I read the OPs opening paragraph " seat filled based on stadium capacity " I aslo read the second paragraph "it is quite remarkable that all but three of the twenty clubs had at least 92% of their seats filled over the course of the season. I should have gone on to read the third
I should of added that i agree with you, there are many games with a lot of empty seat so they must count all season tickets holders as attending
42,500 v Millwall Boxing Day 1965.....And that f**kwit Brooking asked why we needed a 25k stadium....When we beat West Ham in mid 70s n the FAC there was 32,000 there you muppet
The way some people on this board arse lick everything that is Sunderland you'd be forgiven for thinking they actually support them. Not as well supported as they( and some on here) think. And they're a set of absolute ****s.
This does beg the question why Arsenal didnt go for 75k plus capacity? I can't imagine it's an easy stadium to extend in size. I always thought the same for Liverpool too - all plans for either a new stadium seem to hover around the 60/65k capacity. They would get 80k nearly every game if they had the means. That's a lot of missed revenue.
I agree they're a set of ****s, but they clearly have much more fans than us. The fact they have a massive ground is irrelevant.
Stupid stats and totally irrelevant. With all the stadiums different sizes. We should. Reduce our seating capacity to 10,000 then we would come top of that league every week.
We didn't have a crowd of 25,000 for a league game after 1972/3 season to be honest. Bolton Wanderers had 50,000 for a Cup game later than our West Ham one but wouldn't have considered a bigger capacity when the built there new stadium based on that.
It isnt. Just checked the census and they have 275,000 population. I really didnt know that Sunderrland was normally a bigger place than Newcastle in terms of population. http://www.sunderlandecho.com/news/...ewcastle-as-city-population-shrinks-1-4746170
So those clubs we're told have better supporters and who always fill their grounds, even for a friendly, and their cities/communities get behind them better....aren't quite what they were claimed to be? I'm shocked.
The West Ham match was the last time we broke through the 30,000 barrier. Even Hull councillors used that fact when answer questions on the capacity of the KC. There are several reasons for that, the main one being the club slipped down the Football League ladder from there and as a result the ground was left to fall to pieces reducing the capacity even further. The capacity of Boothferry Park from the mid 70's meant we couldn't get many more then 20,000 in the ground if we wanted therefore the argument is flawed. There were several occasions when we would have broke through the 30,000 barrier if we had the capacity. The Liverpool FA Cup game in the mid 80's is a prime example. I remember one Bank Holiday game v Wolves when the game was made all ticket with no tickets on sale on the day. The capacity was set at about 10,000 and sold out days before the game. Yet thousands turned up on the day due to the usual confusion City and the police used to throw over everything. We had Boothferry Park, which had a capacity of over 40,000 in its hey day, reduced to 10,000 because of health and safety issues, acres of empty terracing and thousands getting turned away at the turnstiles. Then a few weeks down the line the club say they were skint. Fact is if the ground had of been maintained properly with a decent capacity then that capacity would have been stretched on several occasions. Be it 20,000, 30,000 or even more on the odd occasion. The same goes for the KC. We will never know the real pulling power of Premiership football in this city whilst the capacity is set in concrete at under 25,000.
We would have got over 25,000 for a few league games after 72/73 if the ground had been big enough to allow fans to pay on the day and not fart about buying tickets days in advance. The Scarbourgh match in the old 4th division is an example. Two teams at the bottom of the Football League ladder and we could have had well over 25,000 in that day with no trouble. I doubt if there are too many teams in the Football League who could attract a crowd like that if their fans had put up with 20 years and more of utter ****e beforehand like we had. The capacity argument is flawed when Boothferry Park had its capacity reduced to such an extent that actually getting anyone in the ground became a problem. FFS at one stage the club/police even stopped fans entering and leaving the ground from Boothferry Road. They had us entering the ground via a ****ing ten foot. North Ferriby had better access then that! The East Stand was membership only for god knows how long and even that was restricted to about 250.
You could get over 25,000 in BP into the eighties. They had 28,000 for an eggchasing international even after the North Stand was demolished. As we have discussed before we only had 3 league crowds over 25,000, and none over 26,000 when Terry Neill was here and none after he left. You and I used to speculate back in the 70's on how many we would get if we were in the top flight and how we would take away large mobs like some teams brought here. You must admit it hasn't quite lived up to our dreams in that regard.
Thought that was Burnley or Wigan? A quick google, so rough. Burnley's about 18%, Wigan 17%, Sunderland around 14%
