Interesting comparison between Pro12 and Aviva

Well this was an interesting read, it looks as though there is not much difference between average crowd sizes between the two leagues, now I know the Pro12 has it's issues what with the reffing situations and the logistics of it all, but this does make for interesting reading, also how the feck are Saracens still in operation ?

[size=48]The evidence that shows the Aviva Premiership isn't much more of a crowd puller than the Pro12 after all[/size]

Just 8,050 turned up for the continent’s in-form team’s scintillating 29-20 European Champions Cup quarter-final victory over Northampton last weekend

    

Crowds have been disappointing at Allianz Park
How many times have critics of the Guinness Pro12 pointed to the Aviva Premiership as being the “best club tournament in the world” and a “shining light” for large crowds?
Yes, Dai Young’s Wasps are booming since their 80-mile move north from High Wycombe in Buckinghamshire to Coventry in the heart of the midlands.
But it’s Leicester Tigers who continue to lead the way over the border when it comes to attendances, regularly exceeding 20,000.
However, crowds have been affected at the another other of the historical major clubs, Gloucester, by disappointing results.
The biggest embarrassment of the lot, though, is English champions Saracens, when they stage home matches at Allianz Park.



Just 8,050 turned up for the continent’s in-form team’s scintillating 29-20 European Champions Cup quarter-final victory over Northampton last weekend.

If any of the Welsh pro entities – Cardiff Blues, Newport Gwent Dragons, Ospreys or Scarlets – were hosting Northampton in a last eight clash in the northern hemisphere gem, you’d expect them to better that figure.
“The players would love to have run out in front of a full house against Northampton, there’s no question of that,” said Saracens director of rugby Mark McCall.
“The players have done enough over the last five years to warrant full houses because it’s not as though there aren’t some good players to come and watch. They’re winning a lot of games.”
Saracens qualified for the knockout phase with a clean sweep of six victories in their group, guaranteeing they would face Northampton at their purpose-built venue in Hertfordshire.


“We worked so hard to be at home for the home quarter-finals because we’ve been away for the same stage for the last two years,” said former Ulster coach McCall.
“It was an unbelievable atmosphere in Ulster in 2014 when 18,000 people turned up. It was magic.
“The people who were there on Saturday did well because it was a good atmosphere, but the playing group deserved a bit more.”
The crowd at Allianz Park was not helped by the small number of Northampton supporters who made the 61-mile journey to Barnet.
An allocation of 3,500 was made available to Northampton but 2,850 of those were returned with just 650 bought – a surprise given the size of the fixture, the rivalry between the teams and their proximity.
Under tournament guidelines, the English champions needed to provide a capacity of 15,000 but it was waived by Champions Cup powerbrokers when it became apparent the extra seats would not be required.
It’s the same Saracens that attracted just 25,492 to Twickenham two years ago to see them crush Clermont Auvergne in the semi-finals.


The north London club has also seen its debt rise to £45.1m in the last financial year following a loss of £3.98m.
The annual accounts reveal they are the most indebted club in rugby history with long-standing benefactor Nigel Wray and a consortium of South African business associates having kept Saracens afloat through an unsecured loan.
Yet, a year ago, club chairman Wray called for the RFU to scrap Premier Rugby’s salary cap.
Ironically, on Saturday they will host Harlequins at Wembley Stadium in their equivalent of our own Judgement Day – ‘Men in Black’ are due to appear and singer Foxes will perform some of her biggest hits from her new album – with 77,000 tickets already distributed, generating revenue of over £1m,. Saracens chief McCall has questioned why a larger number of those fans fail to attend fixtures at Allianz Park.
Saracens attracted a crowd of 41,063 when they faced Ospreys at the home of English football in December 2011, with rappers Tinie Tempah and Tincy Stryder being a huge draw for a young crowd as they played live.



“We want some of the people at Wembley to come along on a week to week basis,” said McCall.
But Saracens aren’t the only club in the Aviva Premiership who must be concerned about their home gates.
League strugglers London Irish have seen their attendances dip to about 5,500, Sale Sharks had just 4,236 for their home clash with high-flying Exeter Chiefs in Salford while Newcastle Falcons are posting figures of just over 6,500 and Worcester Warriors between 8-9,000.





