Bristol R*vers dustbin thread

[steviestevieneville]

27 minutes ago, bcfc01 said:

Yep.

Been corrected before.

Apologies for being pedantic  

[Hellfire Corner]

3 hours ago, BS4 on Tour... said:

A football club is a single entity - so it’s correct to say ‘is’ - most people around football say ‘are’ as it actually sounds correct and less awkward than using ‘is’ - eg ‘City are at home on Saturday’ - but it’s correct to say ‘City is at home on Saturday’ as City is a football club - a single entity ... as you were

But City are/is not at home on Saturday, the season is over!

[BS4 on Tour...]

6 hours ago, Red-Robbo said:

 

The general consensus among writers is that sports clubs, like pop groups, are outside the usual collective singular used by organisations.

Thus:  Bristol City are preparing for a summer of recruitment.  Bristol Sport is calculating how much money will be available.  

I agree - and ‘are’ sounds so much better - but it isn’t correct 

[42nite]

If we say......

The City is great             

And

The City are great

Whether the grammar is correct or not, we all know we are talking about two different things.

 

[BS2 Red]

2,500 pages. That's more pages than they have fans.

[Son of Fred]

On 27/05/2021 at 22:17, redsquirrel said:

the expression on his face is the fear of how to tell the mrs what hes been and done

Or where he's been and that he's been well & truly done

Edited May 28, 2021 by Son of Fred

[Red-Robbo]

55 minutes ago, BS4 on Tour... said:

I agree - and ‘are’ sounds so much better - but it isn’t correct 

 

Sports teams are singular in American English, but in British English the emphasis is on whether you are talking about the collective body together (in which case it's singular) or as a group of individuals (it takes plural).  

Sports teams, pop groups and the police are classic plural group verb forms in UK English, but there are others.

"A committee has been appointed to look into corruption...."  has a group emphasis so is singular, but "the committee were unable to make a recommendation" is a partial sentence where individuals in the group are obviously highlighted, so we go plural.

If you wonder why I give a **** about all this, it's because I sat on the humorously named "style council" of our national broadcaster and drew up its grammatical rules in conjunction with a team of sub-editors from the main national broadsheets and the former editor of the OED. 

One thing you learn when you delve into grammar is that half of what you think is established English, has no formal basis, but is just someone's opinion that has become taught as established grammar.  Split infinitives are a good example. We were all told at school to avoid these, but there has never been an agreed grammatical prohibition of them and classic English literature is full of them. They're just a bad English teacher's definition of what bad English looks like.

Anyway, not sure why I'm discussing this on a thread about the Blue Few.

They're prowed of their bad English. 

[Son of Fred]

14 hours ago, 1960maaan said:

What's the point of a forum that's only purpose is ego stroking?

With 'stroking being the operative word over at 'ass chat'..

[Son of Fred]

4 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

Split infinitives are a good example. We were all told at school to avoid these,

And rightly so....

You can't have such goings on at a seat of learning for young people..

 If it all goes wrong a very painful experience...

[cider hoss rules]

13 hours ago, BS2 Red said:

2,500 pages. That's more pages than they have fans.

Only on the inside, don’t forget the half a million or so locked out 

[BS2 Red]

4 minutes ago, cider hoss rules said:

Only on the inside, don’t forget the half a million or so locked out 

There are that many hidden pages for this thread?

[Midlands Robin]

On 28/05/2021 at 15:51, BS4 on Tour... said:

Super post - I’ve been shouted down for using percentages of populations before - eg when people on here have slagged off the attendances of clubs like Wigan and Burnley I’ve politely pointed out that the home crowds of both those clubs are far more impressive than ours - even more so given that they are both surrounded by bigger and better clubs short distances away - we don’t even have that excuse!

There's a huge problem using average attendances against population size as a stick to beat clubs with.

