Summer Soccer Poll

**Slash/ED** · 01/08/2006, 5:36 PM

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

If crowds have dropped 20% since summer soccer - which best figures show they have - then you would imagine, ceteris paribus, that the switch has had something to do with that, and that reversing the switch would therefore reverse some of the impact on attendances.

Where are you getting this 20% figure from? It is widely accepted crowd figures were greatlyu exaggerated up until a couple of seasons ago and were always, and are stil alwas, at best estimates. While latley they're probably alot more realistic certainly on this website it was sheer fantasy a few years ago. Comparing attendences is difficult to impossible.

And even if it was true, there are more than likely other factors at play anyway. Perhaps the increase in TV games has had an adverse effect on crowds (Afterall, aren't you saying crowds are down on last season and the season before, both summer seasons).

I find it very, VERY difficult to believe a move to winter football will actively increase crowds. I see no logic behind this whatsoever.

Curiously, that's one of the main points the summer soccer advocates sold the idea on. Now they're saying it's irrelevant?

Not irrelevent, it didn't have the effect we hoped but that doesn't mean we should switch back. Overall, summer football has improved in many regards and didn't boost crowds like we hoped. That is no reason to switch back, that makes no sense at all.

I've seen some good arguments stating that summer football wasn't the miracle cure it was built up to me, but nobody at all has put a decent argument forward why a move back to winter football will actively improve the league from its current position.

**pineapple stu** · 01/08/2006, 6:12 PM

Originally Posted by Slash/ED

Where are you getting this 20% figure from? It is widely accepted crowd figures were greatlyu exaggerated up until a couple of seasons ago and were always, and are stil alwas, at best estimates. While latley they're probably alot more realistic certainly on this website it was sheer fantasy a few years ago. Comparing attendences is difficult to impossible.

The attendances thread here shows a 22% drop from last year alone. I accept - and always have done - that this isn't 100% accurate, but it's not bad and if it's admissible in the Genesis Report, it's certainly admissible here. Across the board, clubs do seem to be reporting large drop offs in crowds as well.

Originally Posted by Slash/Ed

I find it very, VERY difficult to believe a move to winter football will actively increase crowds. I see no logic behind this whatsoever.

The logic is quite clear. Summer football seems to have precipitated a 20-25% drop off in crowds - possibly due in part to holidays, summer camps, family occasions, etc. - and there is no reason why the converse can't be true. Nobody's saying it will work that way (or if they are, they're wrong). Nobody's calling for an immediate switch back to winter football. What they are doing is highlighting issues which should be examined if proper research were to be done into the benefits of both seasons. And they're also noting that it's next to impossible to attribute how much responsibility summer soccer deserves in the recent benefits (European results mainly).

And for what it's worth, I voted winter as that's my personal preference for games, which is the question heading the poll. Games just seem more atmospheric in the dark under floodlights. Don't ask why.

**Student Mullet** · 01/08/2006, 7:02 PM

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

The attendances thread here shows a 22% drop from last year alone.

...

The logic is quite clear. Summer football seems to have precipitated a 20-25% drop off in crowds - possibly due in part to holidays, summer camps, family occasions, etc. - and there is no reason why the converse can't be true.

The logic is fuzzy at best and based on an abuse of the word 'precipitated'. Summer soccer came in and then 2 years later crowds dropped, therefore summer soccer leads to dropping crowds?

**pete** · 01/08/2006, 7:16 PM

No one can say what the crowds were in the winter or the summer seasons. The figures gathered on foot.ie are mostly estimates & fairly easy to be 20% out in crowd of 1000.

Like it or not we now have a summer season - for the most part any success from it has been a fluke - unless there is a valid & proven reason to more to the winter then should stay with the summer.

**pineapple stu** · 01/08/2006, 7:25 PM

It's acceptable logic. Crowds were down as well the previous season, albeit only by a couple of percent. We have no particularly reliable figures for before; the thread here shows a 25% drop from 2003 to 2004. This when the league is doing better in Europe than before and getting more exposure than before, and so when you would expect crowds to be at least a bit up.

Precipitated is probably the wrong word - preceded might be better.

It's quite possible that other attractions like the GAA, holidays etc, have caused attendances to drop (as they undeniably have done this year). The World Cup hasn't helped either, though I don't think that should be held against summer soccer really. If this is the case, then switching back to winter would go some way to reversing this. Obvioulsy it's possible the drop was going to happen anyway. I'm not suggesting we should change and see what happens; I'm merely suggesting that, if a change were to be proposed in the future, proper research should be done as to which season would be better for crowds. In the meantime, I'm happy it is a criticism of summer football that it has, to some extent, hit attendances.

**pineapple stu** · 01/08/2006, 7:25 PM

Originally Posted by pete

The figures gathered on foot.ie are mostly estimates & fairly easy to be 20% out in crowd of 1000.

Fairly easy on a one-off guesstimate. Over 200 attendances, the margin of error should reduce.

**Paddyfield** · 01/08/2006, 9:19 PM

Winter

(I would probably change my mind if Galway United qualified for Europe)

.

**Rovers1** · 01/08/2006, 9:29 PM

winter

**Student Mullet** · 01/08/2006, 10:46 PM

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Precipitated is probably the wrong word - preceded might be better.

Your switching from a causality to a correlation there which is quite a big step down.

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

the thread here shows a 25% drop from 2003 to 2004.

Both of which were summer seasons. Your numbers don't show a drop between winter and summer, they show a drop from one summer season to another.

**pete** · 02/08/2006, 10:48 AM

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Fairly easy on a one-off guesstimate. Over 200 attendances, the margin of error should reduce.

