woeful attendance

[drisaac]

Even bottom sides in the Bundesliga average close to 40,000 a match. Think it is not really about results and more the corporate nature of English clubs and fans feeling disenfranchised.

Here's a good article on the topic:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2010/apr/11/bundesliga-premier-league

Looked at another way (by actually looking at the data...), the bottom five in the Bundesliga last season all got less than 30,000 average crowds.

A selective quote from the article above suggests that not everyone involved in the Bundesliga shares the Guardian's feelings of shame abut the Premier League...

"If we consider our financial capabilities and the stability of our business model, then the aim of the Bundesliga in the long run has got to be second place behind the Premier League,"

[CJ]

Looked at another way (by actually looking at the data...), the bottom five in the Bundesliga last season all got less than 30,000 average crowds.

A selective quote from the article above suggests that not everyone involved in the Bundesliga shares the Guardian's feelings of shame abut the Premier League...

That's a bit disingenuous of you drisaac - yes they may be less than 30,000 attendance but Mainz only have a capacity of c. 20,000 and get 99.4% average attendance. Similarly Freiberg have low capacity (25,000) and get around 92% full, and Wolfsburg's capacity is only 30,000 and get average 96% full. Only 2 teams - Leverkusen and Sankt Paul (who?) have low attendances related to their capacity

[itbrvilla]

Looked at another way (by actually looking at the data...), the bottom five in the Bundesliga last season all got less than 30,000 average crowds.

A selective quote from the article above suggests that not everyone involved in the Bundesliga shares the Guardian's feelings of shame abut the Premier League...

That's a bit disingenuous of you drisaac - yes they may be less than 30,000 attendance but Mainz only have a capacity of c. 20,000 and get 99.4% average attendance. Similarly Freiberg have low capacity (25,000) and get around 92% full, and Wolfsburg's capacity is only 30,000 and get average 96% full. Only 2 teams - Leverkusen and Sankt Paul (who?) have low attendances related to their capacity

Who?

[CJ]

Never heard of them before I looked at that table!

[Ad@m]

This isn’t just a Villa issue, the Baggies only got 23,000 for the Staffs Derby against a strong and successful Stoke side.

The football fan is becoming increasingly marginalised in profile. I have a working teenage son, he doesn’t earn a lot, it would have been nice to take him to the game and watch from a decent seat,at £43 a throw, a bit of parking, petrol, H&V/ Programme, pie and a pint that’s a £100 afternoons entertainment to watch  a Villa side without our two best players of last season run by a  a manger charged with reducing player numbers and costs against a Wolves side with no stars who will be happy simply to survive. Is that a £100 afternoon out?

It's not just football unfortunately.

I missed Saturday's game because I went to Edgbaston for the T20 finals.

Ticket £60
Beer £4 a pint
Crappy burger van style meal £7-£8 (x 2 because we were there all day)
Travel there and back £35-£40

All in all I spent almost £200 on one day.  Having fun is obscenely expensive these days and football is just part of that.

[frank]

That's a bit disingenuous of you drisaac - yes they may be less than 30,000 attendance but Mainz only have a capacity of c. 20,000 and get 99.4% average attendance. Similarly Freiberg have low capacity (25,000) and get around 92% full, and Wolfsburg's capacity is only 30,000 and get average 96% full. Only 2 teams - Leverkusen and Sankt Paul (who?) have low attendances related to their capacity

Sankt Pauli (St Pauli) are very well supported so I don't know where the idea of a low attendance came from. Last season (when they were relegated) their average attendance was 99% of capacity.

[cdbearsfan]

Unfortunately true as I was unable to get a ticket for one of their matches when I was over there.

[amfy]

I do know people who are still not going because of McLeish, but they are more in the camp of "I can't quite get my head around it yet" than "I am never setting foot in there again until he's gone". So, if results go OK those are likely to drift back.

Less likely to drift back are those that have realised that £30 week after week is a lot of money for what we are getting. From the actual entertainment, to the atmosphere,  the prospects of success, and the sense of belonging.