You'll be amazed to learn for example that 32% of the population of West Bromwich (78,000 people as of 2018) went and watched their club meanwhile a tiny 1.41 of Birmingham's 1.1 million population watch Birmingham City.

If the population of Wigan or Barnsley was to quadruple overnight their attendances wouldn't suddenly by increase in line with their percentages. Their percentage of population attending would get smaller.

 

[Taz]

18 minutes ago, Midlands Robin said:

There's a huge problem using average attendances against population size as a stick to beat clubs with.

You'll be amazed to learn for example that 32% of the population of West Bromwich (78,000 people as of 2018) went and watched their club meanwhile a tiny 1.41 of Birmingham's 1.1 million population watch Birmingham City.

If the population of Wigan or Barnsley was to quadruple overnight their attendances wouldn't suddenly by increase in line with their percentages. Their percentage of population attending would get smaller.

 

What people also forget is that Bristol has a very big student population.

2 very big universities with people coming from all over the country, and whilst some may show an interest in one of the local teams, some won't be bothered with anything other than their "home" team, and a lot will have absolutely no interest in football whatsoever.

Figures and percentages can be read in many different ways, but as you say @Midlands Robin, this particular stat is pretty useless.

[Peter O Hanraha-hanrahan]

21 minutes ago, Midlands Robin said:

There's a huge problem using average attendances against population size as a stick to beat clubs with.

You'll be amazed to learn for example that 32% of the population of West Bromwich (78,000 people as of 2018) went and watched their club meanwhile a tiny 1.41 of Birmingham's 1.1 million population watch Birmingham City.

If the population of Wigan or Barnsley was to quadruple overnight their attendances wouldn't suddenly by increase in line with their percentages. Their percentage of population attending would get smaller.

 

Not sure what the problem is?

If West Brom’s attendances are 32% of the population of West Bromwich then that just shows how much support they draw from surrounding areas away from other local clubs. 

If Barnsley and Wigan’s populations quadrupled overnight then obviously their attendances wouldn’t quadruple overnight....however the population of Wigan or Barnsley is NEVER going to quadruple overnight so it’s not really a valid point.

What I could’ve done is doubled the percentages for Rovers and City to take into account that there are two clubs in Bristol. However Rovers would’ve still been lower than Fleetwood and Accrington even after that.

7 minutes ago, Taz said:

What people also forget is that Bristol has a very big student population.

2 very big universities with people coming from all over the country, and whilst some may show an interest in one of the local teams, some won't be bothered with anything other than their "home" team, and a lot will have absolutely no interest in football whatsoever.

Figures and percentages can be read in many different ways, but as you say @Midlands Robin, this particular stat is pretty useless.

467,000 is the population of Bristol alone, for ease I didn’t include the surrounding areas where many City and Rovers fans come from like Yate, Keynsham, Nailsea, Portishead etc. Those areas easily outnumber the student population in Bristol.

I agree it’s not a completely perfect measure and there are many different factors to take into consideration. However I think that using a clubs average attendance as a percentage against the local population is not useless at all, it’s a perfectly good indicator of how popular a club are in the local area because it tells you how many people are willing to part with money to support them.

[Midlands Robin]

43 minutes ago, Peter O Hanraha-hanrahan said:

If West Brom’s attendances are 32% of the population of West Bromwich then that just shows how much support they draw from surrounding areas away from other local clubs. 

This proves my point though. The stat doesn't take into account where people live. You can't for example say, the West Brom stat is wrong because it's clearly skewed by fans attending matches who don't live in West Brom but say the Wigan stat is correct because every person who attends their games lives in Wigan.

The figures for Bristol could differ vastly depending on whether you include just the city population (around 450000), the urban population (around 600000) or the area (around 1 million)?

How many city fans live in North Somerset, Weston and surrounding areas? How many saggys live in the South Gloucestershire area? 

Don't get me wrong, anything to have a laugh at the Sags is a good thing but we shouldn't be beating ourselves up over play population attendances as it's just not a reliable figure to use.

