This Will Cheer You All Up...these Are The Facts People!

[Manon]

Lifted from g#$ forum. One of the funniest posts I've ever seen ...

On the subject of fair comparisons to our massive rivals from south Bristol here are some facts for like for like comparisons, for our younger forum users who have only known the Gas from Twerton days upwards, these are fair comparisons I am making because they were at a time of equal despair for both clubs, although City's plight ended up with them becoming the first football league side to go from the first to the forth in successive seasons, or second team, not sure, but here goes with the facts:

CITY AVERAGE ATTENDANCE 1982: 6,511 position 23rd RELEGATED TO DIV 4

CITY AVERAGE ATTENDANCE 1983: 4,799 position 14th IN DIV 4

CITY AVERAGE ATTENDANCE 1984: 7,287 position 4th IN DIV 4 PROMOTED TO DIV 3

ROVERS AVERAGE ATTENDANCE 1982 5,402 mid table finish DIV 3

ROVERS AVERAGE ATTENDANCE 1983 6,221 top 10 finish DIV 3

ROVERS AVERAGE ATTENDANCE 1984 5,550 top 10 finish Div 3

CITY AVE OVER THOSE 3 SEASONS 6,199

ROVERS AVE OVER THOSE 3 SEASONS 5,724

These are facts gentlemen, not myth, give us the same standard of ground, similar league positions and there's nothing in it!!!!

[Miah Dennehy]

I'm surprised, I thought your average would be a couple of thousand higher (at least).

I don't think you should be really taking too much notice of what a few people on a rivals forum say btw, I think most Rovers fans would acknowledge that City have had the higher attendances since the 50s.

[RedZepperin]

More mathematical masturbation from our neighbours.

[Barrs Court Red]

The real gap came from around 97 onwards. City made kids tickets ridiculously cheap and really worked hard to make football as accessible for youngsters.

I think at one time only Nottingham Forest had a higher % of juvenile season ticket holders.

[sglosbcfc]

The real gap came from around 97 onwards. City made kids tickets ridiculously cheap and really worked hard to make football as accessible for youngsters.

I think at one time only Nottingham Forest had a higher % of juvenile season ticket holders.

No, Miahdenney might be a Gashead but he is spot on, City have consistently averaged the higher attendances for the past 60 years regardless of how both teams are performing, where Rovers are playing etc etc. Rovers were only top dogs in terms of support and team for a short while in the 1950s, they failed to build on that superiority.

[Major Isewater]

[sglosbcfc]

[TRL]

[BS3 GAS]

agreed with above poster ... yes city have had the bigger crowds...

 

what that actually gains is another matter....

 

Plenty of clubs with low support have been successful.... Big crowds bring more money which helps buy players or bring the club profit ... something rovers & City seem to struggle with.

 

The best point in this thread was about when city threw a lot at gaining the young fans , ive been pestering Rovers for years saying that we need to all but give tickets away to kids to gain back some ground on your attendances and the fans we lose to places like Villa and the London Clubs...unsold tickets should be used to fill the grounds with kids for free ... they are our clubs futures

[Major Isewater]

30 years for 3 seasons, at the lowest point in our history, and we still had more in the ground than them. That tells people all they need to know

if those are the facts they are bringing up, I think they just shot themselves in the foot , what a numpty

I bet he's "prowed" !

[Cider red]

They averaged 6k when they were fighting relegation in league 1, we've averaged almost double that. Enough said.

[Mad Cyril]

Not sure either clubs numbers are anywhere near impressive for a metropolis of this size.

Then again if I was size obsessed I would be following Manchester United.

[pride of the west]

He acknowledged that we were in div 4 with an average higher attendance, yet he says that given similar league positions there would be nothing in it. Well we were in the league below for heavens sake and still got more though the gate. Gas logic.

[Manon]

Truly delusional.

Only a sag could concoct such bullet proof argument to support his/her facts.

