woeful attendance

[pauliewalnuts]

Comments like 'We need a better X and should try and get Y' make sense to me, comments like 'We shouldn't have hired X, we should've gotten someone better' do not. If the owner made a mistake by not hiring a better coach...who was that coach? Who was all lined up to come coach Villa that Randy ignored? If you can't answer that then there isn't somebody better.

The irony is, now we know the parameters AM is working within, there were far fewer better options than we thought there were.

[kippaxvilla2]

Comments like 'We need a better X and should try and get Y' make sense to me, comments like 'We shouldn't have hired X, we should've gotten someone better' do not. If the owner made a mistake by not hiring a better coach...who was that coach? Who was all lined up to come coach Villa that Randy ignored? If you can't answer that then there isn't somebody better.

The irony is, now we know the parameters AM is working within, there were far fewer better options than we thought there were.

Never thought of it like that but it must be true.  The bloke has never had any real money to spend so that must have been an instant attraction for the owner.  At least we now know what one of the three non negotiables (shares the Villa vision) actually means.  The vision is no vision.

[hilts_coolerking]

Comments like 'We need a better X and should try and get Y' make sense to me, comments like 'We shouldn't have hired X, we should've gotten someone better' do not. If the owner made a mistake by not hiring a better coach...who was that coach? Who was all lined up to come coach Villa that Randy ignored? If you can't answer that then there isn't somebody better.

It's this kind of 'logic' that winds me up.  What you've essentially done there is come up with a perverse equation designed to produce the conclusion 'Randy's choice must be the right choice'.  Absurd.

If I'd said towards the end of Houllier's reign "We need a better manager and should try and get Alex McLeish" you and everyone else would quite rightly have pissed yourself with laughter.  But now Randy has done exactly that, you're arguing that there was no possibility of us getting anyone better.

[hilts_coolerking]

I cant understand why there are some on here who criticise everything the club does, can't be bothered to go to the match on the back of one disappointing summer (but they're not part-timers or gloryhunters, oh no), throw abuse at Randy, then get upset when their commitment is questioned.

If you think the problems at the club are due to people who don't go, for whatever reason, then I would respectfully disagree with you.

[Chris Smith]

I cant understand why there are some on here who criticise everything the club does, can't be bothered to go to the match on the back of one disappointing summer (but they're not part-timers or gloryhunters, oh no), throw abuse at Randy, then get upset when their commitment is questioned.

If you think the problems at the club are due to people who don't go, for whatever reason, then I would respectfully disagree with you.

Where has Dave made that connection, that's purely your invention.

[hilts_coolerking]

Where has Dave made that connection, that's purely your invention.

So why then are the fans getting all the stick?  I've not seen Dave, or you for that matter, offer any criticism of those responsible for the situation the club finds itself in, merely sneering criticism of those fans who for whatever reason have decided to stop going, as if its entirely their fault.  To use Dave's own expression: when in doubt, blame the fans. 

Rather than using stay-away fans as some sort of reason for the club's malaise, you perhaps ought to see them for what they are, i.e. a symptom of the club's malaise.

[dave.woodhall]

Where has Dave made that connection, that's purely your invention.

So why then are the fans getting all the stick?  I've not seen Dave, or you for that matter, offer any criticism of those responsible for the situation the club finds itself in, merely sneering criticism of those fans who for whatever reason have decided to stop going, as if its entirely their fault.  To use Dave's own expression: when in doubt, blame the fans. 

Rather than using stay-away fans as some sort of reason for the club's malaise, you perhaps ought to see them for what they are, i.e. a symptom of the club's malaise.

I blame a lot of people - whoever agreed to such daft contracts and to give the manager such freedom must take a fair chunk of the responsibility, even if they were doing what they - and us at the time - thought was right. I don't blame the fans. I do criticise those who stay away and say it's because of what's happening on the pitch. To me that's not what supporting a football team is about.

[Chris Smith]

Where has Dave made that connection, that's purely your invention.

