Media Thread - 2021/22

Status
Not open for further replies.
Funny how no one ever posts this one, event though it's 5 years more recent.


  • 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.
No one mentions the more recent one reference GMP Police and Trafford Council reporting of crowd figures matching united’s as that last paragraph is absolute pure nonsense from them, I can only think they did not have the figures to hand and/or just plain lied.

Not a chance united or any team in the league would have matching attendance figures from their respective Police forces to their own, as you and everyone knows there are always no shows and people who don’t attend a particular game for whatever reason, so that indisputable fact negates anything said in that paragraph, in short it’s complete bollocks.

Not to mention united have their cup scheme in operation and there are sometimes 10,000 + non-attendees for those games.

united are the largest supported club in the country attendance and otherwise, but to say their published figures match GMP is just nonsense.
GMP as proven by local and national overseers of that particular organisation are not to be trusted with any of their respective figures published on anything they touch.

As for Trafford Council, as someone who has had contact with them, I assure you they may not be populated with the most punctilious types.
 
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.

Based on 12 games.
 
The anatomy of a BlueMoon disagreement.

This little argument seems to have stemmed from someone questioning United's published crowd against Young Boys of almost 74k, when we could all see swathes of empty seats at the ground. It was pointed out that clubs need to know actual attendance for H&S reasons, and a FOI request revealed that there were fewer than 36k attending against Cluj in 2012, when United gave an official attendance of 71,521.

Further evidence of misleading crowd reporting by United was presented by way of a 2013 article in The Guardian that confirmed United inflate their crowd figures by as much as 24k per game. So far, so good. We are all agreed that United inflate their crowd numbers.

Then someone threw in a curve ball by way of a BBC article from 2018, and questioned why we City fans ignore the more recent article. The BBC article said: "Manchester United: Trafford Council and Greater Manchester Police both said United's published attendance figures matched its own, based on 12 games."

So it appears from this that most City fans agree that United are inflating their crowds. But one City fan seems to accept more recent evidence, where Trafford MBC and GMP both agree that United's published figured are accurate.

This was then challenged with evidence from United v Bournemouth where United claimed a crowd of 74,363, but the same BBC article that reported this crowd also said the game was played at a sparsely populated Old Trafford, after the original game was postponed due to a bomb scare.

The challenge was then rebutted with the following statement:

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?

Well, it proved that United's published crowd numbers weren't accurate, and it disproved the BBC article that said they were. I think that was what we were all trying to demonstrate in the first place. Nobody ever said that other clubs weren't also in the habit of reporting ticket sales.

So what's with the "smoking gun" comment? It looks like an unnecessary attempt to ridicule a fellow Blue, by someone who has just contradicted themself, or at the very least backtracked on an earlier opinion.
 
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.

Who said anything about hate? You have misconstrued the point I was making with your sanctimonious lecturing. Good luck to the lad, I hope he fares well, It's the BBC journalists I was satirizing for suggesting it's only history when you play for United.
 
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.


you can write a nice story without claiming it to be historical, that’s what gets the goat when the media talks about Rags & Dippers.

I didn’t see the comment filled with hate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.