Bristol Oil Services

Just to put that April '76 26,000 Bristol derby game crowd at Eastville in some sort of context, Rovers played some other "glittering" league fixtures at the home around that time, including:

Man Utd, March 75: 19,000

Tottenham, 78 (the "second leg," they were 0-9 down on agg): 17,700.

Villa, 74: 14,000

Chelsea 76: 13,000 (played Chelsea four or five times around then, 16k in 75 being the largest).

West Ham, 79: 12,400. 

So, nothing came close to us playing there, in the league, in 1976. Which suggests a considerable visiting support! Same as when they played Man Utd, who would take 10,000 everywhere back then.

To get a crowd at Eastville to match or better that league derby match in '76, in the 70s, you have to look at cup games.

In '78, they had 26,000 v Southampton, with10k Saints fans, from what I can find. This suggests the Muller held at least 10k back then. Meaning at least 10k of us in '76, and at most 16 of them.

Prior to this you go back to '72 and a league cup visit from Best and Charlton, and 33,900! at a Bristol Rovers home game (you see! They are huge, massive. In 1972. With a visit from two of the greatest this country has ever seen).

They managed two, losing, league cup quarter finals in 70 and 71, pulling in 33,000 for those. Thirty three thousand* - blimey! Long time ago, mind. Half a century. What might've been.

My search has not been exhaustive but I believe the '76 game v us was the last home league crowd of 20,000 plus at theirs, and possibly the only 20k plus crowd for a non-cup tie since the days of record crowds everywhere and their one and only half-decent team of the late 50s, early 60s (not sure if they had a "bumper" turn out for promotion in '74?). And it was only so many because there were thousands of us.

Like many, many poxy clubs (and not unlike ourselves, in truth), Rovers could/can get a big crowd once or twice a season, for a knockout game or the visit of some all-time greats, or a family day out to Wemberlee, drawing in many neutrals, day-trippers and casual observers, few if any of whom will ever be interested in their run of the mill, mundane league games that make up the majority of a season.

The mistake, or perhaps intentionally misleading or deluding conclusion, they come to, is to read far too much into the big one-off occasion and envisage from that the potential of many, many thousands trudging through the wind and the rain, and the grey (and the boob cricket, and the horse interfering) to witness league fixtures against the same old bloody dross week after week, year after year. Lord knows I have made the same error and deluded myself similarly about us.

*Many of these "loyal and true/once-in-blue-moon" diehards from 50 years ago in 1971 would be waiting to go again regularly, should they get a ground/take the Prem by storm/overtake us again, were it not for the sad fact that they are now dead. And the "faith" has not lived on through the generations.

Put simply, the (entire) Muller Road end was not always room enough for us, while two of the three parts of the Park End always seemed to accommodate them ok. And sometimes, just the one.

16 hours ago, Jim Davey said:

anyone no the attendance and how many we took there in 83 are end seemed quite full that day.also anyone on here guilty of burning the gas scarf.

15 hours ago, I want to be anon. said:

The gate was only about 14,000 and all ticket wasn't it? Eastville was pretty much falling down by then, the South Stand was gone I think. 

A few years now since I was in the central library, thumbing through old Evening Posts, but do remember reading the papers from the week leading up to the December 83 game and I think it was 6000 tickets sold for the Muller Rd end. That's 6000 out of a 14000 crowd. There were also reports of police warnings about forgeries and measures in place to stop City fans entering via skullduggery. 

The last derby game there, I was stood in the small enclosure where the torched South Stand used to be, the night hundreds of City were in that bit, many jumping on the pitch when we - Stevie Neville? - scored. Think that was only 9000 odd. 

50 minutes ago, Lanterne Rouge said:

 

I doubt they`ll ever get another chance, not in my lifetime anyway.

That's what the hare thought.....

10 minutes ago, cider hoss rules said:

A personal favourite fro

A personal favourite from the appeal losing thread;

 

All this "over-taking" - like with the tortoise and the hare, they only manage this when we stop for a nap (are periodically properly shee-ite), but then, the last time that was the case, 2013/14, they must've been in the pits having their tyres changed?

You cannot help but be tickled by the "bigger than Norwich" thing.

Norwich have averaged 10,000 or more every season - like, every season; no, "yeah, but we was in the Banana league in 2015" - an unbroken, no exceptions, no excuses (no "yeah, buts") - since 1932.

Rovers have not managed a five figure, 10,000 plus ("yeah, but we was in Baff") average home attendance since the 1975/76 season (when they had a large away end, with room for 6 or 7000). That was 10,022. I don't suppose the average away support at Eastville that season was 22, so you have to go back even further to find a season when 10,000 of them went every week (ie, were "bigger than Norwich").

