Re: THIS IS FOR BILLY EVE : Tue Feb 18, 2014 12:56 am  

loiner81 wrote:

No chance, you'll just get a load of totally unrelated "facts" and made up stats...

... from Red Hall?

Indeed, I agree.

Any advance on 355,000?

Re: THIS IS FOR BILLY EVE : Tue Feb 18, 2014 1:00 am  

gutterfax wrote:

Seriously....47,013 people did give a toss, poop, tuppenybit or a flying f**k about the game......351 les than gave a hoot a few weeks before and that is the point I was making.
No amount of blitzkrieg posting the same convoluted garbage about opinions and water-cooler moments will change this fact...saying that the FA cup is suffering from the same or even a similar decline to that we are experiencing in the CC smacks of insecurity and insanity in equal measure.

BTW I have no interest in anyone who says they attend any sporting match and say they "don't care who wins"......NEUTRAL is a gear I don't do!

The #1 difference being cited over here in regards to the Auckland 9's and the Wellington 7's is THE RUGBY! At the 9's, everyone had a team. There were fans of all the NRL teams there and at least 30% of the crowd actually watched the games.....at Wellington, nobody gives a toss about anyone except New Zealand....and other than the Final/Semi-finals, nobody...and I mean NOBODY watches the games.

I don't know why you're starting to include Australian sport in this as this different countries have different attitudes towards sport. No quoting one large fan-based team (especially when they couldn't reach 30,000 in the FA Cup at home a few years ago when they were pretenders) will change what is an obvious and probably bigger decline in interest in their domestic cup. You've even pointed out the less well supported teams suffered from more empty stadiums.

Truth is the FA Cup has followed a very similar path to the CC in terms of importance. The 70's, 80's, early 90's it was known as FA Cup Final Day with that being the sole attraction and attention.....in 2011 Man City won the cup on the very same day Man Utd had a lunchtime kickoff that claimed that seasons title for them. If that's not a true example of where that competition stands then I don't know what is.

League titles decided on the same day, change in traditional kick off times, managers saying they'd rather not be involved in the competition. No diverting off to the Auckland 9's will change that. Oh, and for 4 years in the early to mid 00's the FA Cup had no main title sponsor.

Re: THIS IS FOR BILLY EVE : Tue Feb 18, 2014 1:25 am  

William Eve wrote:

... from Red Hall?

Indeed, I agree.

Any advance on 355,000?

Now we're getting somewhere. So your original point was that the RFL definitely and purposely "made up" the figures?

Re: THIS IS FOR BILLY EVE : Tue Feb 18, 2014 1:38 am  

ThePrinter wrote: I don't know why you're starting to include Australian sport in this as this different countries have different attitudes towards sport. Fair enough. BTW, I'd steer clear of calling the events I named "Australian" when discussing them with a proper Kiwi ThePrinter wrote: No quoting one large fan-based team (especially when they couldn't reach 30,000 in the FA Cup at home a few years ago when they were pretenders) will change what is an obvious and probably bigger decline in interest in their domestic cup. You've even pointed out the less well supported teams suffered from more empty stadiums. I did point out lesser % in sold seats at other stadiums, but Sunderland at 33% was the worst. Even Brighton on a foul Monday Night got 70% of their seats shifted......compared to the workmanlike efforts at last years CC with a few 46%ers and London and Sheffield at 8%.....it would seem the comparison with soccer is flawed. ThePrinter wrote: Truth is the FA Cup has followed a very similar path to the CC in terms of importance. Really? The Truth? All I can see are stadiums that are 99% 98% 79% 76% 70% 63% and 33% full...compared to 46%, 43%, 36% 30% 24% 17% 8% and 8%...that's the truth as I see it. 64% at the soccer....27% at the Rugby League.....hardly "close" is it? ThePrinter wrote: The 70's, 80's, early 90's it was known as FA Cup Final Day with that being the sole attraction and attention.....in 2011 Man City won the cup on the very same day Man Utd had a lunchtime kickoff that claimed that seasons title for them. If that's not a true example of where that competition stands then I don't know what is. That's an example of TV scheduling......unless I am mistaken, 88k were there and 8 million watched it on TV.......again, the comparison is flawed. ThePrinter wrote: League titles decided on the same day, change in traditional kick off times, managers saying they'd rather not be involved in the competition. ...yep, but 47,013 did bother with, could be arsed and patently gave a toss about the City Chelsea game enough to pay to go.....which is what we were talking about before I got an abridged history of the FA Cup. ThePrinter wrote: No diverting off to the Auckland 9's (WHICH IS NOT A CITY IN AUSTRALIA...ALONG WITH WELLINGTON)will change that. ......nope,but neither will it change the fact that 47,013 people cared enough to pay for tickets and attend the City Chelsea cup tie..... ThePrinter wrote: Oh, and for 4 years in the early to mid 00's the FA Cup had no main title sponsor. .....ah, at last, a comparison that might have some legs in it......then again, I'd hazard a guess that the asking price was a tad higher than the CC.......http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26087337 That figure....just once more...for non caring, couldn't give a toss, why bother it's a pointless game, it's pointless game between City and Chelsea.....47,013.......regardless of your opinion of what people were talking about prior to the event!