So why then are the fans getting all the stick?  I've not seen Dave, or you for that matter, offer any criticism of those responsible for the situation the club finds itself in, merely sneering criticism of those fans who for whatever reason have decided to stop going, as if its entirely their fault.  To use Dave's own expression: when in doubt, blame the fans. 

Rather than using stay-away fans as some sort of reason for the club's malaise, you perhaps ought to see them for what they are, i.e. a symptom of the club's malaise.

It's not a criticism of fans who "for whatever reason have decided to stop going". It was a specific response to the KFC analogy that we're merely customers and withdrawing your support because we're not spending as much. 

Despite everything over 80,000 tickets were sold at VP last week so I'm not alone with my approach. Some have stopped going but many more haven't.

[pauliewalnuts]

Despite everything over 80,000 tickets were sold at VP last week so I'm not alone with my approach. Some have stopped going but many more haven't.

Which would still have been the case if we'd have got 20k on Saturday rather than 30k, so I'm not really sure what the relevance of that is.

[Rigadon]

Awful lot of better-than-you's on here lately.... 

Recession, no chance of actually competing in the competition you're playing in?  Then, when you buy a ticket the club charge you two fucking quid for half a cup of weak tea.  Hollywood prices for an art(less) house spectacle.  It's like paying to see Tony Bennett at the Royal Albert Hall and then being shown into a back room to see Will Young.  Smoke and Mirrors don't work when people are skint.

I watched a bit of the Man Utd Arse game and it was painfully clear that we really are only there as cannon fodder for 3 teams now.  It HAS to change or clubs like Villa will completely cease to matter in a few years. 

 Sport is about ups and downs, if you want guaranteed success people have backed the wrong horse with the Villa. I'm not claiming to be better, I'm explaining my attitude and it is one shared by a lot of people of who started going in my era.

I'm not talking about it from a financial perspective, if people have to worry about if they can afford it or not then they are better off spending their money on something important.  Football is too expensive, absolutely, but that's a different argument.

I was replying to the post about us being customers who will withdraw our support if we're not winning games. I don't agree with that attitude, it's called glory hunting when it's a Man u fan. I acknowledged that it is probably a generational thing but I'm not going to apologise for having a different approach.

My comments weren't aimed directly at you, Chris.  I agree that sport is about ups and downs and withdrawing support or ceasing to care is not an option for me (unfortunately).   I'm 36 and so, as an adult, I have mainly seen us achieve our modern day par of 6th and a good cup run.  What is success?  Competing and having a chance I'd say.  My problem is that clubs like ours are increasingly playing for scraps but we're still paying masters-table prices.  That just doesn't add up / isn't right and maybe people are wising up? 


 

[hilts_coolerking]

I blame a lot of people - whoever agreed to such daft contracts and to give the manager such freedom must take a fair chunk of the responsibility, even if they were doing what they - and us at the time - thought was right. I don't blame the fans. I do criticise those who stay away and say it's because of what's happening on the pitch. To me that's not what supporting a football team is about.

The thing though is that what's happening on the pitch is a direct result of what's been happening off the pitch.  If we'd won lots of trophies in the last few years then I'd agree with you - to walk away because the trophies had dried up would be poor.  But we didn't.  We haven't won anything for a long time and, because of the way the club is being run, our chances of putting that right seem to be declining every month.  Even that would be tolerable if the football was open and exciting but it isn't.  Add that to the cost and is it really that difficult to see why people are staying away, even if they don't necessarily express it in those terms?

As I've said, the icing on the cake is that they are still expected to go because the billionaire owner hasn't got enough money.  And the cherry on the icing on the cake is that some supporters can't see that not going is a sensible reaction to all that and start trotting out the 'better fan than you' stuff, as if their way of supporting the club is the standard by which all other supporters must be judged.

