The official published attendance last night was 73,156. I wonder when Trafford Council and GMP will get round to verifying this. Or maybe these sorts of games will be excluded from sampling because it skews the figures.
Media Thread - 2021/22
- Thread starter MAG
- Start date
- Status
bobbyowenquiff
Well-Known Member
Agreed. I just think all attendances at all clubs are lower than the actual tickets sold because there are usually lots of no-shows from season-ticket holders. I have been to recent Derby matches at Old Trafford where there have been rows of empty seats in the top tiers...presumably because tourists or corporates have not turned up. In the old days before all-seater stadia the figures were fiddled downwards to avoid paying tax. I always thought City under Swales were amongst the worst at doing this. My uncle (RIP) was in the 84,000 crowd at Maine Road in the 30s and always claimed the actual crowd was much bigger!
My late grandfather was also in that record crowd for the Stoke game in 1934. He also always insisted it was significantly bigger than the officially stated figure of 84,000-odd.
As for Peter Swales, when I started going to Maine Road in the mid-seventies. I remember they always used to announce the crowd over the tannoy in the second half, and it was far from uncommon for it to seem so outlandishly understated that people all around you would laugh at it. Roy Bailey, the ex-physio, posted on Twitter a few months ago that, in those days, the players were on a crowd bonus whenever gates topped 33,000 and as a result Swales would quite commonly have the attendance declared to be a suspiciously low figure just a bit below that.
PS - If anyone's interested in a comparison with our friends over in Stretford and what they did back in the day, they were the only club then that included season ticket holders who didn't turn up in the official crowd figure.
EDIT - The reason they did this was because they liked to be able to boast how big their support was.
Anyway, that's why the famous Wimbledon home game at the end of season 1988/9 had an official gate of a little over 23,000 when far fewer were in the ground. That actual number now seems to be cited as 19K, but I think that's wrong.
I'm pretty sure I recall the Evening News and a few of the dailies reporting that there were in fact around 15K in the ground. The reason I remember that specifically is because our lowest crowd for a home league game in my lifetime (and I'm in my fifties now) was and still is, at least for a game without Covid restrictions, the 15,172 that watched us against Reading on Easter Monday 1988. I gave out some stick to a few rag acquaintances of mine who used to brag about their attendances, telling them that, when the natives were restless, their core support was no bigger than ours.
EDIT - The reason they did this was because they liked to be able to boast how big their support was.
Anyway, that's why the famous Wimbledon home game at the end of season 1988/9 had an official gate of a little over 23,000 when far fewer were in the ground. That actual number now seems to be cited as 19K, but I think that's wrong.
I'm pretty sure I recall the Evening News and a few of the dailies reporting that there were in fact around 15K in the ground. The reason I remember that specifically is because our lowest crowd for a home league game in my lifetime (and I'm in my fifties now) was and still is, at least for a game without Covid restrictions, the 15,172 that watched us against Reading on Easter Monday 1988. I gave out some stick to a few rag acquaintances of mine who used to brag about their attendances, telling them that, when the natives were restless, their core support was no bigger than ours.
Hoghead
Well-Known Member
BBC web page - of the 9 story headlines, 5 are about the rags. Cunts.
andyhinch
Well-Known Member
York away was laughably recorded at about 7.5k when we know there were more than 250k there :-)
Onholiday(somemightsay)
Well-Known Member
We've trimmed it down now..........?
Doctor Jimmy and Mr Jim
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 13 Jul 2020
- Messages
- 448
- Team supported
- Manchester City
I assume you're talking about her lamb.....
Spanishbob
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2020
- Messages
- 1,450
- Team supported
- Manchester City
When at maine rd early 70s couldn’t get my head round the attendances stated(by swales) when I couldn’t even turn round to my mate we were that bunched up. The one game that comes to mind was 45000 when it must have been north of 60000.
HelloCity
Well-Known Member
Funny how no one ever posts this one, event though it's 5 years more recent.
Are clubs giving the full picture on attendances?
Arsenal's official attendance figures have often been questioned, but Manchester City and West Ham are among other clubs whose published figures differ from police and council numbers.www.bbc.co.uk
- West Ham: Newham council says the average attendance at West Ham was 42,779 based on the 12 games it attended - which is 12,530 fans fewer than the club's season average figure of 55,309.
