 through the gate on a regular basis then clubs wouldn't see management problems and should be able to kick on and develop their clubs, so its not just fire fighting trying to balance the books.


They cut their cloth according to their coat, and right now that is enough to sustain a high-ranking first division club. If the league progresses and PD teams start hosting regular crowds of 2000+, then there will be pressure on them, but right now they are big enough to sustainably challenge for the top table.

As i said, i wouldn't like to leave it to chance, i'd rather a club would be looking to increase attendances and in turn sponsorship and merchanise. I wouldn't like a club to be doing so much cutting that they end up with a waistcoat, thats what i'm getting at. My point is about direction, not standing still, not balancing the books one month and theres a collective sigh of relief around the table, and clubs start the whole 'what if' uncertainty again the next month


I agree with you, I think, I just think you are phrasing your argument wrong. It would be great if all LOI teams needed 1000 people per game to keep at the top table, but the fact is they can get by on a lot less and do. Any change to that status quo will need to come from all levels of the game, not just the bottom clubs increasing their attendances.

Ok, i know they can do with alot less, hopefully they are all balancing the books and not getting into trouble but its hard, damn hard and i would be thinking that clubs are feeling it and are only holding waistcoats as it stands.


On what do you base this? On what numbers/evidence? Have you seen the books at first division clubs?

C'mon, keep it sensible willya, of course i haven't got evidence. Its merely estimation but are you going to argue down over buttons? How much do you think clubs need, and how much do they differ from club to club given they are all in the same game, have to adhere to the same licencing, all try and raise funds pretty much through the same means. They all have the same base costs and its not millions we are dealing with when all the clubs in question are looking at 500 or less average attendances.


Are you confident that a club like Mervue need the same figure to survive that a club like Limerick do? Do they have the same costs to run the club?

No, but i am saying that these clubs, all clubs have the same base costs and outgoings as the next one. Obviously it will differ from club to club but when you are only getting 150 through the gate each game then you know and i know its not gonna differ much.

And some clubs can exist, barely keep afloat, barely hanging on, remorgaging the house to keep it ticking over, just keeping the light on, yeah you're right they can do it and you can give them all the medals and accolades you want, 'sure aren't they great altogether, aren't they a model club!' .... NO they are no a model club !! i wouldn't want all LOI clubs modeled on that. I'm saying clubs should be aimming to be getting at least 1000 through the gate to give them at least a fighting chance. And you are missing my point .... i'm on about clubs not having to scraping the barrell here, wallowing in mediocrity (unless they have another means of income).


As I said, it's a figure you've plucked out of nowhere. It may have been the figure Cork needed when they were in trouble, but that's no reason to suggest that 1,000 the same figure is what everybody needs.

Yes i chose the figure 1000 as opposed to breaking down each clubs costs one by one applying the same ratio and forumla to their balance sheet, come off the stage will for one second FFS ..... i'm not going to go to the trouble of establishing the ideal sum of revenue each club needs to make to sustain existence, i'm going to pick a realistic figure that i think clubs should be aimming for ..... 1000 people for a league and clubs our size isn't unattainable imo ...... and if you think it is unattainable then i think those clubs should throw the towel in now


And these problems only apply to teams whose attendances are under 1000? You say that the issue of Cork, Derry, Shels etc going bust is completely unrelated

Then why bring it up


but it's absolutely central to the issue

No its not .... you think its central to my point and i'm telling you its not


budgeting is everything.

Everything and nothing ..... nothing to do with my point that is


There is no magic number after which all financial problems go away - no matter how big your crowds are, if you spend more than you bring in, you'll be in trouble.

There is no magic, trickery or illusion here ....... its black and white ...... its plain and simple ...... if clubs want to give themselves a break and progress then they need to work on attendances ......

Balancing books are a given, prudence, not over spending, not spending what you dont or wont have .... we've covered that, give it a rest willya.

Imagine for a second if you have a red line ...... and that red line defines the level of where the books are balanced in column A and the same red line extends over to column B which is 473 average attenance for the season ....... now let yourself go for a second, out of body experience n'all and just let it happen .... raise that red line up until the average attendance column is 1000 and over at column A there is a gap between where the books balance and where the red line is

[Lim till i die]

On Limericks' crowds, I'm very pleased with them.

Actually up on last year in a division completely devoid of "glamour", we've the highest average and by quite a distance.

That Salthill game the other night wouldn't have attracted 300 a couple of years ago.

Every club has their own yard sticks by which to measure their progress. It isn't a decade since Limerick senior soccer had a hardcore following in the low dozens. This has increased possibly twenty fold in the intervening.

It's also worth remembering the ground is a toilet. If we had a Turners Cross or a Terryland I dare say we'd hit the magic 1000. ;)

[A face]

On Limericks' crowds, I'm very pleased with them.

