how to fix our league! - Mod Warning in OP

djpbarry

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

Regarding Dundalk, Id say the extra 1000plus we got at time last year were mainly tennagers/young men in their 20's...Id be more targeting that agegroup and majority of them wouldnt want to sit down.

Nope. Kids generally align themselves with a club long before they’ve hit their teens – you need to get them young and that necessitates catering for families.

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

Its a silly argument anyway, because clubs can barely afford pay wages throughout the year never mind do up stadiums

No, that’s a silly argument. Ignoring for a moment that several clubs don’t actually own their grounds, you think clubs should prioritise player wages over facilities?

That_Guy

marwelie wrote: »

BTW not a Bohs fan but this is brilliant

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GG8WaY5hvAA

Think that's fixed now.

dundalkfc10

djpbarry wrote: »

Nope. Kids generally align themselves with a club long before they’ve hit their teens – you need to get them young and that necessitates catering for families.
No, that’s a silly argument. Ignoring for a moment that several clubs don’t actually own their grounds, you think clubs should prioritise player wages over facilities?

Yes 100%

dundalkfc10

SantryRed wrote: »

Does it not cost more? And it's completely different for away games in the majority of cases. If there's no atmosphere, no point in standing at all. I prefer to take in the game these days, unless it's a big game, so I'll basically be sitting for every home game this season :pac:

Majority of games have a decent atmosphere. Always a decent group of home fans (bar UCD, Bray) who create an atmosphere

marwelie

That_Guy wrote: »

Think that's fixed now.

Cheers, couldn't check it because youtube is blocked in work....

marwelie

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

Yes 100%

Ridiculous, if the facilities aren't up to scratch the punters won't come. The more money a club makes from punters coming through the turnstyles the more money they can pay their players and the better quality of player they can attract. Clubs who pay top quack to their players in this country are regularly going out of business because they can't afford it.

An almost blanket disregard for LOI football by the National broadcaster means that if you want to see or hear Local Football you have to go to see it in person. However if it's pissing with rain most people will stay at home because the majority of facilities on offer are rubbish.

I am a wheelchair user and a Shamrock Rovers Season Ticket holder for my sins. Tallaght Stadium is fantastic (although I would say that) for disabled fans. However I can't go to many away matches because of lack of accessibility and facilities. I only go to Bray and UCD regularly, and what they have is nothing much to write home about, but its better than nothing. At least it's covered, which is more than I can say for Tallaght

I've been to the RSC once. I couldn't go to a pre-season friendly against Wexford Youths last year because they had no wheelchair facilities and Ferrycarrig Park is a relatively new custom built ground.

The last time I was in Dalymount Park was 2009. It only has uncovered wheelchair facilities in front of the Jodi which isn't the best place to be when you're a Rovers fan. I understand Richmond Park now has decent facilities (haven't been there since 1996) so I may try to get out there for a look this year.

djpbarry

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

Yes 100%

Well in that case, why not just get rid of stadia altogether? Why don't Dundalk just sell Oriel and play in a field somewhere?

simonw

djpbarry wrote: »

Eh, two of the top clubs in the country right now, Dundalk and Pats, do not have enough covered seating to accommodate their average attendance?
You're never going to even come close to filling grounds, on a regular basis, in their current state - that's the point.

Ok my last post on this, because I don't think we are ever going to agree.

I'm just going to reiterate (from my own anecdotal experience) I do not know of anyone who's reason for not going/returning to an LoI match is the facilities. It is literally one of the only reasons I have never heard. Maybe its the demographic of people who I have brought/asked. Also, I have never been to a match that I didn't have the option of covered seating, should I have chosen it.

All of these new hypothetical attendees are not all going to show up on the same day, and if there are always seats available when I go, surely the same seats are there for them? I understand your argument, but until those seats are regularly filled, I honestly don't think it is what is keeping people away.

Finally, the vast, vast majority of Ireland have never set foot inside an LoI ground. They have no idea of the standard of facilities, and wouldn't have a clue if they were improved, or need improving.