- Manchester City: Greater Manchester Police's average figures were 7,482 lower than club figures, again based on 12 games.
- Southampton: Hampshire Police figures were an average of 4,246 fans lower than figures issued by the club.
- Tottenham: Brent Council says crowds at Wembley Stadium were on average 3,740 less than the club's stated numbers.
- Chelsea: Hammersmith and Fulham council says its average was 3,505 fans lower than club numbers, based on six games.
- Watford: Hertfordshire Police says its average was 2,602 fans fewer than club figures, based on four games.
- Manchester United: Trafford Council and Greater Manchester Police both said United's published attendance figures matched its own, based on 12 games.
That’s because it’s complete bollocks.
United claimed 74k were there against Bournemouth, the game delayed several days due to the bomb scare, when the ground was over half empty.
They do tickets sold just like everyone else despite claims from elsewhere.
Fiftyyearsandcounting
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 25 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 2,369
BBC website has a full page article on Zidane Iqbal. The claim is he's "Making history", though it took some drilling down to achieve that headline.
The first Asian to play in the Champions League.
Make it the first British born of Asian parents - still no.
Make it the first British born of SOUTH Asian parents - still no
Make it the first British born of South Asian parents to play in the Champions League - still no
Make it the first British Born South Asian Player to play in the Champions League for UNITED - HISTORY IS MADE!!!
The first Asian to play in the Champions League.
Make it the first British born of Asian parents - still no.
Make it the first British born of SOUTH Asian parents - still no
Make it the first British born of South Asian parents to play in the Champions League - still no
Make it the first British Born South Asian Player to play in the Champions League for UNITED - HISTORY IS MADE!!!
Again this is just mindlessly hating on a story because United feature in it. It means a lot to a large population of the country that doesn't see anyone like them represented in the game and has to constantly get told the reason is because they like cricket too much or their parents wouldn't let them.
The story could have been written about United or City or Chelsea or Arsenal or Spurs because AFAIK we've not had any prominent British South Asian players. Its so rare that Hamza Choudhury got dozens and dozens of articles written about him just for featuring in a PL games.
Its a nice story for a massive group of football fans, you dont have to hate absolutely every story because it has a link to United.
Last edited:
This really doesn't prove what you think it does, but you seem desperate to misinterpret it.
We know United (like every club) report tickets sold. We know the day after a game was postponed the attendance was lower than that.
Wow, what a smoking gun! They're just like every other club?
How many rounds of tea and toast you think you'd get for the price of one Fred?
tolmie's hairdoo
Well-Known Member
Depends how hungry Luke Shaw is on any given day ;)
remember arthur mann
Well-Known Member
Noticed the rags brought the kids on when things took a downturn in the match, ready made excuse.
Do those people not get angry at that? They are the self described richest club in the world, we know they dont have money problems, doesn't anyone want to leak it to some journo on twitter?
Especially in the end days of OGS' time the papers loved a bit of "this is how far United have fallen" colour in their pieces after a defeat.
People were begging for Pep to bring the kids on when we were losing 2-0 to Leipzig?
tolmie's hairdoo
Well-Known Member
They do leak, which is why I know, I've written plenty in past, but sometimes you hit the desks and a brick wall, as they need to maintain a relationship to a club that still gives them most bang for their buck, sadly.
They have lost 40 per cent in some departments at Carrington in last 12 months, people just walking because of how poorly they are run.
The training ground needs major investment and they are literally just covering over the cracks.
The work force at Carrington are classed as non-important personnel on signs situated everywhere.
Imagine how they feel seeing that, having worked in bubbles and Covid!!
HelloCity
Well-Known Member
Strange response. This is more about the BBC and their reporting than about United’s actions.
The article is clearly complete bollocks and has been proven to be so. I’m sure @tolmie's hairdoo has said similar. I guess the point I’m making is that the article was written to show certain clubs (City) got lower attendances than stated but United’s figures were of course accurate (when they aren’t).
I’ve seen this article referenced several times on social media as proof United give actual attendance figures and City don’t.
Manchester United: Trafford Council and Greater Manchester Police both said United's published attendance figures matched its own, based on 12 games.
Last edited:
- Status