Sale had just 4,557 for last weekend’s European Challenge Cup quarter-final against star-studded Montpellier, who are second in the French Top 14, while Gloucester’s crowd of 10,501 against the Dragons was lower than any they have had for a Premiership match this campaign.
Harlequins would also have been disappointed by only 9,851 watching them against London Irish at Twickenham Stoop.
George North's Northampton have gone the other way. They extended their stadium from 13,300 to 15,250 over the summer and have had a 15 per cent increase in attendances at Franklin's Gardens.
Nonetheless, interestingly average gates in the last two rounds of the Aviva Premiership have been 10,793 and 14,023, compared to 8,487 and 13,765 in the Pro12.
The average in last weekend’s European ties was 17,030 in the Champions Cup and 9,746 in the Challenge Cup.
So, when you scratch below the surface, the gloss and the spin, maybe the Premiership isn’t quite everything it’s cracked up to be after all.

Average crowd last weekend

Aviva Premiership 

14,023

Guinness Pro12

13,765


http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/evidence-shows-aviva-premiership-isnt-11186173

LordDowlais wrote:

Average crowd last weekend

Aviva Premiership 

14,023

Guinness Pro12

13,765

Now, I am sure that no-one here would ever make selective use of facts knowingly. Like taking a weekend from the Pro12 wehere the Irish and Welsh Clubs all played "derby" matches, and despite 16k at Ravenhill, the Aviva crowd was bigger than all the other 5 matches put together.

After all it would be like me drawing up the numbers for last weekend where AP attendances were around 134k while Pro12 were around 46k, an average of 22.3k vs 7.7k.



Never sure why people from either side try to claim there league is better etc, but if Attendances are to be compared it should really be at the end of the season and over the entire season. Even then it is pretty meaningless.

Considering that Saracens got 80,000 in against Harlequins on Saturday in the Aviva, I don't think it matters. Sounds more like Northampton fans did not fancy their chances and Saracens could not shift the remainder quick enough.

Over the course of this season so far Aviva is averaging 13,314 vs 7,702 for Pro 12.

I think the Pro 12 is a more entertaining league but Zebre, Treviso and Edinburgh haul the figure down. Glasgow need to expand their stadium to at least 10k and Edinburgh need to move to a 6-8k seater for them to raise attendances. Ireland are doing well. Wales need to stop the infighting. Italy needs a bit of success. All are achievable in the short run without the English.

https://www.606v2.com/t62737p200-champions-cup-1-4-finals-9th-10th-april

Page 5 - attendances to the qf games was discussed there already. Yes Saracens always seem to have poor attendances at home (outside of the Wembley games) , but the other games had good crowds

The debt situation at Sarries is staggering. It will end in tears. Mark my words.

Hazel Sapling wrote:Wales need to stop the infighting

Explain ?

They claim to be talking about the Aviva Premiership then pick a crowd from the cup?

Saracens and Northampton crowds from the weekend (actual AP games) were 84,068 and 15,249 (sold out).

"If any of the Welsh pro entities – Cardiff Blues, Newport Gwent Dragons, Ospreys or Scarlets – were hosting Northampton in a last eight clash in the northern hemisphere gem, you’d expect them to better that figure."

The fact that Scarlets got 6,823 against Saints these season, beaten by every crowd we've been in except away games to Glasgow (Pro 12) and Sale, doesn't really support the 'would be better attended if they played a pro 12 team' theory.

LordDowlais wrote:

Hazel Sapling wrote:Wales need to stop the infighting

Explain ?

I am thinking the arguments of the not too distant past between the WRU and the regions. They have moved past it, for now. The start of central contracting should pay off over the next 3-5 years and Scarlets, on paper, look really good next year. This should feed into the crowds. Certainly Cardiff are starting to play decent rugby as well and Ospreys have a fight on their hands not to be 8th-9th next season.

Scottrf, think the Saracens crowd was 80,000 and something. I remember when they announced it, it did not beat the record set last year of 84,068. Admittedly they had at least 1000+ dancers and something called a "rock choir" (re: parents) that added several thousand. There were a hardcore support near the tunnel it sounded like. There were probably only 30-40k who really gave a damn about the game. Certainly not the people sat next to me .

Hazel Sapling wrote:I am thinking the arguments of the not too distant past between the WRU and the regions. They have moved past it, for now. The start of central contracting should pay off over the next 3-5 years and Scarlets, on paper, look really good next year. This should feed into the crowds. Certainly Cardiff are starting to play decent rugby as well and Ospreys have a fight on their hands not to be 8th-9th next season.

Well yes, that is all behind us now, thank god, which is why I questioned your reason for bringing it up. If anybody needs to worry next season it is the Irish provinces and perhaps Edinburgh. 

Cardiff Blues are splashing the cash, Scarlets look to have a good side, and any side with, AWJ, Lydiate, Rhys Webb, Dan Biggar to name but a few should be aiming for higher than 8th. Dragons will probably be above the two Italian sides though.