Mr.Crinklewood

Ban loudspeakers.

djpbarry

simonw wrote: »

All of these new hypothetical attendees are not all going to show up on the same day, and if there are always seats available when I go, surely the same seats are there for them? I understand your argument, but until those seats are regularly filled, I honestly don't think it is what is keeping people away.

I didn’t say it was the only thing keeping people away, but it is a factor. And you're totally fixated on the covered seats thing. Toilets, catering facilities, parking, family sections etc. are all important too, especially if you want to encourage people to bring kids to games.

simonw wrote: »

Finally, the vast, vast majority of Ireland have never set foot inside an LoI ground. They have no idea of the standard of facilities, and wouldn't have a clue if they were improved, or need improving.

First of all, the vast majority of football fans in Ireland will never set foot inside any football ground – we’re not concerned about them. However, a lot of people in Ireland have been to Croke Park or The Aviva, for example, so they know what good facilities look like and I guarantee you that the overwhelming majority of those people are of the belief that LOI grounds are in a shocking state – most would have at least heard of Dalymount and Tolka, for example. However, if you were to take some of those people to Turners Cross on Friday evening (for example), they probably would have been pleasantly surprised.

You only need to look at the likes of Chesterfield and Rotherham over here to see the difference that a decent stadium can make to attendance figures.

gimmick

Dont Limerick have the best "facilities" in the league and their attendences are nothing special at all.

The facilities argument comes up quite a bit and its nonsense.

AgileMyth

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

Yes 100%

Paying fees to sign average players while playing out of a filthy kip with a ****e plastic pitch is probably not best for the long term development of your club.

AgileMyth

gimmick wrote: »

Dont Limerick have the best "facilities" in the league and their attendences are nothing special at all.

The facilities argument comes up quite a bit and its nonsense.

You can't expect the facilties alone to draw a huge crowd every week but its not going to hurt anyone to play in a reasonable stadium.

We don't need state of the art new stadiums built all over the country. Just set aside a bit of money each year to improve the ground. Steady development is possible for all clubs that can be bothered.

Don't see how Thomond is a better facility than Turners Cross or Tallaght by the way. Just larger.

marwelie

Limerick get fairly decent crowds by LOI standards. I know lads that went to Thomond last year to see Rovers playing there and they said it was the best away set up in the country. They were even allowed bring their drinks into the stand as far as I know. The crowds look less than they are because they can't/won't/don't use the terracing at either end of the ground.

dan1895

marwelie wrote: »

Limerick get fairly decent crowds by LOI standards. It looks worse than it is because they can't/won't/don't use the terracing IMO

What was their average gate last year out of interest?

marwelie

http://extratime.ie/fixtures/teams/team/21/2015/99999/

djpbarry

gimmick wrote: »

Dont Limerick have the best "facilities" in the league and their attendences are nothing special at all.

Bigger isn't necessarily better and once again, I never said better facilities represent some sort of silver bullet that's going to magically resolve all of the league's problems. But do you not think it's going to be easier to attract new fans to Turner's Cross (for example) than to attract them to United Park (for example)?

gimmick wrote: »

The facilities argument comes up quite a bit and its nonsense.

So I suppose it's just a coincidence that Shams started getting big crowds when they moved to Tallaght Stadium? Why are Limerick redeveloping the Market's Field? Why is the Brandywell being redeveloped? Why has there been talk of Pats moving out of Richmond for years? Why did Bohs try and sell Dalymount and Shels Tolka?

Face it lads. You can't modernise Irish football so long as you're playing out of grounds that look like they've had no work done on them for decades and to be honest, with the amount of money that was floating around not too long ago, there really is no excuse. I mean, it's totally unacceptable that so many grounds in the LOI are still not suitable for staging European games. Most Premier Division grounds should be up to UEFA Category 3 standard at this stage.

dan1895

djpbarry wrote: »

Bigger isn't necessarily better and once again, I never said better facilities represent some sort of silver bullet that's going to magically resolve all of the league's problems. But do you not think it's going to be easier to attract new fans to Turner's Cross (for example) than to attract them to United Park (for example)?
So I suppose it's just a coincidence that Shams started getting big crowds when they moved to Tallaght Stadium? Why are Limerick redeveloping the Market's Field? Why is the Brandywell being redeveloped? Why has there been talk of Pats moving out of Richmond for years? Why did Bohs try and sell Dalymount and Shels Tolka?

