- Print Topic - Archive

Quoted from TheRonRaffertyFanClub

I don’t know how many from each team but this was on the BBC report.

“The 26,218 crowd made it comfortably the lowest third-tier final attendance since the first one was held between Tranmere and Notts County in 1990, when there were 29,252 at the old national stadium.”

They have been spoilt they do not deserve me, PH.

I think Shrewsbury had approximately 10,000 there. I think we took somewhere between 14,000 and 15,000 in 2016.

No wonder he was cupping his ear. He was trying to hear the Shrews fans 👂😜

Let's face it a trip to Wembley is expensive. The sooner Wembley is sold the sooner they can look at, for example Shrews v Rotherham played at villa park or a venue similar. The further north you live the higher the cost.

Why do we constantly do this, comparing numbers to our turn out and putting down other clubs for the number of fans they take to Wembley

Rotherham around 14k shrews 11k with a few corporate making the 26 and as for comparing attendances why not ? It’s a huge part of the game isn’t it

Does anybody think that moving the playoffs north it will automatically make it cheaper?

In the Manchester arena beer was 5 pence more a pint than Wembley stadium for example.

Prices will rocket wherever they are just like the prices jumped up in Kiev last weekend. It's market forces as Theresa would say.

Agreed. The 2011 Conference playoff final at The Etihad was £42.

Totally agree with making the playoff finals a venue roughly half way between the participants, apart from the championship one as they should be able to fill it. The only thing is for quite a few of the players it could be their one and only time to play there, but just look at how a clubs attendance slowly goes down as they get there, the day trippers don't go the 2nd time etc. Plus although the EFL would still want to screw the fans at least travel costs should be less.

Problem is you don’t know who the finalists are until early May. Apart from Mali sure the stadium is available you can’t book all the other shite. If you move it away from Wembley you still want to set the venue long before you know the finalists.

I went to watch Spurs v Man city ... cost 30 for me and 12 for my son ....we were in the upper tier but still a cheap day out watching quality football ... the play off pricing stops the floating fan from going imo ... 25 quid a ticket is plenty

Quoted from Ipswin

Why do we constantly do this, comparing numbers to our turn out and putting down other clubs for the number of fans they take to Wembley

It's the only thing we can brag about Swin. ;)

Quoted from fleabag1970

I went to watch Spurs v Man city ... cost 30 for me and 12 for my son ....we were in the upper tier but still a cheap day out watching quality football ... the play off pricing stops the floating fan from going imo ... 25 quid a ticket is plenty

Good point. To be fair to the FA, at least for the Trophy/Vase Finals they had their fans day out promotions in recent years.

The reason I asked was I always felt Hurst was leaving Grimsby for a club with less potential in terms of support - and that seems to be correct judging by yesterday's attendance: they had 3-4,000 fewer fans for the Div 1 play-off final than we did for the National League one. Had we been playing yesterday I reckon we'd have taken closer to 20,000 fans - and Grimsby is a few miles further from Wembley than is Shrewsbury.

As for Hurst: I don't feel especially negative towards him - he did get us back into the League (eventually) but then left with a certain lack of grace. Having said that he is now a very good manager and I reckon he'll want to move on pretty quick from Shrewsbury, which is just a small town club.

Quoted from mimma

Does anybody think that moving the playoffs north it will automatically make it cheaper?

In the Manchester arena beer was 5 pence more a pint than Wembley stadium for example.

Prices will rocket wherever they are just like the prices jumped up in Kiev last weekend. It's market forces as Theresa would say.

Yes I do , a neutral venue would probably half the travel costs for teams like us

Quoted from Mariner55

The reason I asked was I always felt Hurst was leaving Grimsby for a club with less potential in terms of support - and that seems to be correct judging by yesterday's attendance: they had 3-4,000 fewer fans for the Div 1 play-off final than we did for the National League one. Had we been playing yesterday I reckon we'd have taken closer to 20,000 fans - and Grimsby is a few miles further from Wembley than is Shrewsbury.

As for Hurst: I don't feel especially negative towards him - he did get us back into the League (eventually) but then left with a certain lack of grace. Having said that he is now a very good manager and I reckon he'll want to move on pretty quick from Shrewsbury, which is just a small town club.

Less potential in terms of support almost certainly. But I don't doubt that they're miles ahead of us off the pitch. They've got a new stadium which will presumably have all the things we want our new stadium to have. They've got a good training ground and probably make use of sports science and all the rest that our blinkered board wouldn't allow PH to spend money on.

Whilst there's no doubt that we could be a much better supported club than the likes of Shrewsbury, until our board shows some innovation and at least invests in the club to put us on an equal footing with them when it comes to training facilities etc we won't ever realise our potential. As it stands the harsh truth is that we're years away from ever realising it and managers like PH won't look at us and think "there's a club who could be so much better" they'll think there's a club who are being run in a way that stops them progressing. Until some big changes are made, it will remain like that.

Quoted from mariner91

Less potential in terms of support almost certainly. But I don't doubt that they're miles ahead of us off the pitch. They've got a new stadium which will presumably have all the things we want our new stadium to have. They've got a good training ground and probably make use of sports science and all the rest that our blinkered board wouldn't allow PH to spend money on.

Whilst there's no doubt that we could be a much better supported club than the likes of Shrewsbury, until our board shows some innovation and at least invests in the club to put us on an equal footing with them when it comes to training facilities etc we won't ever realise our potential. As it stands the harsh truth is that we're years away from ever realising it and managers like PH won't look at us and think "there's a club who could be so much better" they'll think there's a club who are being run in a way that stops them progressing. Until some big changes are made, it will remain like that.

Sooner or later someone will say that 'we don't know whether the way our club is run or its facilities put anyone off'. So i'll say it now. But whilst that might be factually correct (i.e. we don't know) I'd hazard a guess it has an impact. I think we may just have got lucky with Michael Jolley being available and with no club management experience in England.

As for Shrewsbury, this was their second visit in the last couple of months and it sounds like at the first one they had a lacklustre performance.

And Shrewsbury is smaller than GY.

I heated it said at one of the play off games that promotion to the first div was worth several million a year extra. Shrewsbury have been at that level of income all the time we were in the conference. It is little wonder they have up to date facilities compared to us. They have been getting substantially more a year than us over the last ten years.

Quoted from mariner91

I think Shrewsbury had approximately 10,000 there. I think we took somewhere between 14,000 and 15,000 in 2016.

Think we had that for Rovers in 2015 and took about 12k in 2016

Quoted from mimma

I heated it said at one of the play off games that promotion to the first div was worth several million a year extra. Shrewsbury have been at that level of income all the time we were in the conference. It is little wonder they have up to date facilities compared to us. They have been getting substantially more a year than us over the last ten years.

While I don't disagree, it's worth bearing in mind that they'd have also been paying out more per week in wages than us over those 10 years.

They'll still be up on us, for sure, but an increase in income usually means an increase in expenditure if you want to sign players at the going rate for that level.