Re: SL crowds in 2000 vs SL crowds in 2008 : Mon Mar 02, 2009 11:18 pm  

rover49 wrote:

Not true, your average in 2002 was 6,928 but in 2003 it was 11,601 an increase of 59%, which would indicate bandwagon increases the same as most clubs when improvements on the pitch are made (or off it in the form of moving to the KC).

I knew someone would bite

Re: SL crowds in 2000 vs SL crowds in 2008 : Mon Mar 02, 2009 11:28 pm  

Brew wrote:

Heard that one before

Odsal is a major achilles heel for Bradford though, No matter what success Bradford have the fact that basic facillities are limited will put families off. a bit of Rain and there is no shelter whatsoever from the elements unless your in the Seated Area.

That said, when those figures were taken/ Weren't the Bulls at VP?

No, 2001 and 2002 were at VP. 2000 was the year before.

: Tue Mar 03, 2009 2:12 pm  

You have to wonder what they've been doing to promote Rugby League in London to get such a huge increase in nearly 10 years...

Re: SL crowds in 2000 vs SL crowds in 2008 : Tue Mar 03, 2009 5:02 pm  

rover49 wrote:

Not true, your average in 2002 was 6,928 but in 2003 it was 11,601 an increase of 59%, which would indicate bandwagon increases the same as most clubs when improvements on the pitch are made (or off it in the form of moving to the KC).

So, lets get this right, Hull get wolloped in the playoffs by Leeds in 2002, fail to make the play offs in 2003 yet these extra fans are band wagon jumpers

: Tue Mar 03, 2009 5:16 pm  

j_hunter_hkr wrote:

You have to wonder what they've been doing to promote Rugby League in London to get such a huge increase in nearly 10 years...

nothing......HTH
What a lot of people do not appreciate is the size of London compared to your provincial little outposts. We also have teams that play football in something called "the premiership" as well as other leagues beneath that. Then again, we have some other guys who kick a ball shaped like a rugby league ball and they are quite popular too, having actually won something at an international level recently. Then their is the rest of the stuff on offer....compared to say...CASTLEFORD
Google things to do in London on a saturday and you get 6,240,000 options...try CASTLEFORD
Still it's nice to know that franchise points for attendance = 1
HTH

: Tue Mar 03, 2009 6:28 pm  

gutterfax wrote:

Google things to do in London on a saturday and you get 6,240,000 options...try CASTLEFORD

Is that why tb moved to "Lunnon"

: Tue Mar 03, 2009 6:53 pm  

littlerich wrote:

Is that why tb moved to "Lunnon"

carlsberg

: Tue Mar 03, 2009 8:13 pm  

gutterfax wrote:

nothing......HTH
What a lot of people do not appreciate is the size of London compared to your provincial little outposts. We also have teams that play football in something called "the premiership" as well as other leagues beneath that. Then again, we have some other guys who kick a ball shaped like a rugby league ball and they are quite popular too, having actually won something at an international level recently. Then their is the rest of the stuff on offer....compared to say...CASTLEFORD
Google things to do in London on a saturday and you get 6,240,000 options...try CASTLEFORD
Still it's nice to know that franchise points for attendance = 1 :wink:
HTH

Actually it's two:
10,000+ average
40%+ of the ground capacity being full on average

Re: SL crowds in 2000 vs SL crowds in 2008 : Tue Mar 03, 2009 8:30 pm  

Wellsy13 wrote:

I knew someone would bite

Not a bite mate, just pointing out a fact.

Re: SL crowds in 2000 vs SL crowds in 2008 : Tue Mar 03, 2009 8:34 pm  

Mild mannered Janitor wrote:

So, lets get this right, Hull get wolloped in the playoffs by Leeds in 2002, fail to make the play offs in 2003 yet these extra fans are band wagon jumpers

I know of many who never set foot in Boulevard and jumped on the shiny new stadium bandwagon, not a criticism, we all have them. It was the inference that the attendances were built on gradually I was responding to.