[KRS]

I've just done a bit of digging on attendances for all this weekends fixtures and corresponding fixtures last season. The list of factors possibly affecting attendance have been well documented numerous times in this thread, so are most of these factors consistent with other teams or just down at Villa Park? Heres the attendance figures:

Fixture - Att. 2011 - (Att. 2010) [+/-]
Aston Villa vs Wolves - 30,776 (38,965) [-8000]
Blackburn vs Everton - 22,826 (25,869) [-3000]
Liverpool vs Bolton - 44,725 (35,400) [+9000]
Newcastle vs Fulham - 42,684 (44,686) [-2000]
Tottenham vs Man City - 36,150 (35,928) [-]   
West Brom vs Stoke - 22,909 (24,164) [-1000]         
Man Utd vs Arsenal - 75,448 (75,227) [-]   

Quite clearly the largest attendance drop this weekend was at Villa Park with over 8000 lower than last season (over 20% drop). Even if you factor in the early kick-off and third home game, this is far excessive compared to the other 3 games that had a reduced attendance given all the other consistent factors.

In my opinion, the performance of the club off the pitch this summer in terms of appointing AM and transfer activity are clearly having a negative affect on attendance as seen so far this season and it cannot be ignored or denied with any kind of positive spin. Obviously further evidence with forthcoming fixtures will prove this to be true or false, but I think it would be a safe bet to say that we will see similar or lower attendances for Newcastle, Wigan and Baggies.

[dave.woodhall]

I blame a lot of people - whoever agreed to such daft contracts and to give the manager such freedom must take a fair chunk of the responsibility, even if they were doing what they - and us at the time - thought was right. I don't blame the fans. I do criticise those who stay away and say it's because of what's happening on the pitch. To me that's not what supporting a football team is about.

The thing though is that what's happening on the pitch is a direct result of what's been happening off the pitch.  If we'd won lots of trophies in the last few years then I'd agree with you - to walk away because the trophies had dried up would be poor.  But we didn't.  We haven't won anything for a long time and, because of the way the club is being run, our chances of putting that right seem to be declining every month.  Even that would be tolerable if the football was open and exciting but it isn't.  Add that to the cost and is it really that difficult to see why people are staying away, even if they don't necessarily express it in those terms?

As I've said, the icing on the cake is that they are still expected to go because the billionaire owner hasn't got enough money.  And the cherry on the icing on the cake is that some supporters can't see that not going is a sensible reaction to all that and start trotting out the 'better fan than you' stuff, as if their way of supporting the club is the standard by which all other supporters must be judged.

Of course I see why people are staying away; there are many factors and some are reasons while some are excuses. The owner's wealth or lack of it is irrelevant and the only people talking 'better fan than you' seem to be the ones who are accusing others of it.

[Rigadon]

I blame a lot of people - whoever agreed to such daft contracts and to give the manager such freedom must take a fair chunk of the responsibility, even if they were doing what they - and us at the time - thought was right. I don't blame the fans. I do criticise those who stay away and say it's because of what's happening on the pitch. To me that's not what supporting a football team is about.

The thing though is that what's happening on the pitch is a direct result of what's been happening off the pitch.  If we'd won lots of trophies in the last few years then I'd agree with you - to walk away because the trophies had dried up would be poor.  But we didn't.  We haven't won anything for a long time and, because of the way the club is being run, our chances of putting that right seem to be declining every month.  Even that would be tolerable if the football was open and exciting but it isn't.  Add that to the cost and is it really that difficult to see why people are staying away, even if they don't necessarily express it in those terms?

As I've said, the icing on the cake is that they are still expected to go because the billionaire owner hasn't got enough money.  And the cherry on the icing on the cake is that some supporters can't see that not going is a sensible reaction to all that and start trotting out the 'better fan than you' stuff, as if their way of supporting the club is the standard by which all other supporters must be judged.

Of course I see why people are staying away; there are many factors and some are reasons while some are excuses. The owner's wealth or lack of it is irrelevant and the only people talking 'better fan than you' seem to be the ones who are accusing others of it.

While I agree that Lerners bank balance isn't directly relevant, I'm not sure that the (very) last part is true, Dave. 

[hilts_coolerking]

Of course I see why people are staying away; there are many factors and some are reasons while some are excuses. The owner's wealth or lack of it is irrelevant and the only people talking 'better fan than you' seem to be the ones who are accusing others of it.

Oh please.  You and Chris have been at it all afternoon.  In any case, people don't need "an excuse" not to go.  If they don't want to, they don't want to.