Another day, another crap Winkle envy article from the Walesonline copied, pasted and proudly waved on here...

yappysnap wrote:Another day, another crap Winkle envy article from the Walesonline copied, pasted and proudly waved on here...

by...

I couldn't possibly say...

LD, why do you always use walesonline as your 'source'?

It's like browsing Whizzer and Chips for the latest on the FTSE.

Cyril wrote:LD, why do you always use walesonline as your 'source'?

It's like browsing Whizzer and Chips for the latest on the FTSE.

?? .... ?   The world's bankers, investors, bond thieves and hedge fund managers have proven to us all that's exactly the source material they've used through the last decade....no?

And what's worse, it's an Andy Howell article.

Can someone do an analysis please of the crowd attendances in the PRO 12 for the four countries involved?

What teams get the biggest attendances, where are they from, etc?

Please post it on here in this article.

Thanks in advance.

Cyril wrote:LD, why do you always use walesonline as your 'source'?

It's like browsing Whizzer and Chips for the latest on the FTSE.

I get my news about financial stuff from my chip wrappers

Pot Hale wrote:Can someone do an analysis please of the crowd attendances in the PRO 12 for the four countries involved?

What teams get the biggest attendances, where are they from, etc?

Please post it on here in this article.

Thanks in advance.

I think the attached covers just 8 home games but gives some idea:

http://rugby.statbunker.com/competitions/HomeAttendance?comp_id=504

Cyril wrote:LD, why do you always use walesonline as your 'source'?

It's like browsing Whizzer and Chips for the latest on the FTSE.

I read the news, I find an article interesting, then I share it on here to create a conversation/debate. If everybody was like you, there would be no starting point on here. What source would you rather I use ?

I notice though LD, that yet again you ignore any comments that actually point out the "errors" in what you post.

LondonTiger wrote:I notice though LD, that yet again you ignore any comments that actually point out the "errors" in what you post.

What errors ? I am just quoting an article. FFS, why are there so many people with a chip on their shoulder on this forum, always trying to win the internet, why can't we just discuss rugby ?

Why can you not discuss, I might retort? You posted something, I show where your data may be faulty and you go silent. This follows your last thread where you accuse England of trying to poach a player that is already tied to Wales and when this was pointed out your reaction was - silence followed by changing the subject.

Not interested in "winning" an argument as that is impossible on the net.

Dowlais, if you use an article to start a discussion, and that article as bad, then you can expect people to comment on how bad the article is.

LordDowlais wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:I notice though LD, that yet again you ignore any comments that actually point out the "errors" in what you post.

What errors ? I am just quoting an article. FFS, why are there so many people with a chip on their shoulder on this forum, always trying to win the internet, why can't we just discuss rugby ?

Noble sentiment. Question is: Is Walesonline ever a good beginning?

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Dowlais, if you use an article to start a discussion, and that article as bad, then you can expect people to comment on how bad the article is.

Yes I agree, but why blame me for the errors in it ? It is just an easy way to attack the member and really shows the true colours of the person who is doing the attacking.

It's the same as the other article I started, I do not work for WOL and I am only discussing what they have said, but rather than discuss it, it is easier to have a go at me innit ? 

Well that's the V2 way I suppose.

Does anyone know of any links to tv viewing figures for pro12 or Jeff for this season? Or even european games? Would be interested to see if percieved drop offs in attendances are due to increased viewing figures on tv. BARB doesn't seem to give ability to filter to sport by week anymore.

Well if you're too thick to see through their bollox then you probably deserve the plaudits.

If I read similar dog turd, I wouldn't be describing it as "an interesting article" or using its content as fact to claim "England trying to poach a Welsh player"

LordDowlais wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Dowlais, if you use an article to start a discussion, and that article as bad, then you can expect people to comment on how bad the article is.

Yes I agree, but why blame me for the errors in it ? It is just an easy way to attack the member and really shows the true colours of the person who is doing the attacking.

It's the same as the other article I started, I do not work for WOL and I am only discussing what they have said, but rather than discuss it, it is easier to have a go at me innit ? 

Well that's the V2 way I suppose.

You parroted the otehr article without reading it, repeating inaccuracies and didn't bother to acknowledge or change it.

LondonTiger wrote:

Not interested in "winning" an argument as that is impossible on the net.

?

Disagree resolutely!

I have ten purple hearts from being wounded in battle but getting my victories in anyway Back shots are the best if you want to..... em, win..... Honour is dead men.....

See, and the above posts prove my point, BamBam, what a pillar of the community you must be.

Fir the record I do not just post articles from WOL, I use the rugby paper and others.

