Bigger gobes than you have failed to come up with proof so I'm not surprised.
Unless you have that proof then jog on.

There is also motive for not doing it since if they announce a higher official attendance HMRC will start getting interested as to why their tax take is lower than it should be.

Having done a bit of research, your assertion is indeed correct. Must have been my memory playing tricks.
The actual story, however, was much more unsavoury than any backhanded financial bail-out from the RFL.

[urlhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2005/mar/05/rugbyleague.superleaguex[/url

Yes, like any club which goes into administration they didnt pay back certain debts, which is kind of the reason for going into administration.

How many other RL clubs have made the calculated and, quite frankly, despicable decision to liquidate themselves and leave businesses £3million out of pocket?

Do they not do this in Australia as well? After all there is definite proof that the Melbourne Storm used to fudge the figures.

Even for you this is hypocritical.

First of all you make out that it is easier to tell the difference between bigger number than smaller numbers (debatable anyway) and then you try to make out like my margin of error which was in your words 1000 out in a crowd of 8500 (actually only 500 from my top estimate anyway) is the same as being 1000 out in a crowd of 3000. In reality being 1000 out in a crowd of 8500 is a 12% error when 1000 out in a crowd of 3000 is a 33% error.

The camera showed every single angle at different times. I actually presumed that the popular side was below the camera but then the camera showed what was on the other side. You would usually argue black was white but are you really suggesting that Sky don't show the whole crowd at different times?

True, but I have no idea what Australia's tax laws are but even if they're the same as here then Melbourne, with their rich owners, were either prepared to pay the extra tax or take the risk of it not being spotted.

accepted.

How do you not see the contradiction in this comment? I've seen hundreds of RL games and noted the size of the crowd in most of them, including Crusaders games. For all but 4 years since 1995, Widnes have played in front of crowds at home that were give or take 3,000 most of the time in a stadium of about 12,000. The difference between Saturday and those games is marked.



Like I said to SmokeyTA, it showed that side. Also, 90% of Crusaders fans currently are probably Wrexham FC fans and their most popular board is on a Wrexham FC board.

Salford are not particularly a popular club that post small crowds however I can't think of a single example where somebody has questioned their crowd figures no matter how small they have been announced. I would even suggest that people rarely question the crowd figures given of Harlequins. I made an estimate based on prior knowledge and so it happens many others made a very similar estimate on twitter and from numerous different sources to. You can convince yourself it's some anti-Crusaders conspiracy but in reality people don't question crowds nearly as often as you think they do.

Quote ="Him"True, but I have no idea what Australia's tax laws are but even if they're the same as here then Melbourne, with their rich owners, were either prepared to pay the extra tax or take the risk of it not being spotted.'" The Melbourne CEO not only accepted that crowd figures were inflated but suggested that many other clubs do the same. This was his quote, 'It was brought to my attention that most sporting clubs do that in terms of adjusting their numbers' Read more: www.theage.com.au/rugby-league/l ... zz1SV20o83 I can't see that their tax laws would be that much laxer than ours.

Quote ="Him"True, but I have no idea what Australia's tax laws are but even if they're the same as here then Melbourne, with their rich owners, were either prepared to pay the extra tax or take the risk of it not being spotted.'" The Melbourne CEO not only accepted that crowd figures were inflated but suggested that many other clubs do the same. This was his quote, 'It was brought to my attention that most sporting clubs do that in terms of adjusting their numbers' Read more: www.theage.com.au/rugby-league/l ... zz1SV20o83 I can't see that their tax laws would be that much laxer than ours.

Quote ="Maximus Decimus"The Melbourne CEO not only accepted that crowd figures were inflated but suggested that many other clubs do the same. This was his quote, 'It was brought to my attention that most sporting clubs do that in terms of adjusting their numbers' Read more: www.theage.com.au/rugby-league/l ... zz1SV20o83 I can't see that their tax laws would be that much laxer than ours.'" Well he could be correct, or he could be trying to make their recent attendances look better and trying to suggest everyone does it to make himself look better. He offers no evidence for his assertion and the NRL obviously don't agree with him.

Quote ="Maximus Decimus"The Melbourne CEO not only accepted that crowd figures were inflated but suggested that many other clubs do the same. This was his quote, 'It was brought to my attention that most sporting clubs do that in terms of adjusting their numbers' Read more: www.theage.com.au/rugby-league/l ... zz1SV20o83 I can't see that their tax laws would be that much laxer than ours.'" Well he could be correct, or he could be trying to make their recent attendances look better and trying to suggest everyone does it to make himself look better. He offers no evidence for his assertion and the NRL obviously don't agree with him.

But it does add weight to the prospect that teams inflate crowd figures. We also know that some teams have in the past included season tickets whether they turned up or not. Then you have examples such as the Halifax crowd against Batley when they were able to include free tickets given out in their final figure despite almost all fans accepting that the crowd figure was nowhere near that.

Just because a figure is announced doesn't mean that that is how many are actually at the game watching it.