Face it lads. You can't modernise Irish football so long as you're playing out of grounds that look like they've had no work done on them for decades and to be honest, with the amount of money that was floating around not too long ago, there really is no excuse. I mean, it's totally unacceptable that so many grounds in the LOI are still not suitable for staging European games. Most Premier Division grounds should be up to UEFA Category 3 standard at this stage.

I don't disagree, I think all stadia should be at the minimum European requirement for Premier Division teams, however, that won't necessarily attract the extra punters needed to justify spending so much on doing so.

Also Rovers started getting bi crowds for three reasons in my opinion.
1. They had been homeless for over twenty years
2. They had been doing a lot of work building up a presence in the local community.
3. They started winning again.

simonw

djpbarry wrote: »

Why did Bohs try and sell Dalymount

Nothing to do with being worried about the state of the ground, all about the silly money we were offered

marwelie

dan1895 wrote: »

I don't disagree, I think all stadia should be at the minimum European requirement for Premier Division teams, however, that won't necessarily attract the extra punters needed to justify spending so much on doing so.

Also Rovers started getting bi crowds for three reasons in my opinion.
1. They had been homeless for over twenty years
2. They had been doing a lot of work building up a presence in the local community.
3. They started winning again.

And 4. They had a marketing department on top of their game.

This marketing, or lack of it, in the LOI is another problem. Having a top notch facility might help but you need to tell people matches are on.

legendary.xix

The Markets Field is Limerick's spiritual home. A return there is a major part of their plans.

djpbarry

dan1895 wrote: »

I don't disagree, I think all stadia should be at the minimum European requirement for Premier Division teams, however, that won't necessarily attract the extra punters needed to justify spending so much on doing so.

Also Rovers started getting bi crowds for three reasons in my opinion.
1. They had been homeless for over twenty years
2. They had been doing a lot of work building up a presence in the local community.
3. They started winning again.

All valid points, but “the homecoming” would have been a bit of an anti-climax if Rovers were playing their home games in a field.

simonw wrote: »

Nothing to do with being worried about the state of the ground, all about the silly money we were offered

Silly money that could have paid for a brand new stadium.

doncarlos

AgileMyth wrote: »

Paying fees to sign average players while playing out of a filthy kip with a ****e plastic pitch is probably not best for the long term development of your club.

EVERY club has to pay compensation these days it's just not highly publicised. It was in the case of Horgan as he was high profile by league of Ireland standards. Dundalk have had to pay compensation to local junior clubs and the Mervue also over past few years.

Agree about the filthy kip part. Apart from two decent bars and a club shop, Oriel park is a dump and spectator facilities are appalling. I think it's impossible for Dundalk as a club to progress and grow playing in Oriel.
Sligo, Limerick and Harps aside there are no clubs investing in facilities over the two divisions. Rovers, Cork, Derry etc all have their stadiums developed for them. Unfortunately there is no easy solution, our FA don't give two craps about the league and are broke themselves and sport grants have dried up. I believe that any investment in Oriel would be a waste of time and that a green field site is the only solution.

I've said this a million times but here goes again, there is no substitute for a good grass pitch but some of the cabbage patches that are in the league of Ireland are a disgrace. We also make a decent wedge each year for pitch rentals. If anything having the ****e plastic pitch is more progressive as our stadium makes an income on non match days.

Paz-CCFC

doncarlos wrote: »

Rovers, Cork, Derry etc all have their stadiums developed for them.

That's simply untrue. Do you think they let us use the ground for free?

We've contributed plenty over the years. We pay tens of thousands in rent every season, we've partaken in friendlies for which the proceeds have gone directly to the MFA and we've jointly financed some of the previous developments.

doncarlos

Paz-CCFC wrote: »

That's simply untrue. Do you think they let us use the ground for free?

