QuoteYour LOI figures are definitely off. Rovers alone have had more than 5,000 at both home games this season (though they were both big ones). I'd say around 12-13,000 a week between the two leagues.Originally Posted by peadar1987
Its embarrassing really, what do the lads on here who don't follow league of Ireland think? Do you see anything wrong with it?
Your LOI figures are definitely off. Rovers alone have had more than 5,000 at both home games this season (though they were both big ones). I'd say around 12-13,000 a week between the two leagues.
It was just a stab. According to Pineapple Stu's attendances thread from last season, the average across both divisions is 1,093, so with 10 games happening a week, that's just under 11,000. I suppose it could drop as low as 7,000 if Shams, Derry, Sligo, and Cork were all playing away, which could be what made me think of that figure.
I think your figure is too high. Man Utd and Liverpool are far better supported imo than the others. I reckon their numbers would be in the hundreds.
Remmeber these are home games too so it is every other week during the season.
Celtic have good support here and also have coaches for some games at least.
Well it was just a guess, using the 4,000 for Man U as a starting point. I guessed an equal number for Liverpool, 5,000+ for Celtic, maybe 2,000 each for Chelsea and Arsenal, maybe 1000 for Everton, Aston Villa, Sunderland, Newcastle, Man City and Spurs, and then another few thousand randoms scattered about the other clubs, which gives just over 30,000 (over a two week period). As I said, complete guesswork though, I have no idea what the actual figure is, apart from the fact that it is too high, when our own league is struggling for support.
I think Newcastle would probably be fourth after Manchester United, Liverpool and Arsenal.
No room for poor little old Celtic? I think we must feature in the top 3 -no?
http://www.aicsc.com/ has circa 50 supporters clubs listed around the country. There will be plenty more not affiliated. Obviously most of these will not travel to every game but there will be plenty that do plus the indepdendent traveller.
I would estimate that maybe 2k or so attend the fortnightly home games at Celtic Park, it was probably double that when times were better in the early noughties. Just a guesstimate on my behalf but probably not wildly out. The cheap flights with both Ryanair and Aer Lingus to Glaswgow, Prestwick, Edinburgh all make it do'able and the Naohm Padraig bus leaves for every home game from the GPO.
Another point to make though, is that fans of SPL or EPL clubs may also support domestic soccer - I know lads who attend both Celtic games and Shamrock Rovers games.
I thought you were off the drink Ronnie?
"No, I drink to help me mind my own business....can I get you one? (c) Ronnie Drew
If we go in tiers I'd say
Tier one; Man U, Liverpool (with Utd a fair bit ahead)
Tier one a; Celtic (less than above but not a mutally exclusive kind a support
Tier 2; Arsenal, Leeds
Tier 3; Everton, Villa, Spurs, Chelsea, Man City
Tier 4; the rest
I doubt anyone from Tier 3 down has more than 50 travelling for a game
54,321 sold - wws will never die - ***
---
New blog if anyone's interested - http://loihistory.wordpress.com/
LOI section on balls.ie - http://balls.ie/league-of-ireland/
Any links for that?
No, because its my opinion. if I had've said "I heard" and then said I'd "Read" about it. Then you could have your links
54,321 sold - wws will never die - ***
---
New blog if anyone's interested - http://loihistory.wordpress.com/
LOI section on balls.ie - http://balls.ie/league-of-ireland/
on the participation issue, today's Independent has this article about rugby's increase in popularity worldwide: http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugb...g-2615101.html
First of all, more registered players than New Zealand is astonishing, given the relative popularity of the game here and there.The study also looks at participation levels by country. The top ten nations in terms of participation in 2008 were the traditional Six Nations and Tri Nations sides plus Argentina. But this picture is changing as Japan, Sri Lanka and the USA all feature in the top ten for 2010.
Ireland figures at fourth in the list, behind England, South Africa and France, and ahead of New Zealand. (Ireland has 153,080 registered players at all ages, versus 137,835 in New Zealand and 2,549,196 in England.)
Are there any figures from the FAI on registered players in the country?
That's a spectacular statistic about our reg players v New Zealand's. And they don't have the sort of competition we have with other sports.
DID YOU NOTICE A SIGN OUTSIDE MY HOUSE...?
New Zealand has a population of 4.4 million people whereas I assume the Irish figure includes registered players both north and south, so within a population of about 6.2 million people. For a better comparison, about 2.4% of the Irish population are registered as players whilst about 3.1% of the New Zealand population are registered as players, although you might still expect that to be a bit higher considering it's their national sport.
Well I'd say the figures are island-wide as the IRFU is an all-Ireland association.
Nice take on the figures Danny.
Still, though as their national sport it's bizarre. Maybe kids are tired of breaking their balls all the way to senior grades only for clubs and NZRU to nick some lads from Tonga et al.
DID YOU NOTICE A SIGN OUTSIDE MY HOUSE...?
Some New Zealanders get quite upset when you assume that they all love rugby. They're big into the cricket and soccer too and sailing is big among the richer classes. It's also possible they record players differently, or that the sport is so much more accessible that players don't need to join a club to play. League is also a very popular working class sport there - I'm not sure if that's factored in.
I studied some alternative maps of Europe a few months back, where people from particular countries would rename the others according to their national stereotype. Most countries called us "Guinness" or "potatoes" but, interestingly, the Italian map called us "rugby."
Proper football fans in New Zealand too much n=better than their neighbours. Experienced both on comsecutive days during the world cup. Aussies queueing for beer with their backs to the game for most of the first half. Kiwis much smaller in numbers but louder, passionate and much more into the game. They take their shirts off for the final ten minutes as a message to rugby fans that football is a 90 minute game. Not a rugby shirt in sight too in the Kiwi support but too many in the Aussie fans.
Sounds about right. Pal of mine covers NZ games for the media (sorry, no links Dodge), but if helps, most of Kiwis I've experienced (through playing soccer) love both sports, but football first.
Though on visits have encountered locals, mainly the older generation or 'man mountains', who described soccer as, erm, a poof's game. Make of that what you will.
Ha ha funny but in reality the physical 'abuse' a body takes over a rugger match is well in excess of either Gaa or football. I think this could be a major problem in their game in years to come. We are only now starting to see players reach the end of their career who have played rugby entirely in the professional era i.e. what condition are these lads going to be in by the time they are 50. Genuniely think it is a serious issue for their game. Look at American football for example and how crocked many ex players and even more seriously the long term effects concusion has had on them.
Fair enough, when football introduces "time off" for hold ups and injuries.
If you attack me with stupidity, I'll be forced to defend myself with sarcasm.
Okay so the atendances for the home games have been pretty poor lately but how about fans travelling to the away games. I haven't been to one since Bari which is a while ago now. Any regular travellers think it's dipped much if at all?
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks