Re: Pearson : Thu Oct 01, 2015 7:59 am  

What a set of odious, repugnant, self-entitled "fans" we're becoming.

We're still much better off than the majority of my time as a Hull fan, and yet we have in our history never had so many whining ingrates. If anyone thinks that sacking Radford and getting rid of Pearson is somehow going to rocket us into top four certainties, then they are retarded.

The singular issue holding the club back is the financial constraints of our terms at the stadium. That will be a millstone around the clubs neck whoever is in charge.

Re: Pearson : Thu Oct 01, 2015 8:15 am  

Raggytash wrote:

What a set of odious, repugnant, self-entitled "fans" we're becoming.

We're still much better off than the majority of my time as a Hull fan, and yet we have in our history never had so many whining ingrates. If anyone thinks that sacking Radford and getting rid of Pearson is somehow going to rocket us into top four certainties, then they are retarded.

The singular issue holding the club back is the financial constraints of our terms at the stadium. That will be a millstone around the clubs neck whoever is in charge.

Re: Pearson : Thu Oct 01, 2015 8:40 am  

Raggytash wrote:

What a set of odious, repugnant, self-entitled "fans" we're becoming.

We're still much better off than the majority of my time as a Hull fan, and yet we have in our history never had so many whining ingrates. If anyone thinks that sacking Radford and getting rid of Pearson is somehow going to rocket us into top four certainties, then they are retarded.

The singular issue holding the club back is the financial constraints of our terms at the stadium. That will be a millstone around the clubs neck whoever is in charge.

It's not , it's the quality of rugby and the lack of success. The experience of the "jam tomorrow" over the years and a lack of confidence in the future based on some stupid decisions in the recent past by the current owner don't help either. The fact that we were so well placed in 2011 to press on and messed it up big time is disappointing at best.

Re: Pearson : Thu Oct 01, 2015 8:58 am  

ChrisH wrote:

It's not , it's the quality of rugby and the lack of success. The experience of the "jam tomorrow" over the years and a lack of confidence in the future based on some stupid decisions in the recent past by the current owner don't help either. The fact that we were so well placed in 2011 to press on and messed it up big time is disappointing at best.

don't be silly, it's always someone else's fault, that is the way FC fans roll now.

Radford is rubbish, end of conversation.

Re: Pearson : Thu Oct 01, 2015 9:00 am  

Jake the Peg wrote:

I think you need to have a sit down and think about what you're trying to say. In 2011, our average attendance was 12400 according to bumpy's figures, which I assume are correct. Are you suggesting we've lost 10k of these attendees every game for the last 4 years?

The real flaw in your "logic" (Ignoring the fact that your 14k to 10k attendances never happened), is that you're counting people multiple times. Of the 4k who supposedly no longer attend, you're counting them all as not being at every game, plus 3k of them again for 2 years, 2k for 3 years and 1k for 4 years. If you can't see that's plainly wrong then you really shouldn;t be questioning the intelligence of anyone else

You really don't get it do you.

There was an article in the HDM which I based my figures on....

HDM wrote:

With last season's average gate of 9,662 over 4,000 down on four years ago, current pass sale levels suggest another significant drop is on the cards ahead of the new-look Super League structure coming in.

If you read carefully, we will notice that it refers to a 4k drop in attendances over four years.
It might be right, it might be wrong, but it is based on 2010's average of 14,000.

Anyway, back to the bit you can't understand. I'm not counting twice or three times....

A 1k drop in attendance, so 1k don't go, so over 4 years 4k don't go.
The following year, another 1k drop in attendance, so another 1k don't go, so over 3 years another 3k don't go.

After 4 years, the equivalent of 10k haven't bought a pass, say, during that 4 year period.

If you can't see that's plainly right then you really shouldn't be questioning the intelligence of anyone else.

Re: Pearson : Thu Oct 01, 2015 10:02 am  

ccs wrote:

You really don't get it do you.

There was an article in the HDM which I based my figures on....

If you read carefully, we will notice that it refers to a 4k drop in attendances over four years.
It might be right, it might be wrong, but it is based on 2010's average of 14,000.

Anyway, back to the bit you can't understand. I'm not counting twice or three times....

A 1k drop in attendance, so 1k don't go, so over 4 years 4k don't go.
The following year, another 1k drop in attendance, so another 1k don't go, so over 3 years another 3k don't go.

After 4 years, the equivalent of 10k haven't bought a pass, say, during that 4 year period.

If you can't see that's plainly right then you really shouldn't be questioning the intelligence of anyone else.

indeed, and they don't go because the product is inferior, simple market forces.

Re: Pearson : Thu Oct 01, 2015 4:25 pm  

Doom&Gloom Merchant wrote:

They announce the attendance based on ticket sales, rather than bodies through the door. So if 3,000 people with passes didn't bother, they'd still be shown as part of the attendance. It's not just Hull FC who do it, it's fairly standard practise across sporting events, festivals, concerts etc.

Nope, nothing false about it.

Which is the point you clown

Why is Pearson bleating that crowds are at 6k?

Hes sold 7000+ season tickets, so our average "sales" are at 9k per game, so in annoucing 6k he gets zero credit. because 9000 have paid for that game.

If he'd sold 5000 passes and gates started the year at 9000 and ended year at 5k, then bleat how our gares are smaller then the 50 nil club.

I just dont see the point in him giving negative spin

Re: Pearson : Thu Oct 01, 2015 4:30 pm  

..... or maybe he is saying only 6k paid and went to the game, which is worrying, surely?

Re: Pearson : Thu Oct 01, 2015 4:58 pm  

ccs wrote:

..... or maybe he is saying only 6k paid and went to the game, which is worrying, surely?

How is that possible

Attendance 9k+

pass holders 7k+

Large queues outside ticket office picking up tickets, plenty using "pay on the day gates"

Re: Pearson : Thu Oct 01, 2015 5:15 pm  

I've no idea - attendances have always been a mystery to me.
Were there really 1500 more at the cat game, even allowing for "lots of free tickets"?

If attendances include all passholders, whether or not they attend, plus the SMC allocation, then maybe 2k+ passholders simply didn't go.

(I believe pass sales were nearer 8k than 7k.)