Limerick - 644 (569; 598; 429; 517; 670; 364; 669)

CSO figures for population of Limerick in 2011 ..... 191,306

644 / 191,306 = 0.3366334563474225%

Fair play fella ..... if you're happy with that then i've no more to say on that one really :)

[Dodge]

My point is, that if their spending stayed the same and they managed to get 1000 through the gate on a regular basis then clubs wouldn't see management problems and should be able to kick on and develop their clubs, so its not just fire fighting trying to balance the books.
Do you think people are against increasing crowds?


As i said, i wouldn't like to leave it to chance, i'd rather a club would be looking to increase attendances and in turn sponsorship and merchanise. I wouldn't like a club to be doing so much cutting that they end up with a waistcoat, thats what i'm getting at. My point is about direction, not standing still, not balancing the books one month and theres a collective sigh of relief around the table, and clubs start the whole 'what if' uncertainty again the next month
To put it pluntly, many clubs simply don't have the luxury of not worrying about paying bills.



They all have the same base costs
Thats clearly not true. Rent for some, training grounds for others. We could go on



And some clubs can exist, barely keep afloat, barely hanging on, remorgaging the house to keep it ticking over, just keeping the light on, yeah you're right they can do it and you can give them all the medals and accolades you want, 'sure aren't they great altogether, aren't they a model club!' .... NO they are no a model club !! i wouldn't want all LOI clubs modeled on that. I'm saying clubs should be aimming to be getting at least 1000 through the gate to give them at least a fighting chance. And you are missing my point .... i'm on about clubs not having to scraping the barrell here, wallowing in mediocrity (unless they have another means of income).
its called the Ollie Byrne pyramid of greatness


There is no magic, trickery or illusion here ....... its black and white ...... its plain and simple ...... if clubs want to give themselves a break and progress then they need to work on attendances ......
What clubs do you think AREN'T working on attendances


A face you're a smart bloke with plenty of LOI experi4nce, but your last few posts are among the worst I've ever read on these forums.

You have to realise that every club is doing EVERY thing it can within its power to increse attendances and investment (sponoship etc). Its frankly pathetic for you to think that you have more ambitions for these clubs than the people running them. Your posts have no basis in the reality they work in. Sure they make mistakes, but thats what happens when idealistic fluff is challenged

"Hey everyone lets get a load of sponsors and get a load of new people in the gate!" Why did no one think of that before?

[Lim till i die]

Ridiculous, laughable, bit of argument there, but if you insist.

Cork - 3126

Population of Cork - 518218

= .603221

Bear in mind now that you play in the Premier Division in Turners Cross.

Just to clarify, using the "logic" you just used in that pitiful attempt at a point, Monaghan were easily one of the best supported clubs in the league.

Easily.

You're struggling badly here face. :bulgy:

[nigel-harps1954]

To say I'm still surprisingly gutted at how bad Harps attendances are, is an understatement. Average attendance this season 452, which given the circumstances, is actually quite good. But I do remember the days when there was as many as 5,000/6,000 people in Finn Park for derby games with Derry/Sligo or what have you.

The fact of the matter is, if each first division club can sustain over 500 people per game, that's a success. A target of 1,000 is not out of the question for some of the clubs, but look at the sheer neglect the first division see's. How can any club expect to get such attendances when I'd say a good 1/5 of people in this country either forget or don't even know there is a first division here.

Only when a team is doing well do we see crowds up as high as 1,000 in this division. Just because Cork are doing well in a city of 200,000 people doesn't mean the likes of Harps, Limerick, Waterford, Athlone, Wexford and Longford should be getting the same crowds. Set aside Mervue and Salthill here for obvious reasons.

In the Premier division it's easy to say, every club should be reaching 2,000 people a game. A league that is covered in the national media to some extent, live television, a highlights package, radio and newspaper coverage. Looking at the catchment areas of clubs, they should be getting 2,000 a game easily in a so-called football mad country. But there is zero coverage of the first division apart from maybe local media. Any advertising and marketing, the clubs have to do themselves.

To put it lightly, if Harps were pushing for promotion, sitting in the top 3 now, we'd see crowds up 700+ easily. It's always the case, always will be the case.
While we're sitting in 6th place, pushing for 4th place, calling that a successful season, we'll stay with our 450 average.

[Macy]

Fair play fella ..... if you're happy with that then i've no more to say on that one really :)
It's progress for them. How has relatively high attendances worked out for Cork clubs down through the years? Attendance is irrelevant if the spending is more than income.