'not a myth'?

Even the loch ness monster is laughing about this one.

[madmax]

That's what they do best, hang on to the past and dig out what they can to out do us.

 

MM

[Peter O Hanraha-hanrahan]

On the subject of fair comparisons to our massive rivals from south Bristol here are some facts

CITY AVERAGE ATTENDANCE 1984: 7,287 position 4th IN DIV 4 PROMOTED TO DIV 3

ROVERS AVERAGE ATTENDANCE 1984 5,550 top 10 finish Div 3

This is the most intresting stat imo from that post. The Gashead responsible for pointing this out seems to have comically shot himself in both feet with an Uzi. They were top ten in L3 (presumably having a reasonable season), we were a division below them (also having a good season) and we averaged nearly 2000 more.

Mad Cyril is spot on when he says that both clubs have little to shout about attendance wise when you look at the population of Bristol but the facts suggest that historically our fans are more loyal, home and away. City and Rovers are both medium sized clubs in the football league so there should not be such a consistent difference in crowd figures, albeit some years by only a couple of thousand.

What Gasheads should be doing, instead of comparing our home and away attendances with theirs and saying "look, we nearly had as many fans as 'the massive club' that year" is asking why their club have clearly not done enough to attract more of the 40k they took to Wembley.

[Kid in the Riot]

Since 1997 we have had one season where we dipped under an average 10k (9,803 in 2000)

 

Yeah, and that was Pulis' fault.

[Miah Dennehy]

This is the most intresting stat imo from that post. The Gashead responsible for pointing this out seems to have comically shot himself in both feet with an Uzi. They were top ten in L3 (presumably having a reasonable season), we were a division below them (also having a good season) and we averaged nearly 2000 more. Like the away attendances argument, supposedly if they were in the same division as us they would have higher averages but there's nothing to actually suggest this.

Mad Cyril is spot on when he says that both clubs have little to shout about attendance wise when you look at the population of Bristol but the facts suggest that historically our fans are more loyal, home and away. City and Rovers are both medium sized clubs in the football league so there should not be such a consistent difference in crowd figures, but there is. It's got nothing to do with League position or even the grounds.

What Gasheads should be doing, instead of comparing our home and away attendances with theirs and saying "look we nearly had as many fans as 'the massive club' that year" is asking why their club have clearly not done enough to attract more of the 40k they took to Wembley.

 

 

I think both clubs could be asking that. It is undeniable that both clubs will turn up in substantial numbers for a 'day out', and I don't just mean Wembley. Even though both clubs get relatively good attendances , neither seem to make the most of the potential.

[Peter O Hanraha-hanrahan]

Since 1997 we have had one season where we dipped under an average 10k (9,803 in 2000)

A season they finished above us and still had a lower average attendance.

Both clubs really should have higher crowds. Decades of mediocrity with the odd day out and (in our case) only a couple of stints in the top flight, plus Sky TV, have bred generations of glory hunting Bristolian kids who mock their classmates for supporting their local club.

Clueless little bastards.

[Son of Fred]

agreed with above poster ... yes city have had the bigger crowds...

 

what that actually gains is another matter....

 

Plenty of clubs with low support have been successful.... Big crowds bring more money which helps buy players or bring the club profit ... something rovers & City seem to struggle with.

 

The best point in this thread was about when city threw a lot at gaining the young fans , ive been pestering Rovers for years saying that we need to all but give tickets away to kids to gain back some ground on your attendances and the fans we lose to places like Villa and the London Clubs...unsold tickets should be used to fill the grounds with kids for free ... they are our clubs futures

Couldn't agree more,a percentage of kids paying a quid turn into full fare paying passengers-it's a no brainer..plus you have more in the ground!!...but don't worry about that in terms of the City mate-same as some of our clan,just focus on your own.