You can't exactly compare the two though, fans from the Pro 12 with the exception of the derbies have greater issues when it comes to travel. You think of the proximity of some of the AP teams to each other, 9 of the teams are within an area about the size of Wales that makes it a lot easier for away fans to travel to games.

The Italians aren't going to pick up huge away numbers, fans travelling to/from Ireland to Wales/Scotland have to get ferries or planes so there are challenges there.

LordDowlais wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Dowlais, if you use an article to start a discussion, and that article as bad, then you can expect people to comment on how bad the article is.

Yes I agree, but why blame me for the errors in it

You didn't post it with any suggestion that you thought it was faulty. Your comments suggested you thought the article made valid points. You aren't responsible for the article, but you are responsible for your views on the article.

I said it was interesting, I still do find it interesting, what is wrong with that ?

LordDowlais wrote:I said it was interesting, I still do find it interesting, what is wrong with that ?

You think it's interesting because it is right, or because it's wrong?

Rugby Fan wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:I said it was interesting, I still do find it interesting, what is wrong with that ?

You think it's interesting because it is right, or because it's wrong?

Because it can start a debate/conversation and get us all discussing rugby, well until the members with massive chips on their shoulders turn up and start insulting and trying to win the internet.

LordDowlais wrote:I said it was interesting, I still do find it interesting, what is wrong with that ?

Summarize the thing or put some commentary with it. Without any input from yourself all you are doing is implying that you share the WOL view (especially with all the changes in text size/ bold etc). Claiming innocence when people respond negatively then feels fake. Carrying out the same process several times with different stories that share a theme then starts to add up to WUM behaviour.

lostinwales wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:I said it was interesting, I still do find it interesting, what is wrong with that ?

Summarize the thing or put some commentary with it. Without any input from yourself all you are doing is implying that you share the WOL view (especially with all the changes in text size/ bold etc). Claiming innocence when people respond negatively then feels fake. Carrying out the same process several times with different stories that share a theme then starts to add up to WUM behaviour.

The change in font size is how I copied and pasted it FFS. I did not do that, it was like that in the article, I only copied and pasted it as people do not like clicking on the link and giving the media hits.

LordDowlais wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:I said it was interesting, I still do find it interesting, what is wrong with that ?

You think it's interesting because it is right, or because it's wrong?

Because it can start a debate/conversation and get us all discussing rugby, well until the members with massive chips on their shoulders turn up and start insulting and trying to win the internet.

It did start a conversation but you ran away from your end of it.

LordDowlais wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:I said it was interesting, I still do find it interesting, what is wrong with that ?

Summarize the thing or put some commentary with it. Without any input from yourself all you are doing is implying that you share the WOL view (especially with all the changes in text size/ bold etc). Claiming innocence when people respond negatively then feels fake. Carrying out the same process several times with different stories that share a theme then starts to add up to WUM behaviour.

The change in font size is how I copied and pasted it FFS. I did not do that, it was like that in the article, I only copied and pasted it as people do not like clicking on the link and giving the media hits.

Then you are still being naive or wumming. If I published an article which, say, was titled 'Rugby in Merthyr is corrupt' without saying anything else you'd get angry with me, and me turning up later to say that actually the article was a load of poop wouldn't make you feel any better about it.

Most of the response on here are sensible too, or though there are signs of things starting to deteriorate. Over reacting to the worst posts also indicates that maybe the shoulder chips lie closer to home

I am not over reacting at all. Please point out where I have over reacted. 

Also if you posted that article about Merthyr being corrupt, I would not have blamed you, I would have blamed whoever wrote the article.

LordDowlais wrote:I am not over reacting at all. Please point out where I have over reacted. 

Also if you posted that article about Merthyr being corrupt, I would not have blamed you, I would have blamed whoever wrote the article.

Or the Irish

LordDowlais wrote:See, and the above posts prove my point, BamBam, what a pillar of the community you must be.

Fir the record I do not just post articles from WOL, I use the rugby paper and others.

I read The Rugby Paper occasionally, but it's generally badly-researched opinion pieces just like walesonline.

Fun posts lads. Keep it up.

LondonTiger wrote:Now, I am sure that no-one here would ever make selective use of facts knowingly. Like taking a weekend from the Pro12 wehere the Irish and Welsh Clubs all played "derby" matches, and despite 16k at Ravenhill, the Aviva crowd was bigger than all the other 5 matches put together.

Quite surprised at the stats in the OP. According to this the average attendance in the Pro12 is 7,400 and Ulster are the only side to average over the figure cited.

http://rugby.statbunker.com/competitions/HomeAttendance?comp_id=504

LordDowlais wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:I notice though LD, that yet again you ignore any comments that actually point out the "errors" in what you post.