ThePrinter wrote: I don't know why you're starting to include Australian sport in this as this different countries have different attitudes towards sport. Fair enough. BTW, I'd steer clear of calling the events I named "Australian" when discussing them with a proper Kiwi ThePrinter wrote: No quoting one large fan-based team (especially when they couldn't reach 30,000 in the FA Cup at home a few years ago when they were pretenders) will change what is an obvious and probably bigger decline in interest in their domestic cup. You've even pointed out the less well supported teams suffered from more empty stadiums. I did point out lesser % in sold seats at other stadiums, but Sunderland at 33% was the worst. Even Brighton on a foul Monday Night got 70% of their seats shifted......compared to the workmanlike efforts at last years CC with a few 46%ers and London and Sheffield at 8%.....it would seem the comparison with soccer is flawed. ThePrinter wrote: Truth is the FA Cup has followed a very similar path to the CC in terms of importance. Really? The Truth? All I can see are stadiums that are 99% 98% 79% 76% 70% 63% and 33% full...compared to 46%, 43%, 36% 30% 24% 17% 8% and 8%...that's the truth as I see it. 64% at the soccer....27% at the Rugby League.....hardly "close" is it? ThePrinter wrote: The 70's, 80's, early 90's it was known as FA Cup Final Day with that being the sole attraction and attention.....in 2011 Man City won the cup on the very same day Man Utd had a lunchtime kickoff that claimed that seasons title for them. If that's not a true example of where that competition stands then I don't know what is. That's an example of TV scheduling......unless I am mistaken, 88k were there and 8 million watched it on TV.......again, the comparison is flawed. ThePrinter wrote: League titles decided on the same day, change in traditional kick off times, managers saying they'd rather not be involved in the competition. ...yep, but 47,013 did bother with, could be arsed and patently gave a toss about the City Chelsea game enough to pay to go.....which is what we were talking about before I got an abridged history of the FA Cup. ThePrinter wrote: No diverting off to the Auckland 9's (WHICH IS NOT A CITY IN AUSTRALIA...ALONG WITH WELLINGTON)will change that. ......nope,but neither will it change the fact that 47,013 people cared enough to pay for tickets and attend the City Chelsea cup tie..... ThePrinter wrote: Oh, and for 4 years in the early to mid 00's the FA Cup had no main title sponsor. .....ah, at last, a comparison that might have some legs in it......then again, I'd hazard a guess that the asking price was a tad higher than the CC.......http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26087337 That figure....just once more...for non caring, couldn't give a toss, why bother it's a pointless game, it's pointless game between City and Chelsea.....47,013.......regardless of your opinion of what people were talking about prior to the event!

Re: THIS IS FOR BILLY EVE : Tue Feb 18, 2014 1:39 am  

loiner81 wrote:

No chance, you'll just get a load of totally unrelated "facts" and made up stats before he moves on to something completely different (after insulting you once or twice of course) to try and divert you from the fact that he's ****** up yet again.

Hey there now now,

We were discussing the
FA Cup - 1st held in 1871-72
CC - 1st held in 1896-97

And how the tradition of these long held events were not the same anymore, that's why it was completely logical for him to start going on about......

Wellington 7's - 1st held 2000
Auckland 9's - 1st held in 2014

Re: THIS IS FOR BILLY EVE : Tue Feb 18, 2014 1:43 am  

ThePrinter wrote:

Wellington 7's - 1st held 2000
Auckland 9's - 1st held in 2014

point to these 2 cities out on an ATLAS........

Re: THIS IS FOR BILLY EVE : Tue Feb 18, 2014 1:46 am  

ThePrinter wrote:

Hey there now now,

We were discussing the
FA Cup - 1st held in 1871-72
CC - 1st held in 1896-97

And how the tradition of these long held events were not the same anymore, that's why it was completely logical for him to start going on about......