I understand that. But this doesn't mean you have some sort of divine ability to determine the attendance at any event simply from looking at a TV pitcture. Like I said, the Cup game that had an attendance of 1,500 looked a significantly lower crowd on TV than yesterday's game. There's no contradiction in that, because it's not based on me attempting to estimate attendances and then passing them off as fact. There's absolutely no reason to suspect that they are lying about either figure.

No they aren't, and no it's not. Do some research.

I've already stated that no other clubs have their crowds scrutinised in the way Crusaders do. If anything, what you have just said backs up my previous posts entirely.

The crowd at Odslum was given at just over 14,000 but i would show my in Woolies window if they were more than 8,000 there

Your margin of error was 1000. You estimated between 7 and 8k. It was wrong even giving yourself that margin of error. Whilst you were only 500 away from your top estimate you were 1500 from your lower estimate. Now you seem to be accepting that 500 was an acceptable margin from your estimate of between 7 and 8k which means that your lower estimate wasnt 7k but 6.5k and you in fact needed a margin of error of 2k, or as would be easier and simply to explain, you guessed at the attendance, gave a fairly wide range and still got it wrong because you dont really know and cant really estimate that well the attendance from tv pictures.


No, im arguing its a pretty special gift for you to see the differing angles, remember them, and put them together and come up with a good estimate on an attendance, a gift you have proved today you dont have.

:ik3obbr0

Don't you worry Graham. I know what you mean. No one saw or heard anything. It never happened ok?

and neither have you!

You are making judgements on your own bias, there are contradictions in you claiming that you can tell one crowd had a difference but somebody claiming that it didn't look like 3,055 is ludicrous. I've pointed out examples of clubs that admit falsifying figures and then given examples of how it can happen (Halifax's last game of the season in 2010). It's not lying so much as including people that didn't attend.

There are two Crusaders boards, I'd say the one on the Wrexham forum is the busier. If I want to know anything about them I'm more likely to go there than the proboards site. Inevitably they won't have taken many fans from the south and the majority of paying attendees will also be Wrexham fans.

Salford are not well liked at all and if people suspected they were over-egging their crowds people would be on it like a shop. I didn't say that I know for 100% it was wrong but it certainly didn't look like 3,000. As ever though anybody who suggests it must have an agenda.

You're pathetic. There is a world of difference between an estimate 1000 out in a game that had 8500 there and being 1500 out of a game that had 3000 there. I'll show you where an informed estimate comes from in my next post. What you don't realise is that 1000 out is a pretty good effort, I could have said 100, I could have said 60,000 but based on prior knowledge I got within a few per cent of the real figure.

I was watching the game and was shocked by how few were on the camera side. I therefore presumed that they were on the other side, which a subsequent angle proved that they clearly weren't. I then tweeted about it, which a few others also did. It's hardly a gift for remembering different angles. The TV shows 3 sides pretty often in a match.

OK here goes, a little justification for all those being ridiculed by the usual apologists. You made me do it!

Basically the capacity of the 3 sides of Wrexham's stadium is 10,500ish. This means that on average the 3 stands at the Cru game would need to be roughly just under a third full. Let's look at the travelling support based on the Super League show cameras,



It would be very generous to see this as nearly a third.




This was the TV side. This is nowhere near a third full.

If the popular side was off the camera then it could make up for it. It was pretty hard to get a picture of this side from the BBC but I clipped 2 that show the reality of it.




Once again, not even close to a third full in my opinion.

I've no doubt that you'll still argue until you're blue in the face that these do constitute a third of the seats in each of the stand but you're being dishonest if you do.

Don't know about you squire, but I pay my 15 notes to watch the game, not count empty seats

Go on Mike!

you werent a thousand out, you gave yourself a margin of error of a thousand, and were still 500 out. To claim credit on the basis it was more accurate than a guess of between 100 and 60'000 is hilarious. I could have guessed at the crowd being between 6k and 9k before the game had even kicked off.

So on only seeing three sides now, you can estimate, with such accuracy as to disprove official figures which were a thousand away from your estimate, the attendance at a stadium. Your evidence for this is that in a crowd of 8500 you couldnt, with any accuracy, estimate the crowd of a televised game to within a thousand.

You're just embarrassing yourself now. You have shown part of three stands and guessed at how many people are in each of them. Well done. You admit yourself that 'it was pretty hard to get a picture' of one of the stands and you have only succeeded in getting a picture of about a quarter of it. So now your guess is no longer based on seeing three stands, but seeing two and a quarter stands. Similarly the other two pictures also miss out roughly a quarter of the stand. So in fact out of three stands we can only see 1 and 3/4ers of a stand. Or roughly half the open stadium. We cant see the people at the toilets and in the bar at the exact moment these pictures were filmed nor can we even see the entire stadium.

With the information available could we make a rough estimate of the amount of people there? Yes, we can make a rough estimate of whatever we like.

With the information available should our rough estimate be held at the same level as publicly released figures? No, only a complete moron would do that.