In fact, I'd go as far as saying short term attendance growth is a major danger in this league - a number of clubs have got themselves in trouble after the initial burst in attendances following a promotion wears off - Us, Galway, Dundalk to name three off the top of my head. The nature of the Irish sporting to public is to hop on and off a bandwagon.

[Lim till i die]

My point is, that if their spending stayed the same and they managed to get 1000 through the gate on a regular basis then clubs wouldn't see management problems and should be able to kick on and develop their clubs, so its not just fire fighting trying to balance the books.

So your point is that if clubs spent the same money and took in more money they'd possibly have extra money left over to do different things with??

Errr.... ya, thanks for that.

No need to take the ring road on the way to your point next time though yeah? :good:

[A face]

"Hey everyone lets get a load of sponsors and get a load of new people in the gate!" Why did no one think of that before?

Hold up a second ... here is what i was replying to initially ....


when you consider the fact that we were playing the worst team to play in the league in many years it wasn't that bad of an attendance!!!!!


I dont know .... i just think at the base minimum all LOI clubs should be getting 1,000 through the gate every game. And if thats not happening then the club needs to recognise this as a crisis and immediately needs to be addressed.

And i think that on a footall forum, i should be be able to say that i think that is a realistic figure for an average attendance for clubs in the first. Its an average figure FFS .... i was never going to go and give an average figure for each individual club. I gave the figure because its a target that i think clubs should have ..... they probably all have a target anyway. It was always an aspirational figure ..... what else was it ever going to be FFS, of course it cant to attributed to all clubs equally, i never said that.

I always said in response to Charles and Osarusan that clubs need to balance the books, i never said anything different so why it got dragged off that way i dont know


So your point is that if clubs spent the same money and took in more money they'd possibly have extra money left over to do different things with?? Errr.... ya, thanks for that. No need to take the ring road on the way to your point next time though yeah? :good:

Again, i never steered the argument thatr way so, i was just responding ..... and i was always saying it was stating the obvious. I wasn't saying this is ground breaking stuff here lads, this is what clubs should do and it will solve all their problems.


It is a completely arbitrary figure. Plucked at random from your arse. Which doesn't take anything else into account. At all.

Of course it was arbitrary, its a fourm and its an opinion. I never said i had the figures, but i still maintain that its not beyond the bounds of possiblity that LOI clubs aim for that as a low average for attendance. There is nothing wrong with saying that .... its not unrealistic, i never said that clubs hadn't thought of that before. It was always offered as my opinion and it hasn't changed either

Its a píss poor set of figures, pathetic and i passed judgement on it ...... sue me FFS

Its an attendance figures thread and i said thats what i thought an average attendance should be, where is the crime in that ????


A load of straw clubs if you will. Cobh aside (who were every bit as poorly ran as a Cork or a Bohs) all those clubs were either makey uppy or plonked in areas where no one was ever going to give a shiznit about them. And even Monaghan lasted 26 years..

And i agree with that, they were straw clubs and they are gone, and i think that while clubs have attendance averages they way they are right now then they will be more clubs go that way.

Charles and Osarusan kept saying if its working for clubs with low figures then its fine by them. I disagree, maybe not in the short term but definitely in the long term, clubs who struggle to attract crowds of 1000 (IMO, In My Opinion) will struggle to exist, possibly short term and definitely long term. Its my opnion !!!!!

You said it yourself, straw clubs ..... they will go. Monaghan are a club who always hung on, and balanced the books, kept their noses clean and under the radar, a template for any club and all that lark, but they went the same way ..... and thats my point. If clubs dont get beyond that (and i think increasing attendance is the best way to get more stable) then there will always be some club go in the middle of a season.

Its not ground breaking ..... its not a new way of doing things ..... people know this with years ....... and i simple gave my opinion on it


In fact, I'd go as far as saying short term attendance growth is a major danger in this league - a number of clubs have got themselves in trouble after the initial burst in attendances following a promotion wears off - Us, Galway, Dundalk to name three off the top of my head. The nature of the Irish sporting to public is to hop on and off a bandwagon.

Agreed with that actually, definitely a history of that alright.

[osarusan]

Charles and Osarusan kept saying if its working for clubs with low figures then its fine by them. I disagree, maybe not in the short term but definitely in the long term, clubs who struggle to attract crowds of 1000 (IMO, In My Opinion) will struggle to exist, possibly short term and definitely long term. Its my opnion !!!!!

I didn't say that low attendances are fine with me - I stated clearly that we all want to see better crowds.

Your initial post was that every club should aim for 1000 a game and consider themselves in crisis if they didn't achieve that. I've pointed out that you don't have to be in crisis even if your crowds are under 1000, and crowds over 1000 are no guarantee that there will be no crisis.

If your point is that a well-managed club with good crowds is in a better position than a well-balanced club with poor crowds, then we're in agreement, but as pointed out earlier, you took your time getting to the point.