We've contributed plenty over the years. We pay tens of thousands in rent every season, we've partaken in friendlies for which the proceeds have gone directly to the MFA and we've jointly financed some of the previous developments.

You really can't argue that Cork get a fantastic deal? I'm sure they have contributed a bit but the vast majority is paid by Munster FA. Also Cork were able to walk away from a whole load of debt so in reality started fresh debt free with a nice stadium. Same as Rovers.

Corholio

doncarlos wrote: »

You really can't argue that Cork get a fantastic deal? I'm sure they have contributed a bit but the vast majority is paid by Munster FA. Also Cork were able to walk away from a whole load of debt so in reality started fresh debt free with a nice stadium. Same as Rovers.

Wrong.

When the season is on, the majority is paid by City. I would argue it's the MFA who get a great deal by having City there. Also stating we started 'debt free', you neglected to mention we also started in a lower division with about 4 players a week before the season started.

simonw

djpbarry wrote: »

Silly money that could have paid for a brand new stadium.

What? Obviously we would get a new stadium, where else would we play? I don't know what point you are making at all.

Paz-CCFC

doncarlos wrote: »

You really can't argue that Cork get a fantastic deal? I'm sure they have contributed a bit but the vast majority is paid by Munster FA. Also Cork were able to walk away from a whole load of debt so in reality started fresh debt free with a nice stadium. Same as Rovers.

First you said it was developed for us, now you're saying we're getting a fantastic deal. We get to play a fantastic stadium, but we're paying well for it. The MFA benefit a hell of a lot more from it than we do. Before we started playing there, Turners Cross was little more than four grassy banks. Do you think it's a coincidence that it's since become one of the best grounds in the country?

As for your debt free comment - we also had to start off with nothing. Everything we have now, we, the fans, built it up and worked for it. And we'll continue doing just that.

miroslavklose

djpbarry wrote: »

So I suppose it's just a coincidence that Shams started getting big crowds when they moved to Tallaght Stadium?

Well it's not a coincidence but it's not the only factor either. Rovers spent 20 years playing in stadiums that were mostly outside of their traditional catchment area. It's hard enough to nurture a fanbase when you're moving grounds every 2-3 years, it's another thing entirely when those grounds are in the opposite end of the city from your supporter base.

Why are Limerick redeveloping the Market's Field?

Limerick aren't developing it, the local nonprofit that owns the land is redeveloping it for commercial gain.

Why is the Brandywell being redeveloped?

Government money.

The funny thing about LOI football is that supporters love throwing around accusations about other clubs having cushy arrangements for their stadiums, but the reality is that **** all LOI clubs actually own their grounds and can exploit them properly.

Rovers rent a council ground and pay for the privilege. Pats and Wexford have grounds owned by property developers. Sligo have a ground that's owned by a public trust. Cork's ground is owned by the local FA. Limerick's ground is owned by Munster Rugby, and their future ground is owned by a local company. Bohs own theirs but they're screwed by a bank. Of the major Premier Division sides, only Dundalk own their ground and its destiny, and it's a basket case.

The reality for LOI clubs is that there is little value in developing a stadium you don't even own so that somebody else can reap the rewards. Investing in facilities will only detract from the club's budget, and poor results will kill attendances a lot quicker than good facilities will bring people in. There's no decision to be made here - it's obvious. You invest in the team and worry about the rest later.

CHealy

doncarlos wrote: »

You really can't argue that Cork get a fantastic deal? I'm sure they have contributed a bit but the vast majority is paid by Munster FA. Also Cork were able to walk away from a whole load of debt so in reality started fresh debt free with a nice stadium. Same as Rovers.

The MFA happen to own a ground that would be nothing without Cork City, they are lucky to have us on board.

And it was Arkaga/Tom Coughlan that walked away from City when we were in debt, theres nothing more we could have done as fans other than start again. And theres no other club in the country that could have done what we done the last 4 years. Say what you want about our history bla bla bla but we took control of the situation, from having 10 players on the books 5 days before the Derry game in '10, to playing infront of 6 thousand people the other night against Pats, most would be dead and buried.

djpbarry

simonw wrote: »

What? Obviously we would get a new stadium, where else would we play?