I think though over time people have been more realistic with their estimates. Certainly at the cross was always hard to estimate crowds in the terraced shed but easier when all seated.

**ColinR** · 02/08/2006, 11:03 AM

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

if it's admissible in the Genesis Report, it's certainly admissible here.

but its use in genesis was roundly ridiculed on foot.ie due to the estimation of most of the figures (which certainly for the first couple of years were grossly over-estimated). so surely any attempt to use the same figures as an argument for/against summer soccer should similarly be dismissed.

unfortunately, we have no acurate data to confirm beliefs either way.

its still my opinion that there are far greater deciding factors on crowds than simply the season - a club's own performance, the lack of the rovers away fans, the closing of the shed in cork, the constant moving of fixtures etc etc all impact more imo

**LFC in Exile** · 02/08/2006, 11:09 AM

The difficulty arises when people say that the move to summer football did not solve all our problems so we should revert back. Nobody suggested that the switch would solve every eL problem on its own. And it shouldn't have been expected to solve every problem.

It has contributed to improved European performances - which is key in increasing the reputation of the league. This should have a positive effect on attendances but it will take a couple of seasons to overcome years of people looking down on the league. It might even take a team getting into the group stages of the CL or UEFA before that really kicks in. The switch makes that more likely - though still a big ask.

The summer football switch is worthwhile - but there are a few more fundamental problems to be addressed as well - summer football can only be part of a solution. Marketing, TV coverage (proper coverage) and improved facilities are also just as (if not more) important.

**Billy Lord** · 02/08/2006, 11:25 AM

Why is everyone looking for panaceas when it's blidingly obvious that a) the facilities are dire, b) the game is innefectively marketed, c) Irish people are largely glory-hunting event snobs who couldn't give a toss when we played.
Summer is better because the weather is better, and that's an inarguable no-brainer.
If attendances are down it means more people have better things to do. Well, then go out and make going to your club's games a better thing again to do!

**NY Hoop** · 02/08/2006, 11:48 AM

Originally Posted by ColinR

its still my opinion that there are far greater deciding factors on crowds than simply the season - a club's own performance, the lack of the rovers away fans, the closing of the shed in cork, the constant moving of fixtures etc etc all impact more imo

100% spot on there.

KOH

**Block G Raptor** · 02/08/2006, 1:58 PM

Originally Posted by Billy Lord

Why is everyone looking for panaceas when it's blidingly obvious that a) the facilities are dire, b) the game is innefectively marketed, c) Irish people are largely glory-hunting event snobs who couldn't give a toss when we played.
Summer is better because the weather is better, and that's an inarguable no-brainer.
If attendances are down it means more people have better things to do. Well, then go out and make going to your club's games a better thing again to do!

Here Here. Some Sense at last

**LFC in Exile** · 02/08/2006, 2:14 PM

Originally Posted by Billy Lord

c) Irish people are largely glory-hunting event snobs who couldn't give a toss when we played.

On a small point I think all people are like that - we suffer just as others do.

**Billy Lord** · 02/08/2006, 2:34 PM

LFC: you'll always get bandwagon jumpers, but the Irish have turned it into a national characteristic. Where else would you get the massive swings in attendances that, say, Leinster egg chasers or the Dublin bogballers get between 'ordinary' games and major ones?
Most football clubs around Europe enjoy an average attendance that rarely dips too high above or below for a given game, while in Irish sport it's all over the place and relevant to success or 'event profile'.
Shels v Depor was a classic example. Would any senior division football club in the world (and I'm not slagging Shels' genuine fans, but the daytrippers) see 24,000 in attendance one week and less than 1,000 the next?
Only in Ireland. And these muppets consider themselves 'the best fans in the world'? The irony, the irony, the self-deluding irony of it all.

**wws** · 02/08/2006, 3:45 PM

Originally Posted by Billy Lord

LFC: you'll always get bandwagon jumpers, but the Irish have turned it into a national characteristic. Where else would you get the massive swings in attendances that, say, Leinster egg chasers or the Dublin bogballers get between 'ordinary' games and major ones?
Most football clubs around Europe enjoy an average attendance that rarely dips too high above or below for a given game, while in Irish sport it's all over the place and relevant to success or 'event profile'.
Shels v Depor was a classic example. Would any senior division football club in the world (and I'm not slagging Shels' genuine fans, but the daytrippers) see 24,000 in attendance one week and less than 1,000 the next?
Only in Ireland. And these muppets consider themselves 'the best fans in the world'? The irony, the irony, the self-deluding irony of it all.

Billy Lord

no irony at all - its simple, there were 23,000 at the game purely motivated by the chance to see a CL semi finalist with name recognition. Shelbourne were not that team, Deportivo LC were.

**pete** · 02/08/2006, 3:54 PM

Originally Posted by wws

no irony at all - its simple, there were 23,000 at the game purely motivated by the chance to see a CL semi finalist with name recognition. Shelbourne were not that team, Deportivo LC were.

I had previous decided never to attend a Shels european game again but i suspended temporarily for chance to see Deportivo live.

**Billy Lord** · 02/08/2006, 4:42 PM

There were many thousands of 'Shels' fans present who were AWOL for the next (and every other) game, even though we all know Shels did themselves proud against Depor. I met an old neighbour of mine who had a Reds' shirt on and swore he was a big Shels' fan, although he was rather vague about the last game he'd attended. Probably Shels-Barcelona in the 1960s.
I despise this mentality, because all these people want is the big day out without giving the commitment that makes such days even more special and personally rewarding. They neither understand nor care about the value of support or the ethic of a true fan.