Edited May 30, 2021 by Midlands Robin

[Midlands Robin]

Fair play though, 47 percent of Nailsworth watch Forrest Green Rovers.

[Shaun Taylor]

9 minutes ago, Midlands Robin said:

This proves my point though. The stat doesn't take into account where people live. You can't for example say, the West Brom stat is wrong because it's clearly skewed by fans attending matches who don't live in West Brom but say the Wigan stat is correct because every person who attends their games lives in Wigan.

The figures for Bristol could differ vastly depending on whether you include just the city population (around 450000), the urban population (around 600000) or the area (around 1 million)?

How many city fans live in North Somerset, Weston and surrounding areas? How many saggys live in the South Gloucestershire area? 

Don't get me wrong, anything to have a laugh at the Sags is a good thing but we shouldn't be beating ourselves up over play population attendances as it's just not a reliable figure to use.

Chelsea would be another perfect example 

[Peter O Hanraha-hanrahan]

13 minutes ago, Midlands Robin said:

This proves my point though. The stat doesn't take into account where people live. You can't for example say, the West Brom stat is wrong because it's clearly skewed by fans attending matches who don't live in West Brom.

The figures for Bristol could differ vastly depending on whether you include just the city population (around 450000), the urban population (around 600000) or the area (around 1 million)?

How many city fans live in North Somerset, Weston and surrounding areas? How many saggys live in the South Gloucestershire area? 

Don't get me wrong, anything to have a laugh at the Sags is a good thing but we shouldn't be beating ourselves up over play population attendances as it's just not a reliable figure to use.

I didn’t say the West Brom stat is wrong, I said that it indicates that West Brom are so popular in the local area that they draw fans away from other clubs (no doubt Birmingham City, who you also mentioned, are one of those clubs).

I did answer the point about the urban and metro population of Bristol to Taz regarding the student population and how that student population is outnumbered by the number of people living in surrounding areas where City and Rovers draw support.

Gasheads mock clubs like Fleetwood and Accrington for their crowd size, however it’s a fact that Rovers have FAR more potential fans on their doorstep than either of those clubs.

11 minutes ago, Midlands Robin said:

Fair play though, 47 percent of Nailsworth watch Forrest Green Rovers.

Like I said, it’s not perfect but yeah, why is that not impressive? By rights Forest Green should be watched by one man and his dog yet they appeal to far more people in the surrounding areas than they probably should.

 

9 minutes ago, Shaun Taylor said:

Chelsea would be another perfect example 

London is where it gets way too complicated.

The fact is, Accrington is a relatively small town with some huge clubs on their doorstep, yet their attendances are pretty good considering the population of the town. Rovers and City are not so good, especially as we don’t have the local competition Stanley have, but then we already knew that? It’s been mentioned on here a thousand times with various excuses suggested.

I’m not sure why this is causing so much confusion to be honest?

 

 

[Ska Junkie]

2 hours ago, Midlands Robin said:

This proves my point though. The stat doesn't take into account where people live. You can't for example say, the West Brom stat is wrong because it's clearly skewed by fans attending matches who don't live in West Brom but say the Wigan stat is correct because every person who attends their games lives in Wigan.

The figures for Bristol could differ vastly depending on whether you include just the city population (around 450000), the urban population (around 600000) or the area (around 1 million)?

How many city fans live in North Somerset, Weston and surrounding areas? How many saggys live in the South Gloucestershire area? 

Don't get me wrong, anything to have a laugh at the Sags is a good thing but we shouldn't be beating ourselves up over play population attendances as it's just not a reliable figure to use.

I don't think we can just use the city population tbh as the urban sprawl is all Bristol really. We also have a lot of support in areas outside the city boundaries. Whether it's the urban (670K according to Wikipedia) or the metro (1,006,000) I'm not sure. In all honesty, those numbers are from an old census I believe so are probably on the low side anyway. I would suggest we use the 'urban' figure as that includes all the areas built on to the city AFAIK.

