This is the point I was trying to make. Both points are right as you can use either method mathematically. It all depends what you are trying to do.

It's like saying mode is not a correct average, but mean is. There are many mathematical tools that you can use.

I get that the official attendance uses the attendances as 45k for both games. It does not mean you can't use other measures. They are valid. But just like politicians the method you chose will indicate more about the point you are trying to make than the answer itself.

The key figures for me (I also believe the media) will be total attendance for the WC and the profit made. The rest will be qualitative stuff like exposure, increase in interest in RL and the feel good factor that comes from it.

Nobody knows the same goes for the England vs. Australia. match. All you know is what the published figure for the event was and even that is an estimate.

I guess it depends on how Broncos decide what the published attendance figure will be.

Regardless of whether 12,000 people turn up 12,000 people have bought a ticket and so £12k will go into the accounts.

If you buy all the tickets for a ground, no one else can buy a ticket to get in and therefore the attendance is assumed to be a sell-out.

Think of Season Tickets: I've paid for 13 games as part of my season ticket. Therefore, I will be counted in the announced attendance figures because I've paid to attend that game. The actual number in attendance may vary.

How is it an estimate, they know how many tickets they sold.

Tickets sold/distributed is not the same as attendance. There are plenty of events that are sold out but the stadium/arena will not be filled to capacity.

Like every game, in every sport ever held then. In the absence of any evidence to contrary we can use the published figure as the only figure we need to take into account

Well that's not really true because you are only allowed to sell tickets once, so,once it is sold out it is filled to capacity whether anyone turns up or not

The argument arises because we can now talk about two types of average. Average per game, or average per event. Most of the time they're one and the same thing so the debate doesn't arise. As long as you're clear which average you mean, there's no confusion. The trouble starts if you get elements of one mixed up with the other. In particular, if you count all the people at a multi-game event as attending both games ( which for the sake of argument assume they do, never mind details like people wandering out) and then subsequently present your per-game attendance based on this, you could ( if you didn't remind people that a double header was in there) give a misleading impression, even though you're correctly working out a per-game average. If I hadn't heard about the double header and you told me that Wales v Italy attracted a crowd of 45,000 in Cardiff, I'd being putting Nigel Wood up for a knighthood. But with the knowledge of the double header it's suddenly not quite the same stunning news.

For me, the 'per-game' number is indeed technically correct, but it represents something different if compared to a single game event. With either lots of double headers, or a few big ones, the technically correct per-game number for the tournament is less interesting - it's no longer a simple measure of how well we're doing, but a complex one which requires knowledge of the event structure. Pound value of all tickets sold is a dull but important number for me.

13,833 or 21,342 depending on which method you adhere to.

interesting that the 100% of the 500,000 target for 28 games = 17,857 average, but in fact, using the "other method" to calculate the average could have delivered 664,500 in attendance at an average of 23,732.

500,000 ticket sales v 664,500 attendees

I can't believe I actually posted a considered response in this thread earlier, that's 5 mins of my life I won't get back wasted engaging with this rubbish. Don't feed the troll, the agenda's pretty transparent.



Now then, c'mon England!!!

Heard rumours of my so called agenda but I have yet to hear exactly what people think it is and why am pursuing it?

Pretty obvious you are an attention seeker, shame that you have chosen this board to display your insecurity

Am I the only one who finds this thread absolutely pathetic ???

No

Can I have a 5 minute argument please?

Is that on the basis that 22.5k watched each of the Millenium games? That's a bit of a thicko approach.

After the group stages:

Number of tickets sold - 259099
Number of "events" - 20
Average = 12955

or the other approach, counting all the games and including the 45k at the double header twice.

Number of attendees - 304151
Number of games - 21
Average = 14483

And finally we have a little sense. Was tempted to post something along those lines a few times but been enjoying watching certain posters embarrass themselves over the past few weeks.

Why don't we take the average of the two averages?
(12995+14483)/2 = 13719

(Only Joking!!!)

Judean People's Front? We're the People's Front of Judea!

Well so far 302344 have attended 23 events

That's pretty good going.

With 3 World cup events left to go. We could be looking at near 450,000 to attend all events.

Which will push the average at all events over the 17k figure.

(I've taken the attendance at the first warrington match as the lower figure as that is what the independent jurno's have published. But what is 1 thousand between friends)

[i...The pre-tournament target was 500,000, and although the end figure for sales was 458,463, World Cup organisers claim that the target was always taking into account individual games for the double-headers at Cardiff and Wembley, rather than the event as a whole. In that case, the final figure surpassed 550,000,... [/i www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2 ... -world-cup

[i...The pre-tournament target was 500,000, and although the end figure for sales was 458,463, World Cup organisers claim that the target was always taking into account individual games for the double-headers at Cardiff and Wembley, rather than the event as a whole. In that case, the final figure surpassed 550,000,... [/i www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2 ... -world-cup

We now have 3 different thread all about averages.
Can you all stick to this one and stop spoiling other threads.
Thanks in advance.

It was quite happily going to drop off the front page until you piped up



460/28= 16,428 up .03% and resulting in a healthy 10% increase in profits
570/28 = 20,357 up 25% and resulting in a disappointing 10% increase in profits

Which is it gonna be?