Gate figure conspiracy-gate?

[CountryRoyal]

Could it be related to the planning consent for REP in particular parking provision? The reason I ask is that as reported in the article below Bristol City have changed the basis of reporting to actual bums on seats to avoid a condition imposed when planning consent was granted for the rebuild of Ashton Gate. The article also confirms the normal practice of clubs is to report tickets sold.

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bris ... de-1084284

Bristol City Council planners appear to be on a collision course with Bristol City, over just how many people have been attending matches at the stadium And the row looks set to highlight a common practice in football that is becoming increasingly controversial - where clubs publish an official attendance figure which is often higher than the actual number of people who attended the match.
The phenomenon has become much more prominent this season as TV viewers and fans question why clubs such as Arsenal, Manchester City and Manchester United announce they had a capacity crowd, but swathes of empty seats are seen in the stands.
Earlier this week Bristol City confirmed that, like almost all other clubs, the attendance figures it publishes are a total figure of the number of people who had a ticket for the game, rather than the number of people who actually went through the turnstiles.
The club counts season and half-season ticket holders - of which there are around 16,500 - whether or not they turn up, and then adds on the people who bought a one-off ticket to the match.
This matters in Bristol because when the club expanded Ashton Gate to a 27,000-capacity stadium, a condition was written in to the planning permission which requires Bristol City to set up and pay for an extensive matchday parking scheme, which would cover a large area of the residential streets around the ground.

Interesting observation and certainly plausible.

[Einstein agogo]

When the gate for Sheff U was announced I assumed a junior media bod had cocked up by giving the real figure. But there's been no correction and last night's figure was done on the same basis - presumably not counting absent STH.

For the last x years it's been the policy of almost all clubs to report gates on a tickets sold basis - improves the image, creates a sense of demand and helps sustain higher prices. Obviously clubs have to know the real figure and share it with police and transport so they get the right manpower out but otherwise keep it to themselves.

My question is - whose interests does it serve for Reading FC to suddenly, mid-season, without explanation, change that policy at the point real gates have gone below 10,000 for the first time this century?

Jesus , we are nearly a 5th of the way through this century... i feel really old

[Forbury Lion]

As mentioned above, parking may be part of the reason - If you have a low attendance you have a low number of cars in the car park so inflate the attendance and you can distort the stats to show a smaller number of cars per 100 customers.

A simpler explanation might be that they can't measure attendance easily, particularly as customers can swipe in through the turnstyles after kick off, although for health and safety reasons they should broadly know how many people are in the stadium at any one time.

[Hound]

Could it be related to the planning consent for REP in particular parking provision? The reason I ask is that as reported in the article below Bristol City have changed the basis of reporting to actual bums on seats to avoid a condition imposed when planning consent was granted for the rebuild of Ashton Gate. The article also confirms the normal practice of clubs is to report tickets sold.

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bris ... de-1084284

Bristol City Council planners appear to be on a collision course with Bristol City, over just how many people have been attending matches at the stadium And the row looks set to highlight a common practice in football that is becoming increasingly controversial - where clubs publish an official attendance figure which is often higher than the actual number of people who attended the match.
The phenomenon has become much more prominent this season as TV viewers and fans question why clubs such as Arsenal, Manchester City and Manchester United announce they had a capacity crowd, but swathes of empty seats are seen in the stands.
Earlier this week Bristol City confirmed that, like almost all other clubs, the attendance figures it publishes are a total figure of the number of people who had a ticket for the game, rather than the number of people who actually went through the turnstiles.
The club counts season and half-season ticket holders - of which there are around 16,500 - whether or not they turn up, and then adds on the people who bought a one-off ticket to the match.
This matters in Bristol because when the club expanded Ashton Gate to a 27,000-capacity stadium, a condition was written in to the planning permission which requires Bristol City to set up and pay for an extensive matchday parking scheme, which would cover a large area of the residential streets around the ground.

Interesting observation and certainly plausible.

yeah this sounds quite a viable possibility

[Coppells Lost Coat]

I have just received an email form Reading F.C promoting the game this weekend. First one I have ever received (i think) maybe some people are getting a bit worried about attendances....

[tmesis]

As mentioned above, parking may be part of the reason - If you have a low attendance you have a low number of cars in the car park so inflate the attendance and you can distort the stats to show a smaller number of cars per 100 customers.

the crowds have gone down, so how would that work?

A simpler explanation might be that they can't measure attendance easily, particularly as customers can swipe in through the turnstyles after kick off, although for health and safety reasons they should broadly know how many people are in the stadium at any one time.

if only there was some way they'd be able to use the number of people swiping their cards to get some sort of estimate as to the actual attendance...

...or am I missing some sarcasm here?


