- This topic has 38 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 9 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
You are correct in pointing that out. But there was the little matter of a European qualifier on ITV that will have been a bigger attraction than shelling out £20 to see a very one-sided contest.
Now, tell me what was the “alternative” on 24 Jan, or on 7 Feb. Or 24 Feb. Or 17 Mar?
Spoken like a proverbial masturbating scarecrow.
You are correct in pointing that out. But there was the little matter of a European qualifier on ITV that will have been a bigger attraction than shelling out £20 to see a very one-sided contest.
Now, tell me what was the “alternative” on 24 Jan, or on 7 Feb. Or 24 Feb. Or 17 Mar?
But I thought it was a rugby town, Mutty? Surely rugby fans wouldn’t have stayed in to watch wendyball on TV when their team are playing a game, would they? That would only happen if football was more of an attraction than rugby.[/quote]
I guess you and your clique will have that dilemma next season when an international clashes with a 3rd division fixture.
You are correct in pointing that out. But there was the little matter of a European qualifier on ITV that will have been a bigger attraction than shelling out £20 to see a very one-sided contest.
Now, tell me what was the “alternative” on 24 Jan, or on 7 Feb. Or 24 Feb. Or 17 Mar?
But I thought it was a rugby town, Mutty? Surely rugby fans wouldn’t have stayed in to watch wendyball on TV when their team are playing a game, would they? That would only happen if football was more of an attraction than rugby.[/quote]
I guess you and your clique will have that dilemma next season when an international clashes with a 3rd division fixture.[/quote]
You haven’t answered the point of why die-hard rugby fans would stay at home to watch a wendyball international.
Do you honestly expect him to?He was the one that suggested that was the reason for the low turnout. I’m just seeking clarification.
But there was the little matter of a European qualifier on ITV that will have been a bigger attraction than shelling out £20 to see a very one-sided contest.
Do you honestly expect him to?
He was the one that suggested that was the reason for the low turnout. I’m just seeking clarification.
But there was the little matter of a European qualifier on ITV that will have been a bigger attraction than shelling out £20 to see a very one-sided contest.
[/quote]
That would have been a major factor in the attendance being just over 1,000 down on what it was for the same opposition last year. Both Hull KR and Castleford had lower crowds than they did for the same opposition last season.
Now, back to my question, which I note nobody has had the balls to answer:
What was the “alternative” attraction on 24 Jan (-6048), 7 Feb (-2068), 24 Feb, 17 Mar (-4872)?
Even the one crowd that Big Roy chooses to brag about had 2087 people who were busy doing something else!
Touche!
The pattern continues… 10,787 – our lowest home SL attendance against Wakefield since 2005 and our 2nd lowest home SL attendance in the Maguire/Wane era. Looking forward to a big crowd next week!
:silly: :silly:
oh my
As well wigan has a good fan base in coppull ,chorley (me one of them) and since 2014 the last bus from wigan to chorley is 21.45 instead of 23.10 meaning I have to add a extra 15 pound for a taxi so I can see the whole game as I dont drive ,the chorley to wigan bus was allways full of supporters match days now its the odd 2 or 3.
:woohoo:
Do Latics really get bigger home crowds than us?
If so, that says to me it’s nothing to do with the standards of the game or seeing star players because there certainly aren’t any in the Latics team. The club are clearly not doing enough if that is the case.
In pre-season, I watched Ian Lenegan’s presentation at the fans’ forum, during which he stated that our turnover was down and quite a bit of this could be accounted for due to a drop in our average home attendance. He went on to say he wasn’t worried by this because the new structure will mean more competitive games and, in turn, an increased attendance at home games.
Since then, we have played two SL games at the DW. The Hudds game drew a crowd of 12,488 – our lowest against them since 2009. Last night’s 11,718 was our lowest home attendance against Hull FC since 2003. This obviously isn’t a great start to growing our home averages, which have steadily been on the decline since 2012
Records keep a tumbling
You’re right – they do.
Longest run without a home win – now there’s one that is broken on a regular basis.
Care to try answering my question, or you a Eunuch too?
Not sure what your argument is? (though using other sports games against Lithuania as an excuse is commendable). Over the last ten years now the average for the Rugby has been around 14,500 whereas the average for the football has been around 18,000. Now we have dropped to the championship we still average more don’t we? So far this season we have averaged 12,500, you guys 11,500. Last season we averaged more too. That in a season which has been the most depressive in years.
You are comparing 20 home games, including many where 5000 visiting fans attended, against 3 home games – all of which were against sides who brought less than 300 visiting fans.
I suspect come Friday, your stats wont look as favourable.
Not many brought 5,000 this season that’s for sure. Obviously you will get a bigger crowd for your biggest game of the season. It’s been bloody awful watching latics this season and its testament to the loyalty of the fans that our crowds have stayed over 11k consistently. What about the previous 8 years? You saying that every premier league club brings 4,000? Give over. You come on here waffling on about crowds when the facts are we’ve had more fans on for years and our support is generally seen as pretty poor as it goes!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