[Peter O Hanraha-hanrahan]

I think both clubs could be asking that. It is undeniable that both clubs will turn up in substantial numbers for a 'day out', and I don't just mean Wembley. Even though both clubs get relatively good attendances , neither seem to make the most of the potential.

Very true, and fits in with my response to 'Cynic's' post.

[Manon]

What Gasheads should be doing, instead of comparing our home and away attendances with theirs and saying "look, we nearly had as many fans as 'the massive club' that year" is asking why their club have clearly not done enough to attract more of the 40k they took to Wembley.

To be fair to them, most posts on that thread were reasonably sensible. They know their attendance record is pretty dire, just as we are aware that ours is nothing to shout about either.

The 'days out' are a red herring imo.

They hint at fanbases that don't really exist if we're honest. I remember before our play off final back in 2008, I was in a hairdressers (this tells me it was indeed a long while ago, as these days I no longer need to visit such establishments!), and I mentioned to the girl who was shearing my head that I couldn't make the final due to work, and she suddenly said, "oh poor you. I've got a ticket. My husband and I are rovers really, but we know some others who are going so thought it would be a good day out."

I struggled to contain my anger, I can tell thee.

[pride of the west]

I'm sure they were supposed to sell out the mem every week upon their return to bristol.

[Barrs Court Red]

To sum up the relevance of attendances, Yeovil gave a worse support than both yet are playing at a higher level.

[East Yorkshire CideRed]

A season they finished above us and still had a lower average attendance.

Both clubs really should have higher crowds. Decades of mediocrity with the odd day out and (in our case) only a couple of stints in the top flight, plus Sky TV, have bred generations of glory hunting Bristolian kids who mock their classmates for supporting their local club.

Clueless little bastards.

 

Yep, sadly this is the case, having never had the glory, neither side can seem to attract the fans and it's a vicious circle. Caught a bit of that "One born every minute" filmed at Southmead last night. Two Bristolian parents - the woman said "I'm a Liverpool fan, he's a Man U fan". About summed up the state of affairs for me.

[You Do The Dziekanowski]

[beaverface]

No, Miahdenney might be a Gashead but he is spot on, City have consistently averaged the higher attendances for the past 60 years regardless of how both teams are performing, where Rovers are playing etc etc. Rovers were only top dogs in terms of support and team for a short while in the 1950s, they failed to build on that superiority.

 

This was arguably their glory team, one of the best they've ever had with the likes of Bradford playing for England.

 

On a slightly different note, I've been helping to coach a local under 9's football team, and the amount of non-Bristol replica stripped is frankly embarrassing. There's far too many Tottenham, Man U, Chelsea strips and not enough City/Rovers.

 

If they're not City, I'd begrudgingly rather see Gash shirts than any other football shirt.

[22A]

My dad was always fond of telling me that one Saturday in the early 1960's Rovers (then in Div 2) were home in the League. City (then in Div 3) were home in the 1st or 2nd round of the FA Cup whilst the All Blacks were playing at the Mem.

Yes folks the City of Bristol Constabulary had sufficient resources to police all three events.

The largest crowd of the day was at.........Ashton Gate. So this appears to be a historical fact.

[HoldenBall]

What really is telling me for was back in 2000, the gas were near the top of the league the whole season, they averaged 8,402..

 

Whilst us on the other hand, stuck in mid table, just got rid of one of our worst managers, yet we STILL averaged 1400 fans than them (9.803)

 

I know it's a dick waving contest about who's bigger, blah blah blah but when it comes to the gas talking about attendances I chuckle.. They should just stick to bigging up their non existent away support..

 

Not to mention, in their last years at Eastville (The famous ground, tote end and all that) they averaged just over 3,000 fans....

[Manon]

This was arguably their glory team, one of the best they've ever had with the likes of Bradford playing for England.

On a slightly different note,I'd begrudgingly rather see Gash shirts than any other football shirt.

Nah. Their current glory team is up there; boasts lambert for england after all...

Regarding the last sentence - I agree completely.