Stan Collymore was asking for tweets about players moving for more money and saying none of us, if we were on £90k would turn down a move in our jobs for £200k. This may be true, but expect especially the younger generation of fans to apply the same logic to their support and go and find a better product for their £30. The generation of fans who will support come what may are moving on, a large proportion of youngsters already don't see why they should support Villa above teams like Man U and Chelsea. As the sense of the team as a bunch of "itinerant mercenaries" (nice phrase whoever that was), rather than as "ours" increases, there is less and less reason to keep buying into this when it's not good.

[cdward]

I live abroad now, so i don't go to every game.
However a few years ago, before i moved, i started to fall out of love with Villa. It starts slowly and the gap grows wider as time goes on.
I was a season ticket holder for a number of years in the 80's and early 90's, then i wouldn't dream of missing a game. Had seasons of folllowing home and away.
Then through one thing and another i missed a couple of games, the pain of not being there slowly disappears, and the thoughts of missing out on a classic game are replaced by the reality that it happens few and far between.
The realisation that not having a season ticket can actually save you money, and that you can always get hold of a ticket for games. I was at both Wembley games last year.
There will be a lot of fans who stayed away on Saturday, who watched it on the TV and will feel totally justified at not spending £40.
The next time they have to make the choice, they will remember the comfort of staying at home or going the pub, compared with the "experience" of actually going to the game, and realise they haven't missed out on anything, and have probably saved money.
Nobody goes to every game anymore, so you just treat a missed home game like an away fixture you didn't go to, and it becomes easier to deal with.
There are thousands of Villa fans who don't actually go the games any more, it's as much about getting older as well as anything else.
Success on the pitch is the only thing guaranteed to increase attendances. Until Villa become successful again, we only have the hope we will be able to compete, we had this with MON and the backing of the board,  this has now been replaced with a desire to be in the financial top 20 euro clubs, a sell to buy policy and a manager no Villa fan actually would have chosen, no wonder the attendances are down.

[PaulWinch again]

Well if you show zero ambition, crowds are going to dwindle.

[5ft811st2 Durham]

For me beyond the ridiculous cost of going, the biggest de-motivating factor is that the majority of the millionaire players that we are mean't to be supporting don't really want to play for us.

[Chris Smith]

I do know people who are still not going because of McLeish, but they are more in the camp of "I can't quite get my head around it yet" than "I am never setting foot in there again until he's gone". So, if results go OK those are likely to drift back.

Less likely to drift back are those that have realised that £30 week after week is a lot of money for what we are getting. From the actual entertainment, to the atmosphere,  the prospects of success, and the sense of belonging.

Stan Collymore was asking for tweets about players moving for more money and saying none of us, if we were on £90k would turn down a move in our jobs for £200k. This may be true, but expect especially the younger generation of fans to apply the same logic to their support and go and find a better product for their £30. The generation of fans who will support come what may are moving on, a large proportion of youngsters already don't see why they should support Villa above teams like Man U and Chelsea. As the sense of the team as a bunch of "itinerant mercenaries" (nice phrase whoever that was), rather than as "ours" increases, there is less and less reason to keep buying into this when it's not good.

I'm always a little wary of comparing footballers wages to real life. To us a big wage increase can improve the quality of life and security for the future for our families so of course we're likely to take it. If you're already earning £70k a week what essential difference will an additional £20k make? It's about greed and status rather than to improve your life.

I think the argument is one used by players, past and present, to try to justify the unjustifiable. If they weren't taking so much money out of the game then it would be more affordable.

[Risso]

I thought everybody had heard of St Pauli, they're fairly well known as being decidedly "odd".  They organised that "World Cup" a few years ago for teams like Greenland and Northern Cyprus.

[Bernie Gallacher]

For me the biggest factors are the cost of tickets, lack of ambition and most importantly, lack of entertainment. I love the club but all too often lately have found myself bored shitless and wondered why I had came. For some reason I just don't enjoy it as much as I used to, and a lot of the other factors that other posters have mentioned all play a part. The strange thing is that I still go down regularly, but it is more out of habit these days than anything else.

[Clampy]

Not re-investing money that's come in won't get people through the turnstiles unfortunatley, even if it did need to be done.