:ik3obbr0

Don't you worry Graham. I know what you mean. No one saw or heard anything. It never happened ok?

and neither have you!

You are making judgements on your own bias, there are contradictions in you claiming that you can tell one crowd had a difference but somebody claiming that it didn't look like 3,055 is ludicrous. I've pointed out examples of clubs that admit falsifying figures and then given examples of how it can happen (Halifax's last game of the season in 2010). It's not lying so much as including people that didn't attend.

There are two Crusaders boards, I'd say the one on the Wrexham forum is the busier. If I want to know anything about them I'm more likely to go there than the proboards site. Inevitably they won't have taken many fans from the south and the majority of paying attendees will also be Wrexham fans.

Salford are not well liked at all and if people suspected they were over-egging their crowds people would be on it like a shop. I didn't say that I know for 100% it was wrong but it certainly didn't look like 3,000. As ever though anybody who suggests it must have an agenda.

You're pathetic. There is a world of difference between an estimate 1000 out in a game that had 8500 there and being 1500 out of a game that had 3000 there. I'll show you where an informed estimate comes from in my next post. What you don't realise is that 1000 out is a pretty good effort, I could have said 100, I could have said 60,000 but based on prior knowledge I got within a few per cent of the real figure.

I was watching the game and was shocked by how few were on the camera side. I therefore presumed that they were on the other side, which a subsequent angle proved that they clearly weren't. I then tweeted about it, which a few others also did. It's hardly a gift for remembering different angles. The TV shows 3 sides pretty often in a match.

OK here goes, a little justification for all those being ridiculed by the usual apologists. You made me do it!

Basically the capacity of the 3 sides of Wrexham's stadium is 10,500ish. This means that on average the 3 stands at the Cru game would need to be roughly just under a third full. Let's look at the travelling support based on the Super League show cameras,



It would be very generous to see this as nearly a third.




This was the TV side. This is nowhere near a third full.

If the popular side was off the camera then it could make up for it. It was pretty hard to get a picture of this side from the BBC but I clipped 2 that show the reality of it.




Once again, not even close to a third full in my opinion.

I've no doubt that you'll still argue until you're blue in the face that these do constitute a third of the seats in each of the stand but you're being dishonest if you do.

Don't know about you squire, but I pay my 15 notes to watch the game, not count empty seats

Go on Mike!

you werent a thousand out, you gave yourself a margin of error of a thousand, and were still 500 out. To claim credit on the basis it was more accurate than a guess of between 100 and 60'000 is hilarious. I could have guessed at the crowd being between 6k and 9k before the game had even kicked off.

So on only seeing three sides now, you can estimate, with such accuracy as to disprove official figures which were a thousand away from your estimate, the attendance at a stadium. Your evidence for this is that in a crowd of 8500 you couldnt, with any accuracy, estimate the crowd of a televised game to within a thousand.

You're just embarrassing yourself now. You have shown part of three stands and guessed at how many people are in each of them. Well done. You admit yourself that 'it was pretty hard to get a picture' of one of the stands and you have only succeeded in getting a picture of about a quarter of it. So now your guess is no longer based on seeing three stands, but seeing two and a quarter stands. Similarly the other two pictures also miss out roughly a quarter of the stand. So in fact out of three stands we can only see 1 and 3/4ers of a stand. Or roughly half the open stadium. We cant see the people at the toilets and in the bar at the exact moment these pictures were filmed nor can we even see the entire stadium.

With the information available could we make a rough estimate of the amount of people there? Yes, we can make a rough estimate of whatever we like.

With the information available should our rough estimate be held at the same level as publicly released figures? No, only a complete moron would do that.

1,156...I counted them and actually spotted my old match teacher in the second picture

That and he's misinformed. Look at the Leeds 'sellout' and note empty sections other than the terracing. The 10,500 includes parts of the seating that arent used too due to policing and whatnot, now try again

Good effort with those screenshots!

Get one of the Sky Sports big screen during the same match and check out the amount of weeds growing out of the crumbling brick steps in front of it.

The Wrexham ground staff might be a bit strapped for cash but a bit of roundup weedkiller wouldn't go amiss.

After 140 years you are pulling 6,000? Your not exactly putting up a strong case mate!

Seen as you seem convinced the 3000 attendance is incorrect, could you please give a figure for the number of people in each of the stands. Thanks

Double post

Eric Roberts stand (away fans behind the posts and a generous estimate of 500) holds around two thousand, so your 1/3 each argument is shot for a start or do you think that the stand along the width of the pitch holds the same as the stand along the length? So that means you have to count 2500 in the two remaining stands and find Wally while you're at it.

Strange... I didn't see the game but from the pics there looks to be around 2500-3000 there. What is the debate here?

You have just answered your own question.

Quote ="Shoe Shine Johnny"Strange... I didn't see the game but from the pics there looks to be around 2500-3000 there. What is the debate here? '" Its flatcappers getting desperate trying to pin anything on Crusaders to try and justify why Wakefield should get a licence ahead of them For further reading on the subject, see here, viewtopic.php?f=33&t=501245

Quote ="Shoe Shine Johnny"Strange... I didn't see the game but from the pics there looks to be around 2500-3000 there. What is the debate here? '" Its flatcappers getting desperate trying to pin anything on Crusaders to try and justify why Wakefield should get a licence ahead of them For further reading on the subject, see here, viewtopic.php?f=33&t=501245

Quote ="Toulouse for super L"Its flatcappers getting desperate trying to pin anything on Crusaders to try and justify why Wakefield should get a licence ahead of them For further reading on the subject, see here, viewtopic.php?f=33&t=501245'" You would actually have a valid point. If it weren't for you being a troll. Bad luck.

Quote ="Toulouse for super L"Its flatcappers getting desperate trying to pin anything on Crusaders to try and justify why Wakefield should get a licence ahead of them For further reading on the subject, see here, viewtopic.php?f=33&t=501245'" You would actually have a valid point. If it weren't for you being a troll. Bad luck.

How can anyone possibly work out if the attendance figures are correct without showing a picture of the Mold Road Stand? There were a fair few Castleford fans as well as the Crusaders regulars and season ticket holders in this stand?

So, this thread has degenerated into an argument into whether the crowd was 1,500, 2,000, 3000, maybe a few more.

However, could someone explain to me how a S.L club can manage financially on such low crowds?

I’m sure there are a number of players on relatively small contracts, but, quite a few will be on decent money.

Are we to believe that if the Crusaders average around 4000 supporters the club can break even?

If so, big congratulations must go to the BOD, to manage on such a small income from attendances.

If however they are losing money, who will pick up the tab, ala some clubs Sugar Daddy's

4500 isnt it? Their wage bill is nominal and their ticket prices are high, the corporate stuff is very well priced so to be honest, I reckon thats where they make a lot of takings

Crusaders or Quins?

Crusaders. Quins lose about 2 million a year