People might be surprised at the numbers of reds in South Glos TBH, particularly among the younger element although there's a fair few of us older stalwarts that have been proudly displaying red for years.

Edited May 30, 2021 by Ska Junkie

[Red-Robbo]

3 hours ago, Midlands Robin said:

There's a huge problem using average attendances against population size as a stick to beat clubs with.

You'll be amazed to learn for example that 32% of the population of West Bromwich (78,000 people as of 2018) went and watched their club meanwhile a tiny 1.41 of Birmingham's 1.1 million population watch Birmingham City.

If the population of Wigan or Barnsley was to quadruple overnight their attendances wouldn't suddenly by increase in line with their percentages. Their percentage of population attending would get smaller.

 

 

Lots of Baggies fans come from the wider Black Country area. Places like Stourbridge, Halesowen, Redditch  and Amblecote and also parts of the West Midlands conurbation that are identifiably Black Country, like Wednesbury, Oldbury and even Smethwick. 

They reckon the Black Country has a population of 1,2 million, so it's not surprising it can support two big clubs in Wolves and WBA as well as one smaller one in Walsall. 

They all pick up fans from Worcestershire and parts of Staffordshire as well, where there are no professional clubs. 

All teams draw lots of support from the hinterland areas surrounding the towns, cities and suburbs they are named after, as well as "exiles" from that home region.

Sunderland always struck me as a very well-supported club, given the size of the town they are based in. However, you have to factor in that they pick up the vast majority of support across Wearside, something that doubles their potential fanbase.

 

[weepywall]

Let's be honest, support for both Bristol clubs is quite poor considering the size of Bristol, catchment area and lack of competition, City are making progress in increasing support due mainly to the facilities at AG (certainly not the football over the last couple of years). I think Bristol in general has plenty of football fans but not so many football supporters, unfortunately a lot of those fans wear shirts from clubs over 100 to 150 miles away, really pisses me off to be honest.

[Peter O Hanraha-hanrahan]

1 minute ago, weepywall said:

Let's be honest, support for both Bristol clubs is quite poor considering the size of Bristol, catchment area and lack of competition, City are making progress in increasing support due mainly to the facilities at AG (certainly not the football over the last couple of years). I think Bristol in general has plenty of football fans but not so many football supporters, unfortunately a lot of those fans wear shirts from clubs over 100 to 150 miles away, really pisses me off to be honest.

Thank you.

That was the point I was trying to make in reaction to anyone (although it’s usually Gasheads) who accuse clubs like Fleetwood and Accrington of being ‘tinpot’ based on attendances.

In a City with a population of around a million (when you take into consideration the surrounding towns where many City and Rovers fans come from) both clubs are poorly supported....Rovers especially so, which is amusing as they in particular have massive delusions of grandeur when it comes to their fan base. We can come up excuses about students and amateur football but those factors aren’t unique to Bristol.

 

 

 

[Midlands Robin]

3 hours ago, Peter O Hanraha-hanrahan said:

In a City with a population of around a million (when you take into consideration the surrounding towns where many City and Rovers fans come from) both clubs are poorly supported....Rovers especially so, which is amusing as they in particular have massive delusions of grandeur when it comes to their fan base.

This part I agree with you about. Using figures however is completely misleading. Wigan in the mid 90's averaged crowds of less than 2000. Just over 10 years later another 17000 people from Wigan suddenly remembered they had a football club.

Between 79/80 and 80/81 our gates dropped by 50 percent and by the time we'd hit rock bottom we'd lost 75 percent of those who were there 5 years before. 

Good football brings good crowds.

Wigan have done a good job to retain their supporters after their premiership years.

The Sags have been locked on 6 to 7 thousand delusionals for decades now. It just shows all they have is a core group of supporters who watch that shite regardless but apart from a couple of seasons under the dog botherer, they aren't growing at all. 