[A face]

Your initial post was that every club should aim for 1000 a game and consider themselves in crisis if they didn't achieve that. I've pointed out that you don't have to be in crisis even if your crowds are under 1000, and crowds over 1000 are no guarantee that there will be no crisis.

Well they'll be a damn sight more stable than clubs under the 1000 (with the same spending, for fear it would get twisted again :( )

[Dodge]

Well they'll be a damn sight more stable than clubs under the 1000 (with the same spending, for fear it would get twisted again :( )

Clubs who have gone bust in the past 5 years. Derry, Cork, Fingal, Galway, Monaghan. 3 of them averaged over 1,000 per game.

So you can quit with the glib remarks now that people are pointing out how rubbish your 'crisis' post was

[A face]

Clubs who have gone bust in the past 5 years. Derry, Cork, Fingal, Galway, Monaghan. 3 of them averaged over 1,000 per game. So you can quit with the glib remarks now that people are pointing out how rubbish your 'crisis' post was

Go back further ..... go back 10 years

And at this point i dont really care. The attendances are pathetic either way, balanced books or not ....... the frinkin' league is in crisis Dodge, its on its feicin' knees FFS

[Dodge]

Go back further ..... go back 10 years

And at this point i dont really care. The attendances are pathetic either way, balanced books or not ....... the frinkin' league is in crisis Dodge, its on its feicin' knees FFS

So any ideas on how to fix it other than issuing a dictat "get 1,000 people in each week or consider yourslves in crisis"

Its the BS rhetoric I'm arguing with you over. Not the idea that crowds are brutal

[A face]

So any ideas on how to fix it other than issuing a dictat "get 1,000 people in each week or consider yourslves in crisis"

I've plenty of them !!


Its the BS rhetoric I'm arguing with you over. Not the idea that crowds are brutal

Its not rhetoric Dodge, and i never offered it as the 'be all and end all' of solutions. It was an observation, a comment of the figures listed within and i deemed it a crisis and i still think so.


cri·sis - (ˈkrīsis')


Noun:






A time of intense difficulty, trouble, or danger.
A time when a difficult or important decision must be made: "a crisis point of history".










You can take it or leave it, i'm not bothered to be honest, you've done nothing to change my opinion and you're not likely to do so in this thread, not to undermine your opinion or any one elses if it was offered. Attendances are abysmal !!!!

[Comic Book Guy]

If all clubs in the league could get to a situation where gate receipts are seen as a bonus rather than the key income stream the league would be in a far better state, in other words where clubs have other income strams such as sponsorship, bar income, rental income etc.
You can call it living within your means if you like but until such time as this happens we will lurch from crisis to crisis.

[A face]

If all clubs in the league could get to a situation where gate receipts are seen as a bonus rather than the key income stream the league would be in a far better state, in other words where clubs have other income strams such as sponsorship, bar income, rental income etc.
You can call it living within your means if you like but until such time as this happens we will lurch from crisis to crisis.

Agreed in theory, and definitely a policy you'd like to see LOI adopt. The thing is i think attendances (good ones) help get the sponsorship in. If a business knows that its going to see more of a return for the money it spends on marketing (pitch hoardings, programme adverts, etc.) then they are more likely to sponsor. But definitely agreed in theory

[Dodge]

Attendances are abysmal !!!!
And I'll ask again. Why did you feel the need to post this if not to furthe debate. If its just an observation, its mone that been made a million times. No one argues other wise

[A face]

And I'll ask again. Why did you feel the need to post this if not to furthe debate.

Dodge, i posted my opinion (which i am fully entitled to have) and i feel that CD and Osarusan misunderstood what i was saying so i attempted to explain what i meant, while engauging in debate as well. I do recognise the people were getting a bit het up over my opinion and thats fair enough. I tried to explain and if that aint enough then so be it ..... but there is no way than people can go and say that i meant one thing and when i'm telling you, explaining to you what i actually meant.


If its just an observation, its one that been made a million times. No one argues other wise

I made the observation again Dodge, shoot me .... as you say its been made a million times before and none of those posters were wrong then either (IMO)

[marinobohs]

If all clubs in the league could get to a situation where gate receipts are seen as a bonus rather than the key income stream the league would be in a far better state, in other words where clubs have other income strams such as sponsorship, bar income, rental income etc.
You can call it living within your means if you like but until such time as this happens we will lurch from crisis to crisis.


.........and if only clubs would get a sugar daddy......... or win the euro millions :rolleyes:
Most clubs survive week to week and do trojan work to do just that. Suggesting they should improve crowds or have other income streams are bizarre.

What the hell do peolpe think they have been trying to do ????????????????????