Adding season ticket holders to the total whether they turn up or not isn't actually a relatively recent thing. They used to do it the "the old days" too, because they always had to work on the assumption that they might all turn up, so they could shut the turnstiles when the capacity had been reached (without risking locking and season ticket holders out). It was just less significant as the percentage of season ticket holders was far lower.

[strap]

I have it on good authority that the eventual plan is to sell the stadium and relocate to Adams Park and ground share with Wycomb.

Many a true word is said in jest.

[RegularRoyal]

One easy way to confirm or dispel the conspiracy... spend 90 minutes counting the crowd. Has to be far more exciting than watching the utter drivel dished up for most of the season.

[mot]

Well at least Leeds will improve the gate this Saturday with 4200 travelling and a fair few more in the Home ends.

[Forbury Lion]

As mentioned above, parking may be part of the reason - If you have a low attendance you have a low number of cars in the car park so inflate the attendance and you can distort the stats to show a smaller number of cars per 100 customers.

the crowds have gone down, so how would that work?

It's reasonable to assume that the car park season ticket holders are also football season ticket holders, So if a person who owns both season tickets misses a game then chances are they will not park their car on the site for the duration of the match, therefore by including them in the attendance figures and not the car parking figures you are distorting the facts.

An extreme and unrealistic example:
If capacity was 1,000 and there were 1,000 parking spaces held by 1,000 ST Holders
900 decide not to attend the match
Attendance reported as 1,000 instead of 100 of which only 100 used the car park, Therefore the car parking requirements are shown as 100/1000 = 10% of stadium sales instead of 100/100 = 100%.... so they can argue that they only need 100 parking spots in future and/or free bus alternatives and can build on the rest of the land.


In the old days clubs allegedly under reported attendances with cash sales being pocketed without the tax man's knowledge - possibly used to fund brown paper envelope bungs and bribes..... So it would be more of a worry if the attendance announced was lower than it looked.

[muirinho]

Well I've asked JLow if he knows anything about a change of methodology in reporting figures, and he says he'll try to find out.

So watch this space

[Forbury Lion]

Well I've asked JLow if he knows anything about a change of methodology in reporting figures, and he says he'll try to find out.

So watch this space

Maybe getreading/upyourroad or whatever it's now calling itself do the same with their reader numbers to attract advertisers

[Old Man Andrews]

Well I've asked JLow if he knows anything about a change of methodology in reporting figures, and he says he'll try to find out.

So watch this space

Cool, we will find out sometime in 2029 then.

[leon]

h8 g8 g8 it gr8s

[Nessa From Eldorado]

a fair few more in the Home ends.

[kieran]

Well, every home game at Fratton the attendance is announced as circa 18k. The ground always looks full, apart from the away end. Not sure if this helps

[John Smith]

Well, every home game at Fratton the attendance is announced as circa 18k. The ground always looks full, apart from the away end. Not sure if this helps

What would help is if this Reading FC forum actually had Reading FC fans on it, not Pompey scum so do one m8

[kieran]

Well, every home game at Fratton the attendance is announced as circa 18k. The ground always looks full, apart from the away end. Not sure if this helps

What would help is if this Reading FC forum actually had Reading FC fans on it, not Pompey scum so do one m8

Touchy And how would that help Gategate?

[tmesis]

As mentioned above, parking may be part of the reason - If you have a low attendance you have a low number of cars in the car park so inflate the attendance and you can distort the stats to show a smaller number of cars per 100 customers.

the crowds have gone down, so how would that work?

It's reasonable to assume that the car park season ticket holders are also football season ticket holders, So if a person who owns both season tickets misses a game then chances are they will not park their car on the site for the duration of the match, therefore by including them in the attendance figures and not the car parking figures you are distorting the facts.

An extreme and unrealistic example:
If capacity was 1,000 and there were 1,000 parking spaces held by 1,000 ST Holders
900 decide not to attend the match
Attendance reported as 1,000 instead of 100 of which only 100 used the car park, Therefore the car parking requirements are shown as 100/1000 = 10% of stadium sales instead of 100/100 = 100%.... so they can argue that they only need 100 parking spots in future and/or free bus alternatives and can build on the rest of the land.

If we are assuming the intention is to pretend car park demand is lower than it really is then than makes no sense.

Let's assume if 8000 people actually turn up, 800 will park in the car park. Let's also assume the tickets sold figure for that same game is 12,000.

Which figure implies a lower demand, 800 cars in a crowd of 8000 or 800 cars in a crowd of 12000?

Also, hasn't R.E.P. already been approved? The club doesn't have to convince the council of anything.

[JR]

We recently employed a Director of Maths who, amongst other calculations, is responsible for attendance figures and working out players' ages for the Under 18s team.

His performance is consistent with that of other new arrivals in the last couple of years so we can't complain.