Indeed, of their 91 football league seasons, in just 29 of those have Rovers averaged 10,000 or more. Two thirds of the history they have had a tinpot home crowd.

The "yeah, but .... if we didn’t have a restricted capacity and instead had a 40,000 all seater ground, we'd ....." falls down when you ask: why do you have a poor ground? Why have you not had your own ground for decades? Why did you have to leave Bristol and go cap in hand to a non-league club? Why do able/minted men end up at AG and not Camp Few/Canopy Nou?

17 hours ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

Twas ever thus eh!!!

By chance t'other day I came cross this comment in David Woods' "The Modern Era - A Complete Record" about the Stoke / Cheesley's knee game in '76. The attendance was eventually recorded as 25,316 but the author's 2 line summation of the game begins: "A phantom turnstile perhaps as an attendance of 32,537 is originally announced?"  

32,000? For a game against Stoke? In Bristol? Even following a win at Arsenal, and a 65 year wait, the good people of Bristol are not that daft/desperate/short of things to do/into football/willing to part with their cash. 

3 hours ago, ITK..... said:

I reckon we will play better at home with no fans there. Players will prefer it ! Ashton gate is got to be one of the worse for getting on the back of it's own players or almost wanting them to make mistakes just so fans can say I told you so. 

You are confusing this forum for the crowd at the ground. And you don't go to other grounds. It would appear. 

2 hours ago, slartibartfast said:

Half way through our stint in the first division out capacity was cut to 26000 by the powers that be .

But we pulled in 27,000 v Liverpool in March 1980, just weeks before we bid top class football a sad adieu. Who could make any sense of the numbers down AG in the 70s and 80s?

16 hours ago, miser said:

Don't know for sure  but in the 1st division days, we had a capacity of 37,000 with 7,000 seats. So 30k for the terraces. Not unreasonable to assume 10-11 K. Not sure they would all have a view.

The Leeds and Liverpool cup ties in '74 were all-ticket, and both had 37,000 crowds. I don’t know if the Liverpool game in the league in May '77 was all ticket - I'm thinking it wasn't - but the official attendance for that was 38 000 plus. More than should've been allowed in, maybe. Maybe, it was a bit of a melee that evening.

In his programme notes for the first home game the following season, in August '77, Alan Dicks informed us that the club had had to spend £100k on ground improvements over the summer to comply with the recent Safety of Sports Ground Act. He said that this had cut the ground capacity to 30,000. A big cut from 37 (or was it 38) thousand. 

However, a quick glance at the programme for Man United at the end of the 77/78 season, shows that we attracted two crowds during that season of more than 31,000! (v Forest and Liverpool).

Did we let more in than we were supposed to? Could we add up properly? Did Dicksy get his sums wrong? Did we - the club - know what was going on? Did we - the crowd - know what was going on?

13 hours ago, Bar BS3 said:

But look at how they all flooded to their spiritual home in the years preceding their departure...!

Going to Bath saved them. Their best seasons in half a century were while they were playing at a small, decrepit non-league ground. It was clearly a "good fit," finally Rovers had a ground to complement their crowd (small, untidy, ramshackle). A small crowd in a small ground (Trumpton) or a small crowd in a large oval of a ground (Eastville)?

At Eastville their 3 or 4 thousand crowds, set miles back from the pitch, were stretched, anonymous and almost invisible. They might as well not have been there. At Trumpton they only had two sides to populate and were right on top of the action, they could make themselves heard. The opposition also disliked going there, accustomed as they were to finer facilities and surroundings (ie professional ones).

The derby games at Eastville I attended, in the 80s, you could see but not hear them. At Trumpton, with a winning team admittedly, they were unpleasantly close and audible. At Eastville there was always City in the remains of the torched stand and the North stand, probably the Tote as well. We used to march there from town and feel like we had taken the place over (the Muller was a big end, 5000 I think, if not 6, for the December 83 cup game I think, in a 14k crowd). 

The combination of being in Bath and Gerry Francis's no-frills anti-football saved them. They've done nothing since being back in Bristol, even worse than before you might say.

I wish they had limped on at Eastville, they were dying a slow, anonymous death there. 

1 hour ago, Peter O Hanraha-hanrahan said:

 

I suppose we could always put ‘120 consecutive years of League football’ on our promotional literature but I think we’ve got far more going for us as a club than that.

Yes, compared to them. Which isn't saying much/enough!