Plenty of existing options. If the standard of stadia is of so little importance, then Bohs could have sold Dalymount, kept the proceeds and just played out of, say, Whitehall, or wherever.

But the plan was to build a brand new 10,000 all-seater stadium. Why?

djpbarry

miroslavklose wrote: »

The reality for LOI clubs is that there is little value in developing a stadium you don't even own so that somebody else can reap the rewards.

I never said that the clubs have to take sole responsibility for developing grounds, but it’s in the interests of both club and stadium owner to upgrade facilities – the club can attract larger attendances and the owners can use the ground for other events.

miroslavklose wrote: »

Investing in facilities will only detract from the club's budget, and poor results will kill attendances a lot quicker than good facilities will bring people in.

Not really. I mean, look at Pats for example – average attendance has been in around the 1,700 mark for the last few years irrespective of league position. LOI fans are generally pretty hardcore

miroslavklose

djpbarry wrote: »

Not really. I mean, look at Pats for example – average attendance has been in around the 1,700 mark for the last few years irrespective of league position. LOI fans are generally pretty hardcore

Pats have only had one really poor season in recent times and their crowds plummeted by hundreds during it and they were hungover in the next season. There is no team in the league that doesn't suffer from lower attendances when results go down the tank.

djpbarry

miroslavklose wrote: »

Pats have only had one really poor season in recent times and their crowds plummeted by hundreds during it and they were hungover in the next season. There is no team in the league that doesn't suffer from lower attendances when results go down the tank.

I'm not saying there's no effect, just that it's not terribly significant. As I said, as things stand, the bulk of LOI fans are pretty hardcore. Most clubs operate at pretty much their "basal" level of support - there aren't a very large number of "fair weather" fans to lose.

miroslavklose

djpbarry wrote: »

I'm not saying there's no effect, just that it's not terribly significant. As I said, as things stand, the bulk of LOI fans are pretty hardcore. Most clubs operate at pretty much their "basal" level of support - there aren't a very large number of "fair weather" fans to lose.

It is significant. Their attendances went from 1800 to 1350 in the space of a season. Losing 25% of your matchday income is in no way insignificant. If you manage to get relegated, watch that figure cut in half or even in three, like at Shels. You cannot possibly stand behind the argument that teams operate from a base level of support - they operate from the basis of reality and the income they have available to them.

Paz-CCFC

miroslavklose wrote: »

It is significant. Their attendances went from 1800 to 1350 in the space of a season. Losing 25% of your matchday income is in no way insignificant. If you manage to get relegated, watch that figure cut in half or even in three, like at Shels. You cannot possibly stand behind the argument that teams operate from a base level of support - they operate from the basis of reality and the income they have available to them.

That near-25% drop happened when in a season where Pats actually improved on their league position from the previous year. Likewise with their next biggest drop (in relative terms)

In the last 10 seasons, their two biggest averages have been in 2007, when they finished 2nd, and 2004, when they finished 8th. Last season, despite winning the league, was only their 5th biggest average in that ten year period. The biggest jump, actually and relatively, did happen when they jumped from 7th and 2nd in the league. 2012 & 2013 may have also seen bigger than normal away crowds, with Shels, Bohs and Rovers all being in the same division as them for the first time since 2005.

Apart from 2007, their placing in the league doesn't seem to have been the main factor in the attendances.


2013: 1,687 1st, 71 points (12 team league, 33 games)
2012: 1,474 3rd, 55 points (11 team league, 30 games)
2011: 1,346 4th, 63 points (10 team league, 36 games)
2010: 1,756 5th, 57 points (10 team league, 36 games)
2009: 1,631 7th, 43 points (10 team league, 36 games)
2008: 1,795 2nd, 66 points (12 team league, 33 games)
2007: 1,910 2nd, 61 points (12 team league, 33 games)
2006: 1,342 7th, 37 points (11 team league, 30 games)
2005: 1,599 10th, 32 points (12 team league, 33 games)
2004: 1,882 8th, 42 points (10 team league, 36 games)

Attendance figures from the Foot.ie attendance threads, so they're not necessarily accurate.

miroslavklose

Paz-CCFC wrote: »

That near-25% drop happened when in a season where Pats actually improved on their league position from the previous year.

