I don't doubt they could shift a few extra seats while the novelty's still there, however nothing about their past attendances suggests that would be in any way sustainable. I reckon we could have topped 40k for one our two games in that first PL season, 5 years down the line we struggle to get half of that.
So, a number of RL clubs and RU clubs have slightly larger stadiums which they fill now andvagain (Except Leicestervwho do it regularly?). Warrington went up from 9,000 last season when they averaged less than Bournemouth. As for looking at seasons outside the PL, how many do you think any of the Super League teams teams would get in lower divisions?The same as Rovers did a few years back, 2,000 or less?
That's because they haven't been in the top flight before. If they became established in the Premier League, they'd be getting more than Leeds, Wigan or Hull FC on a weekly basis. They're almost doing it now, with a tiny stadium and in just their second season in the PL. Listen, I enjoy rugby of both codes, but when it comes to claims of support, RL is the most delusional sport of all.
Of course we have fans saying the reason Wednesday had more at Wembley was the novelty because they had no recent success. There has never been any evidence over the past 60 years to suggest we could sustain over 25,000 yet fans blithely stated we could easily fill a bigger stadium regularly.
This seems to have escalated far away from the original point. The original thread was having ago at our support compared to Villa's, implying that Bruce was happier there because of it. I made the point that support really doesn't matter and used the example that Bournemouth have small gates but Eddie Howe is one of the most content mangers around. To emphasise how small their gates were I made a comparison to rugby league, a comparison that was actually intended to be self-deprecating and not a 'delusional' assertion as you've claimed. However as with any mention of RL on this forum the usual suspects get touchy and it descends in to a petty argument. At no point have I claimed that RL is better supported, in fact RL crowds are poor even by their standards this year. It has a decent following considering how regionalised it is and the amount of attention it gets but certainly nothing worth boasting about. Rant over, I'll let Castro have the last word so he can spectacularly miss the point once again.
Miss the point? Oh, the irony! The point was some of our fans, just not on here, seem to think we have more right to be in the PL than some other clubs. They were asking how Bruce could leave us to go to a lesser Championship club. I was saying do you think he regrets itseeing 4,000 away fans for a mideeek away match despite their results being ****e recently. No good quoting one of Cup games at a glamour club in comparison to a trip to Reading. I would have though with it being regionalised you would get better support considering how little distance it is to travel for most RL games. Don't know about other places but away followings at FC's home games are dire. Probably no better at Rovers Though it has often been said on RL forums it is often said fans won ' their come to Hull because of the thuggish home fans. Presumably City fans wearing stolen shirts.
I remember a time when a trolls were simple out of town yokel thumb rollers starved of women and proper Scooters whilst constantly being refused entry to well known late night Hull establishments due to iffy east coast accents. These days they just multipost. You know who you are.. Allams OUT
I don't think any city fan thinks we need to expand the stadium now. It's more that we should be needing to expand it. A City this size with one major club and such a large catchment area, at the height of our success should be able to command much bigger crowds than we do. Obviously pissing fans off is the most important short term factor in why we're not, but even before that, the club has never been marketed particularly well in my lifetime. There's never really been a push to get the armchair football fans who've never seen a live game to go and watch their local team. And anyone who thinks that there aren't many of those types nowadays is sadly mistaken. I'm 23 and yet the vast majority of people around. my age who like football still have no interest in City or live football of any kind but consider themselves Man U or Liverpool fans. We love to trot out all the reasons why we can never he a bit club, but that's just defeatist. It'd be nice to at least see us try and see what could happen. For the time being though, we just need to get the hardcores back through the turnstiles.
It's just back to the tiresome argument that people should pay their money and use their time to go to football matches even if what is offered isn't that great and they have other things to do to spend their money on anyway. Sure some do out of some tribal thing, Sunderland get more going even if their team has been crap for ages, but doesn't that show how stupid they are? People just pay for inflated wages, the supporters aren't actually that appreciated, the Sky money is thought more important. And with Sky available some will take that option anyway, which I assume is valid otherwise it wouldn't be there.