What errors ? I am just quoting an article. FFS, why are there so many people with a chip on their shoulder on this forum, always trying to win the internet, why can't we just discuss rugby ?

If you want to discuss an article like this, do not copy and paste it wholesale. Just provide a link to the site where you got it from. I often confuse your copy and pasted posts for your own original posts at first glance.

Everyone here is well capable of clicking on a link if they want to know more

I think a single snapshot between two leagues on one weekend is a little bit weak. Take the Stormers in SA, the best supported club in the world in terms of average attendance. They average about 38,000 for super rugby games but sometimes its near full capacity at 50,000 and sometimes it goes down to 23,000 especially with Friday night games and then there is the quality of the opposition and whether its a local derby or not.

I think the only thing you can get from this is how Sarries cannot market the game beyond 8,000 persons and how Northampton can't bring more than 700 away fans <100 miles for a KO European cup game.
Sarries doesn't have the history of a big club and prior to professionalism they were really a tier 2 club team in London behind Wasps and Harlequins. Buying fan loyalty seems like its a tricky business although as many say they with quins manage to sell what 80,000 tickets for a club game the week later.
I think that is more to do with rugby fans in England being less tribal than football with many simply rugby fans not necessarily quins or sarries fans.

One thing I would ask is how much are these games to attend, especially European cup games. If I recall matches to Quins about a decade ago wasn't cheap so I assume its the same nowadays. Rugby fans seem happy to pay £80 to go see England vs. Anyone but balk at paying £50 to see Sarries/Quins vs. the very best. It sort of tells you the state of the game in England; as in more aligned to the union then to the clubs? or at least in my opinion.

The strange thing is AUS for instance is often knocked for having a poorly supported game but they pull in 20,000 a week in Super Rugby. That's near 50% more than the AP.... yet England will sell out games at Twickenham to tier 1-2 countries every time whereas AUS will struggle if its not NZ or SA to fill capacity.

Notch wrote:Everyone here is well capable of clicking on a link if they want to know more 

I would do that, but then I get abuse for getting people to give the media source hits. I am in a no win situation.

Notch wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:Now, I am sure that no-one here would ever make selective use of facts knowingly. Like taking a weekend from the Pro12 wehere the Irish and Welsh Clubs all played "derby" matches, and despite 16k at Ravenhill, the Aviva crowd was bigger than all the other 5 matches put together.

Quite surprised at the stats in the OP. According to this the average attendance in the Pro12 is 7,400 and Ulster are the only side to average over the figure cited.

http://rugby.statbunker.com/competitions/HomeAttendance?comp_id=504

The numbers on statbunker aren't right for Ulster according to official figures, I know in the past there were games that were not included and I think they included Judgement Day totals too which can skew the averages etc

LordDowlais wrote:

Notch wrote:Everyone here is well capable of clicking on a link if they want to know more 

I would do that, but then I get abuse for getting people to give the media source hits. I am in a no win situation.

Oh? Give me the 606 sources for that declaration please.

marty2086 wrote:

Notch wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:Now, I am sure that no-one here would ever make selective use of facts knowingly. Like taking a weekend from the Pro12 wehere the Irish and Welsh Clubs all played "derby" matches, and despite 16k at Ravenhill, the Aviva crowd was bigger than all the other 5 matches put together.

Quite surprised at the stats in the OP. According to this the average attendance in the Pro12 is 7,400 and Ulster are the only side to average over the figure cited.

http://rugby.statbunker.com/competitions/HomeAttendance?comp_id=504

The numbers on statbunker aren't right for Ulster according to official figures, I know in the past there were games that were not included and I think they included Judgement Day totals too which can skew the averages etc

And then there is the whole debacle of how you measure attendance, is it seats sold, is it tickets scanned in at the gate, etc. Is a game a sell-out and if it is, did everyone show up? There are some franchises (especially in the US) that could be (possibly, potentially) selling all remaining tickets in the minutes before the start of games to a ticket-trading company that they may or may not be affiliated with in order to regularly declare their games a sell out [even though you can walk up to the gate 5 minutes into a game and still pay in!]. Use of season tickets in the attendance figures. The fact for years that Italian clubs had an even 5,000 at their games. How you take a double header into the calculation (80k tickets sold for 2 games, ticket covers both games, does the person who only rocks up to the second match get included in the first match, do you take the max number that could potentially be there, take half the number to be for your match?). It's a minefield.

Would be great to see the tv viewing figures. I was shocked with the poor viewing figures for champions league on bt sport reported back in february. Does poor soccer figures mean bt sport relies on rugby more? Should the Jeff be looking for more money?