Crowds don't just immediately drop when you're not doing well. Likewise, they don't immediately rise when you're doing well. There's a delayed effect. Pats' crowds were so low in 2011 because 2010 was such a bad year that it turned off so many people that they just didn't bother going the next season. You can't measure attendances just in relation to the current position in the table. We've seen it at Rovers over the past couple of years - the crowds don't just die overnight. They gradually dwindle and then the opening day of the following season sets the tone for the season, and it hasn't been good.

simonw

djpbarry wrote: »

Plenty of existing options. If the standard of stadia is of so little importance, then Bohs could have sold Dalymount, kept the proceeds and just played out of, say, Whitehall, or wherever.

But the plan was to build a brand new 10,000 all-seater stadium. Why?

So we could sell it again :cool:

djpbarry

miroslavklose wrote: »

It is significant. Their attendances went from 1800 to 1350 in the space of a season. Losing 25% of your matchday income is in no way insignificant.

It's not terribly significant when your matchday income is shag-all to begin with.

But anyway, you're selecting two figures at random to make your point, when the fact is that Pats' attendances have been pretty consistently in the 1,600 +/- 200 range for the last 10 years.

miroslavklose wrote: »

Crowds don't just immediately drop when you're not doing well. Likewise, they don't immediately rise when you're doing well. There's a delayed effect. Pats' crowds were so low in 2011 because 2010 was such a bad year that it turned off so many people that they just didn't bother going the next season.

There is absolutely no correlation, delayed or otherwise, between Pats' average attendance and their league position. Over the last 10 years, Pats' final league position has been, roughly, on an upward trend, but their attendances, have actually been on a slight downward trend.

Your argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

dreamers75

miroslavklose wrote: »

Pats have only had one really poor season in recent times and their crowds plummeted by hundreds during it and they were hungover in the next season. There is no team in the league that doesn't suffer from lower attendances when results go down the tank.

We got 3100 for Kerrs 1st game back as DOF vs waterford. Where those people are now i dont know.

So this thread running a long time now. Have we fixed our league yet?

miroslavklose

djpbarry wrote: »

It's not terribly significant when your matchday income is shag-all to begin with.

Ah, you've lapsed into parody here. Where do you think clubs make their money from? The vast majority of it is generated on matchday. Pats losing 400 fans is 100k on the turnstiles alone, not to mention that lower attendances will lower demand for advertising, sponsorship and lower the rates they can charge.

But anyway, you're selecting two figures at random to make your point, when the fact is that Pats' attendances have been pretty consistently in the 1,600 +/- 200 range for the last 10 years.

Pats have been pretty consistently a top four team for the last 10 years. On the occasion they battled with relegation, their attendances tumbled. There's nothing random about that.

There is absolutely no correlation, delayed or otherwise, between Pats' average attendance and their league position. Over the last 10 years, Pats' final league position has been, roughly, on an upward trend, but their attendances, have actually been on a slight downward trend.

Your argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

I'd imagine their attendances have been slowly declining due to the economy and emigration but they're still subject to fluctuation based on on-field performance. No team is immune to it.