Until City reach the Premier League the majority of potential fans will stick to sky sports. 

We haven't been a top flight club for 41 years. There are many dad's who have to tell their kids to ask Granddad what it was like watching City in the first division. That's the most shameful state of affairs for a city our size not the lack of support.

Anyway, the Sags always give it Charlie big potatos. **** 'Em.

Edited May 30, 2021 by Midlands Robin

[Southport Red]

3 hours ago, Peter O Hanraha-hanrahan said:

Thank you.

That was the point I was trying to make in reaction to anyone (although it’s usually Gasheads) who accuse clubs like Fleetwood and Accrington of being ‘tinpot’ based on attendances.

In a City with a population of around a million (when you take into consideration the surrounding towns where many City and Rovers fans come from) both clubs are poorly supported....Rovers especially so, which is amusing as they in particular have massive delusions of grandeur when it comes to their fan base. We can come up excuses about students and amateur football but those factors aren’t unique to Bristol.

 

 

 

Something that you can factor in is that the West Country is big Rugby territory. The Bears, Bafff, Gloucester all within the catchment (and all well supported). Off the top of my head, the only place that seems able to get good support for Rugby and football is Leicester. 

[Hxj]

27 minutes ago, Southport Red said:

Off the top of my head, the only place that seems able to get good support for Rugby and football is Leicester. 

I'm not adverse to a quick trip to Welford Road, but I think you need to look a little closer to home - just over the Severn Bridge!

[Peter O Hanraha-hanrahan]

26 minutes ago, Southport Red said:

Something that you can factor in is that the West Country is big Rugby territory. The Bears, Bafff, Gloucester all within the catchment (and all well supported). Off the top of my head, the only place that seems able to get good support for Rugby and football is Leicester. 

Yorkshire and the North West also big Rugby areas.

 

32 minutes ago, Midlands Robin said:

This part I agree with you about. Using figures however is completely misleading. Wigan in the mid 90's averaged crowds of less than 2000. Just over 10 years later another 17000 people from Wigan suddenly remembered they had a football club.

Between 79/80 and 80/81 our gates dropped by 50 percent and by the time we'd hit rock bottom we'd lost 75 percent of those who were there 5 years before. 

Good football brings good crowds.

Wigan have done a good job to retain their supporters after their premiership years.

The Sags have been locked on 6 to 7 thousand delusionals for decades now. It just shows all they have is a core group of supporters who watch that shite regardless but apart from a couple of seasons under the dog botherer, they aren't growing at all. 

Until City reach the Premier League the majority of potential fans will stick to sky sports. 

We haven't been a top flight club for 41 years. There are many dad's who have to tell their kids to ask Granddad what it was like watching City in the first division. That's the most shameful state of affairs for a city our size not the lack of support.

Anyway, the Sags always give it Charlie big potatos. **** 'Em.

I get what you’re saying but I’m only talking about the here and now. 

Anyway, back on track.

’MASSIVE’ 

 

[italian dave]

On 28/05/2021 at 23:27, BS2 Red said:

2,500 pages. That's more pages than they have fans.

And how appropriate that we mark that milestone with a debate about grammar!

[Lanterne Rouge]

42 minutes ago, italian dave said:

And how appropriate that we mark that milestone with a debate about grammar!

I for one am prowed that we have.

[Southport Red]

2 hours ago, Peter O Hanraha-hanrahan said:

Yorkshire and the North West also big Rugby areas.

 

I don’t consider Rugby League to be a sport Peter

[reddoh]

5 hours ago, Southport Red said:

Something that you can factor in is that the West Country is big Rugby territory. The Bears, Bafff, Gloucester all within the catchment (and all well supported). Off the top of my head, the only place that seems able to get good support for Rugby and football is Leicester. 

Sadly My sister was a hooker in Leicester she used to play for Leicester Ladies.