Did you even read my earlier post are you just that keen to get your point across that you've already got your responses ready?

Just because you think something's flawed, doesn't make it so, so instead of just arguing the toss and making things up please do feel free to explain how crowds in SL being well up this season on this stage last season isn't A GOOD THING.

im not sure how much clearer in can be, but because of the flaws, your comparison doesn't show what you think it shows.

Let me give you a clear example of why, (and let me be clear, this isn't the only way this will work, this is an exaggerated example, and is only to illustrate the problem).

Year 2
Leeds first 8 games are
Salford A, Hull KR A, Saints H, Wakefield A, Les Catalans A, Warrington H, Easter Weekend Cas H, Wigan H

Year 1
Leeds first 8 games are
Salford H, Hull KR H, Saints A, Wakefield H, Les Catalans H, Warrington A, Cas A, Wigan A,

That would almost certainly show a big rise from year 1 to year 2. But that's not crowds being up from year 1 to year 2. Its not growth. Its not a fair comparison. It is flawed. We know that in year 1 there are leeds best attended home games to come, we know there is the easter boost to come. We know that Leeds v Salford on a nice summer night almost certainly gets more than Leeds v Salford on a cold January one. It would actually be prudent to look at small growth from year 1 to year 2 as a bad thing, year 2 should be way ahead at this point.

You cant repeat the data in a different order, under different circumstances and conclude anything from less than half the data.

You cant simply remove two of the lowest data points, see the average go up and call it growth.

We can't simply play more games, and add up the aggregate and call it growth.

We can't include rounds 28 and 29 (and in some cases round 30) to the season ticket when previously those rounds were pay games, see a bigger attendance and call that growth.

We can't even look just at the SL figures for growth because we have seen both Bradford and London see relatively huge falls in the championship.

Of course there's going to be flaws. It's not supposed to be a definitive result which is why the figures are averaged out.
It's a very strong indication that the season's going well though, despite what all the naysayers were claiming when the new system was announced..

Just something else worth mentioning: This year's Easter attendances are the 2nd highest of the last 10 years. Flawed? maybe. But true.

Nighty night.

But isn't a strong indication crowds will be up. It's barely an indication of anything.

Last season's Thursday/friday easter fixtures had none of Leeds, Wigan or Hull fc at home. The Monday fixtures weren't big ones either. In fact even at sell out just the fact Hull kr had their home Hull derby at easter and Saints had theirs instead of the other way around is an 11k difference based on the attendances of last year. Our easter fixtures last year also saw a particularly low Wakefield crowd because of the stadium issues.

Easter 2005 we had two 20k+attendances without a Hull derby or Leeds playing at home. Cherry picking is a losing argument.

No, ignoring facts, back tracking and generally making stuff up is losing an argument.

You seem to have mistaken the fact that attendances are up at easter compared to easter last year with your opinion that this is a very strong indication that crowds will be up.

This weeks attendances have taken a bashing in like for like attendances compared to last years fixtures. Swings and roundabouts hey.

after reading this im off to top myself. i mean, whats the point in supporting a team when were all doomed?!?

ffs, he did a like for like and attendances were up. oh im sorry, both gameswere not played on 23rd april in 23 degrees and a pressure of 2 bars. nor was there a slight NEE wind of 4mph. so you cant possible compare the 2 games..... foolish man =/

You seem to miss the point that the attendances he was crowing about were higher because they weren't a valid comparison and the attendances were pretty badly down this week for the same reason. It's not about being positive or negative about it because not comparing like for like will bite you in the ass. Just as it did and just as I predicted.

And you continually seem to be ignoring the post where I said I'd posted similar figures on another thread, comparing the first 4/5 rounds which were all UP. So even with the expected drop last weekend, we're still well up this year.

Still, if it makes you feel better that one round is down then you go for it! We can't be having any positivity around here can we. This is RLFans afterall.

Not once did I say that. Stop making things up.

but in your eyes the only possible way you would accept a comparison is by using my ridiculously stupid example....

No. I wouldn't even accept that. Because it still wouldn't be what we are aiming for. There is no comparison between last ear and this. Just one with massive holes in it that can and will be spun by whoever to whatever agenda they are pushing.

INOUT
They weren't all up. The average attendance removing London and Bradford who aren't in SL any more is a grand total of 101 higher this year than last. Just over 1% which is about 6k. Over 60 matches. It is nothing.

We aren't 1 round down. We have had 10 rounds. Of which even you are only (incorrectly) claiming we are up on 4 or 5 rounds.

The fact is we have barely seen any change at all in the amounts attending. Some are up, some are down but basically we are the same. You crowing about the easter attendances was just stupid because the growth you were crowing about was always going to be evened out this week. And just as it would be stupid to start slitting our wrists because of the substantial fall this week it was stupid to start popping the champagne last week because of those attendances. Neither were representative of where we are.

Once again. What you thought it showed. It didn't show.

Nighty night indeed

You're clearly not quite as intelligent as you'd like to think, or you are and are just trolling now.

I'll say for maybe the 3rd or 4th time now, the figures over Easter AND the first 4-5 rounds figures I posted on another thread clearly show the crowds to be UP on last season SO FAR.

It's not rocket science for christ's sake.

And for probably the 5th or 6th time now you aren't comparing comparable things. What you think it shows. It does not. You are misunderstanding the statistics.

Just keep moving those goal posts won't you....

I give in

Where's billy when you need him

so how on gods green earth can you claim attendances arent going up? what stats are you using to back this up? other than "debunking" loiners stats you've yet to provide any evidence to the contrary. please feel free to provide this at your earliest convenience

Crowds are up. Very very slightly. They are up on average 101 per game. But that is a very very small amount. One which is about 1%. One which would have a million and one different reasons for being very very very slightly up.

In fact it is almost completely made up of the difference between Wigan v Saints last year and Wigan v Saints this year. If for instance Wigan v Leeds gets what it is usually gets (about 15k) rather than what it got last year (nearly 21k) that 'growth' we are claiming has happened has been completely wiped out. If that happens and Wakefield average 500 fans less over the next 6 home games then we are down 1%. There hasn't been a strong indication of anything. And even if there were at this point in the season it would tell us anything because the sample size is very small, the data less than half complete and you are comparing two seasons with some pretty major differences. And Even then we aren't taking into account the we are seeing crowds pretty much half at London and Bradford.

I’m afraid William has been hounded out by the rose tinted brigade.

Due to the new system with the split & all, there can be no comparisons to previous years, this is year one.

Yeah how dare people be positive when he's trying to troll RLFans day after day, month after month, year after year. Guy's had more dummy spits than Maggie Simpson.



Not at all, the first 23 rounds can be compared with last season up to the play offs. It won't tell the full story but won't be far off and will be a decent indication of how the new system's gone in it's first year.

Reading magazines at the cricket I think.