Shamrock Rovers average attendance 2011 (1st): 3,800
Shamrock Rovers average attendance 2013 (5th): 2,800

Shelbourne average attendance 2001 (1st): 1,700
Shelbourne average attendance 2002 (FD): 900

Drogheda United average attendance 2007 (1st): 1,900
Drogheda United average attendance 2009 (9th): 850

Sligo Rovers average attendance 2012 (1st): 3,000
Sligo Rovers average attendance 2013 (3rd): 2,300

Derry City average attendance 2008 (3rd): 3,400
Derry City average attendance 2010 (FD): 2,000

Dundalk average attendance 2010 (6th): 1,900
Dundalk average attendance 2012 (11th): 800

Cork City average attendance 2008 (5th): 3,100
Cork City average attendance 2010 (FD): 1,700

I really don't know what you're trying to achieve here but you're desperately misinformed.

djpbarry

miroslavklose wrote: »

Ah, you've lapsed into parody here. Where do you think clubs make their money from? The vast majority of it is generated on matchday. Pats losing 400 fans is 100k on the turnstiles alone…

Wow – Pats are charging €250 a ticket these days?

miroslavklose wrote: »

Pats have been pretty consistently a top four team for the last 10 years.

Pats have finished outside the top four in five of the last ten seasons. We’re obviously using very different definitions of the word “consistently”.

miroslavklose wrote: »

On the occasion they battled with relegation, their attendances tumbled.

No. They didn’t. Pats had higher attendances in 2004, when they finished 8th, than they did last season. Their attendances in 2005, when they finished 10th, were pretty much the same as 2013. Their attendances dropped significantly in 2006, when they finished 7th, but were almost exactly the same as they wer e in 2011, when they finished 4th.

There is absolutely no correlation whatsoever.

I’m fairly confident if I examined trends in attendances for other clubs, I’d see a similar lack of correlation, but I have neither the time nor inclination to do so right now. Cherry-picking figures to suit your argument proves nothing.

miroslavklose wrote: »

I'd imagine their attendances have been slowly declining due to the economy and emigration…

Hang on a second – you’ve just been telling us that Pats’ attendances are linked to their on-field performance? Now you’re accepting that their attendances have been declining slightly (on average), while their league position has (on average) improved over the same period?

miroslavklose

djpbarry wrote: »

Wow – Pats are charging €250 a ticket these days?

Are you just trying to be obtuse. I'm talking about over the course of a season, obviously.

Pats have finished outside the top four in five of the last ten seasons. We’re obviously using very different definitions of the word “consistently”.

Excuse me. They're consistently a top half team who have had one brush with relegation, in 2009.

No. They didn’t. Pats had higher attendances in 2004, when they finished 8th, than they did last season. Their attendances in 2005, when they finished 10th, were pretty much the same as 2013. Their attendances dropped significantly in 2006, when they finished 7th, but were almost exactly the same as they wer e in 2011, when they finished 4th.

I've actually got my years mixed up - I was looking at 2010 as their relegation battle season, not 2009. OK, I concede that drop wasn't related to performance (although I'm sure watching Pete Mahon's team had something to do with it.

I’m fairly confident if I examined trends in attendances for other clubs, I’d see a similar lack of correlation, but I have neither the time nor inclination to do so right now. Cherry-picking figures to suit your argument proves nothing.

I'm hardly cherry-picking. I'm showing you that when a team's results go through the floor, attendances fall dramatically. I chose some examples of many.

Hang on a second – you’ve just been telling us that Pats’ attendances are linked to their on-field performance? Now you’re accepting that their attendances have been declining slightly (on average), while their league position has (on average) improved over the same period?

No, I'm saying the gradual decline in attendances across the league is related to the economy and people's inability to make matches. I'm saying the sudden decline in individual clubs' attendances is related to on-field performance.

TheDoc

Interesting reading this thread last few pages.

I support Man United, but have had the opportunity to go to football in alot of other countries, on trips and what not, and really enjoy live football. Every now and again I go to a LOI game to try get into it, and end up coming home just disappointed. Might be simply an issue of maybe experiencing some really high level stuff, and not re-adjusting those expectations when I travel to a local game.

I've a good, large group of mates, about 20+ of us, most of us into football. There is one of the group who is really into his LOI football. He's brought us a few times to watch Bohs, and just found it a struggle to keep interested.

Went to Rovers v Derry there last weekend, nothing going on and someone put it out as a potential trip. Just another disappointing trip to a league of ireland ground. I'm not one of caring much about facilities, the stadium was fine, transport and all that was grand, but the football was absolutely dire. It was a really poor match and we sat in the stands somewhat perplexed. I fully appreciate every game of football isn't going to be good, or a thriller, but it was just REALLY poor stuff. And that's been my takeaway from any game I've gone to see.