11 hours ago, Peter O Hanraha-hanrahan said:

What does ‘Football with Tradition’ actually mean?
 

It means, the club you measure yourself against, the club you fancy to be your rival, the club your supporters obsess over, are more successful, are higher in the pyramid than you, have more support than you, and they have modernised, are a 21st century football club.

It means you are small fry and lower league.

It also means, "we tried to modernise but failed" and have only the "tradition" nonsense to fall back on.

19 minutes ago, Lanterne Rouge said:

In keeping with their standing in world football would you please show some respect and refer to it by its correct name.

The Canopy Nou

I like it.

Camp Few perhaps?

20 hours ago, Northern Red said:

You'll Never Walk Alone...

It was appropriate or relevant 50 years ago, under Shankly. They need a new song for 2020

28 minutes ago, Lanterne Rouge said:

They are tearing each other to bits over there. Posters are offering others outside, the full works!

Offer people inside, wash your hands, save the GHS

13 hours ago, Curr Avon said:

You're right P, it was scandalous. And to make matters worse, the EP ran a back page headline - attributed to Alan Dicks - in Autumn 76, that ran something like, "Cheesley will have to go through the pain barrier for first-team return." 

Dicksy could've updated everyone via his matchday programme notes as to the bungled (if that's what it was) rehabilitation of Cheese, but he was too busy telling folk that were there at home games buying the programme and paying to get in, that not enough people were there buying the programme and paying to get in. And also, asking fans to be more patient/understanding, less vulgar/foul-mouthed.

12 hours ago, East End Old Boy said:

Norwich offered trials to a number of lads I knew and signed one, Andy Rollings from Portishead, who in addition to Norwich, went on to play for Brighton in the old First Division.

Pro footballers tend to move to, rather than emerge from Portishead. Can't be many that make it from there?

12 minutes ago, bcfc01 said:

In those days Norwich had a scouting network based in and around Bristol.

A bit like Southampton these days.

While we had a scouting network based in and around Glasgow and Edinburgh. Presumably, Celtic, Rangers, Hibs and Hearts were watching lads kicking a ball about in Norfolk....

1 hour ago, Ska Junkie said:

For Miah's hypothetical question, if City changed their name to United, wouldn't it be exactly the same as, with all respect to Miah, what would the hypothetically (hopefully) defunct rovers bring to this? nothing as far as I can see, not one thing. It would be Bristol City with a name change wouldn't it?

They could be our away following - go to away games - and we'd cover the home games. We'd be huge! The envy of all ......

Carlo Ancelotti says "things will have to change," and that footballers and coaches will have to earn less, and fans pay less for tickets.

Bloke must be under the weather. He needs testing, pronto

7 hours ago, Eddie Hitler said:

 

The only thing that would rescue English football would be if the Chinese league really took off and became the de facto best in the world league that the EPL is at present.

Then all the top players would head there for the money and the

.....live animal food markets. 

Yes, I can see our top players just itching to further their careers in places like China....no, it's not going to happen, when you think about.

Although, if we did start paying more realistic money, and our "top players" did choose to clear off, to China, I can live happily without that and will drive them all to Heathrow myself.

Who gives a shit about that or them anymore?

3 hours ago, Maesknoll Red said:

WTF is wrong with these people... 

How long have you got?

Actually, that's a stupid question.....

19 minutes ago, Northern Red said:

Was in Home Bargains earlier and talking to the girl on the checkout who said the only things they were rationing were bog roll and pasta, 

If that's white - ie, refined - pasta, and people are filling their faces with that shite, and as much protein as they can chew, and no veg, then they are going to get fat - or, fatter - and will get diabetes, endure increasingly terrible health problems, and also be constipated, with limited need for wiping their backsides.

They'll probably eat the toilet roll, when the pasta runs out.

1 hour ago, LondonBristolian said:

I think it is. And a friend made the point to me the other day that she had various friends on her Facebook page who had spent years sharing memes around poppies and talking up the blitz spirit and 

The "blitz spirit" is a bit of a myth, sadly. At the time it was necessary to talk up our heroic "keep calm and carry on" (a poster that was mocked up, but never used, apparently) response to being bombed, for a number of reasons, including propaganda and showing Jerry we would not be cowed. 

People need to remember that all countries tell stories about themselves, their origins, and their finest moments that show them in a glowing, golden light. 

1 hour ago, LondonBristolian said:

 Maybe the community spirit and stoic calm of the blitz is a mirage and a fairytale created after the event 

It was created at the time, and was a "fairytale." See Richard Overy, Prof of History. He has written a book about this.