Wellington 7's - 1st held 2000
Auckland 9's - 1st held in 2014

Trademark.

Re: THIS IS FOR BILLY EVE : Tue Feb 18, 2014 1:53 am  

gutterfax wrote:

point to these 2 cities out on an ATLAS........

Well we've established you like to read what you want to read.

I said "Australian sports", not "Australian cities"......if you don't think the Auckland Nines which had 15 of 16 teams featuring coming from Australian can't be described as Australian sport then embarrass yourself by all means.

Re: THIS IS FOR BILLY EVE : Tue Feb 18, 2014 2:12 am  

gutterfax wrote:

Really? The Truth?
All I can see are stadiums that are 99% 98% 79% 76% 70% 63% and 33% full...compared to 46%, 43%, 36% 30% 24% 17% 8% and 8%...that's the truth as I see it. 64% at the soccer....27% at the Rugby League.....hardly "close" is it?

No just shows what we know all along, football is a bigger deal than RL in England.......but no amount of numbers can help with the obvious fact that people's interest in the FA Cup has dwindled from what it use to be. I live in the country surrounded by football mad friends and work colleagues, the obvious disinterest compared to other competitions is massive. Some may still attend the match, but I doubt many Chelsea fans are still gutted about their exit from the Cup like they will be if they exit the Champions League when that starts up again. Or had they lost the league game there.

Gutterfax wrote:

That's an example of TV scheduling......unless I am mistaken, 88k were there and 8 million watched it on TV.......again, the comparison is flawed.

Aww bless, another excuse for the others sports. It's the "tv schedulers" to blame. Note when games are shifted around in RL it's the end of the sport as we know it and the RFL are to blame for this happening. There is inconsiderate or poorly planned tv scheduling, then there is having the league title and FA cup decided on the same day, that's hardly bad scheduling, that's an example of how the FA Cup is thought of. As for telling us how many were at Wembley, yeah great, many were they for the CC Final too.

Gutterfax wrote:

...yep, but 47,013 did bother with, could be arsed and patently gave a toss about the City Chelsea game enough to pay to go.....which is what we were talking about before I got an abridged history of the FA Cup.

Damn me mentioning one final from 3 years ago, how dare I, it had no place in this argument.

Gutterfax wrote:

That figure....just once more...for non caring, couldn't give a toss, why bother it's a pointless game, it's pointless game between City and Chelsea.....47,013.......regardless of your opinion of what people were talking about prior to the event!

It's not an opinion about what people were talking about, it's fact. I'm actually in the country, reading the papers, watching the sports news on tv, surrounded by football fans.......who progressed was a mere afterthought, the focus was how it'd effect the title race. Journalists are going on about Mourinho's war of words with Wenger, not who Man City play in the next round.

Re: THIS IS FOR BILLY EVE : Tue Feb 18, 2014 2:29 am  

ThePrinter wrote:

Well we've established you like to read what you want to read.

I said "Australian sports", not "Australian cities"......if you don't think the Auckland Nines which had 15 of 16 teams featuring coming from Australian can't be described as Australian sport then embarrass yourself by all means.

Oohhhh Australian Sports eh?
Both games are ENGLISH sports, both games were played in NEW ZEALAND CITIES and your clutching at straw (men) now.

ThePrinter wrote:

It's not an opinion about what people were talking about, it's fact. .

no, actually, it's your opinion.
The only FACT that bears out in this debate (that you and your tag team partner are increasingly becoming more troll-like with each post) is that 47,013 people did care about the FA cup match enough to attend it.

Answer me this.....and as it relates to the actual topic, a YES/NO answer should suffice:

When Starbug posted

Starbug wrote:

An interesting point on sports attendance is on show at the moment, despite it being 2 Premiership clubs on show the Stadium Of Light is looking very sparce for a Cup match to be 2 matches from Wembly, Season Ticket only football fans as well it would seem

...did you, or did you not respond

ThePrinter wrote:

Exactly. People have been making out the drop in CC attendances is the fault of SL and the RFL but in reality domestic cup competitions don't hold the same appeal anymore.....not just in RL.

as I say, I doubt I'll get a straight answer to a straight question that is 100% relevant to this particular sub debate within Billy's thread, but hey, I've asked.

47,013 people cared........filling 98% of the seats in the stadium.....regardless of YOUR OPINION!