As someone who has never supported or followed a team, I'm always going as a neutral. But I never see anything that GRABS my attention and makes me want to come back. I live in the Fingal area, and I guess when Sporting Fingal arrived, it was about the most obvious time for me to plant the flag and get involved supporting a team. But I couldn't even get behind that properly. I used to play with a few of those lads, and there was somewhat a disconnect in terms of "watching professional football".

I don't play anymore, so go watch my mates who still do, and sometimes it isn't obvious to outline the difference between the groups playing Sunday league, and the guys playing at the top level. I wonder is it just a cause if you get ropped in early and young, you stick with it. As a 26 year old, obviously spoiled for football from around the world with TV and high quality streams, its somewhat difficult to find a way to get connected to the national league.

And I'm not bashing or belittling the game or the standard, I'd genuinelly have a massive interest in going to games weekly, but at the moment, struggling big time to have and keep an interest.

dreamers75

Thedoc that was a seriously bad game of football, i turned off after 5 minutes.

Your not alone on that one, it was awful awful awful.

dfx-

You need to go to more than one game and for one team in close succession - not a season apart, TheDoc. It might take 10 games or a big away win that gets you hooked.

One individual game tells you nothing about the standard. I follow Rovers and was bored stiff watching that game. Televised games also tend to be terrible.

anncoates

I was at that game. Derry set up to spoil game and the conditions were absolutely atrocious. Plenty of exciting games in league over the course of the season.

Paz-CCFC

TheDoc, I think a lot of it has to do with expectation. If you go to watch a local band, you're not going to be watching Queen or the Rolling Stones. If you go to a reasonably priced restaurant, you won't be getting Michelin star food. But, you're still well able to enjoy yourself and have a good time. The same is there with football.

The likes of Manchester United are a rarity. The vast vast majority of football teams in the world are nowhere near their standard. Most clubs would not be professional, but they still play good football. If you think about it, maybe 0.01% of the best footballers in Ireland play in England. The next best 0.1% are in the League of Ireland. Most footballers in this country wouldn't come close to LoI standard. And, as we have seen with the national team of late, those few who make it abroad often feature heavily in the league at a young age. There's the chance to see the Irish team of the future.

Keep the faith. Every match that you go to is one closer to the one that gets you hooked. As DFX said, a succession of matches works, whereas one off matches here and there may not. It doesn't really have to be a season-long to get into it. You could look out for offers like four matches for the price of three, etc.

League of Ireland matches won't be the very best in the world - how can it, when they players are paid a thousand times less? What you will get, however, is players trying their best, passionate fans supporting from the terraces and stands and, usually, an enjoyable day out.

NIMAN

I've seen plenty of shocking games in the EPL or La Liga.

djpbarry

miroslavklose wrote: »

Are you just trying to be obtuse. I'm talking about over the course of a season, obviously.

Ok, sorry, I genuinely misunderstood.

miroslavklose wrote: »

Excuse me. They're consistently a top half team who have had one brush with relegation, in 2009.

I honestly don’t know what you’re basing this on? Pats finished towards the wrong end of the table in 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2009. Average attendance over those four seasons was about 1,600, pretty much exactly where it is now (after four seasons in the top five).

miroslavklose wrote: »

I've actually got my years mixed up - I was looking at 2010 as their relegation battle season, not 2009. OK, I concede that drop wasn't related to performance (although I'm sure watching Pete Mahon's team had something to do with it.

Fair enough.

miroslavklose wrote: »

I'm hardly cherry-picking.

Sure you are. It’s no different to me saying that Pats’ attendances last season were lower than in 2004, when they finished 8th, and therefore, attendances at Inchicore fall as results improve.

miroslavklose wrote: »

No, I'm saying the gradual decline in attendances across the league is related to the economy and people's inability to make matches. I'm saying the sudden decline in individual clubs' attendances is related to on-field performance.

I think we’ll just agree to disagree at this point.