Attendances - an obsevation, not a gripe

Really it dosn't make a whole deal of difference one way or another. Bean counters will decide if a profit or a loss is being made and it's up to owners if they want to continue to fund the enterprise.

But I was watching the Sarries v Exeter game on the telly and there was clearly spare seats in the stand and the end to the right of the camera was less than packed.

The Allianz park has as I understand a max capacity of 10000 with a temporary stand agreement to expand to 15000 so maybe the additional stands were in place.

Yet I read this on espn http://www.espnscrum.com/premiership-2012-13/rugby/match/166552.html
Aviva Premiership points Saracens 5 (1 try bonus), Exeter Chiefs 0

Ground name Copthall Stadium, London
Attendance 9997

There were reports on the telly and stuff of sell-outs which were clearly wide of the mark.

I understand why clubs may inflate their actual attendances by treating ST holders as a base figure, but what benefit is there in just firing off an inflated figure? Maybe Wray and his pals had just sold all but three of their STs.

Why do clubs just feign attendances? Who's fooled and who's impressed?
If Sarries had called a more realistic attendance of 8,500 I wouldn't have bothered posting but I need to educated in why clubs inflate their attendances as HMRC are no thicker than I.

Educate me.

At tigers when the match is sold out they report an attendance of 24,000. That is the number of seats they have sold (and standing tiockets) but they will never have every ticket holder attending. So it is not the attendance - but HMRC do not care as it is the number of tickets sold.

When they do not have a sell out - then they count the number of people through the turnstiles - in the reported attendance.

As far as I know this is common practice across all sports.

Observation, not obsevation - though I do like the irony.

Clearly spare seats? Where? I went to the game and didn't see spare seats. It looked pretty packed to me. Admittedly I didn't have the benefit of the TV camera to spot the empty seats like you evidently did.

Also remember there's a difference between seats sold and seats taken.

It's always a gripe where you are concerned.

I think its for sponsorship rather than tax.

If they are looking for a new sponsor or to keep a current one, its better the say they have 10,000 average people at thier ground, who would see the sponsorship rather than 8,500.

If you can market the product to a bigger crowd you should be able to attract/keep happy better sponsors.

Kingshu wrote:I think its for sponsorship rather than tax.

If they are looking for a new sponsor or to keep a current one, its better the say they have 10,000 average people at thier ground, who would see the sponsorship rather than 8,500.

If you can market the product to a bigger crowd you should be able to attract/keep happy better sponsors.

Hmm. Anyone who watched this match or a Tigers or any other game in a bog-standard Jeff/LW - even HEC v a minor side can see that most actual attendances are based on ST sales plus game day tickets.

It's as transparent as an X-Factor* sob-story that the truth and the reality are different.

*Have to declare that I don't watch X-Factor.

Both Italian teams almost always have attendances that are round 100 numbers, I am guessing that they just round up (or down).

I was at the recent Zebre v Glasgow game and the crowd is being reported as exactly 1,000. If there were 350 actually at the game, I would be amazed.

I also think they include tickets sold in addition to those who actually turn up.

For example I've missed two Edinburgh Rabo games this season, but as a season ticket holder I suspect I'm counted as an attendee regardless.

What are they going to do, check the toilets to see if youre in there? of course its based on tickets sold (including junkets)

Dont forget all the groupies who are hanging out in the Tigers changing room to get their hands on George Chuter as well.

Well you still have to have your ticket scanned when you go in each time, so I don't think it's an unreasonable idea that they might have an automated system in place based on who goes through the turnstiles each week, rather than simply count the number of tickets purchased.

When it is a sellout they report it as 24k just to make the point loud and clear - We Sold Out.

Other than that as I said earlier they only count the people through the turnstiles.

I have seen a document from a Jeff club, not Glaws I hasten to add, that had two columns one was actual attendance and the other was reported attendance. In all bar one occasion the actual was less than the reported figure. It did not state on the document why there are two figures, but I was led to believe it was for tax purposes. Avoidance/evasion

How would reporting a higher attendance create a lower tax bill? Surely the tax man would go "hang on sonny-jim, you claim to have had 15000 through the door but are only showing receipts for 14000, where are you hiding the dosh?"

LondonTiger wrote:How would reporting a higher attendance create a lower tax bill? Surely the tax man would go "hang on sonny-jim, you claim to have had 15000 through the door but are only showing receipts for 14000, where are you hiding the dosh?"

That was my view at the time, but I was reliably informed for whatever reason it helped reduce tax. As a wild stab in the dark, does a higher average attendance require greater police and ambulance support but with that comes higher tax relief?

I wouldn't imagine so HKC.

If you have a stand open for a game, regardless of pre sale of tickets you must have the requisite number of stewards, ambulance, police etc to police it should it be full, as you cannot guarantee not filling it with walk ups. It is the reason that at Irish we only open the North Stand if the other three have sold out (rarely).

beshocked wrote:Observation, not obsevation - though I do like the irony.

Clearly spare seats? Where? I went to the game and didn't see spare seats. It looked pretty packed to me. Admittedly I didn't have the benefit of the TV camera to spot the empty seats like you evidently did.

Also remember there's a difference between seats sold and seats taken.

It's always a gripe where you are concerned.

I watched it on the TV, there were lots of empty seats (or there appeared to be anyway).

Incidentally, I quite like the artificial pitch and clearly the players do too. But Copthill still looked like it wlways was, a crappy, windy old athletics stadium, with half the seating far enough away from the pitch that you'd need binos to see any action. Is it finished yet, or are there plans to join up the cow sheds that are in place at the moment?

Did not see it so cannot make a sensible comment but:

Of course the seats were empty, the fans were on their feet singing that damned song.

LondonTiger wrote:Did not see it so cannot make a sensible comment but:

Of course the seats were empty, the fans (all 6000 of them) were on their feet singing that damned song.

Fixed it for you

Wasn't the 9997 simply a reference to the number of South Africans Sarries have on their books....

funnyExiledScot wrote:Wasn't the 9997 simply a reference to the number of South Africans Sarries have on their books....

No, its what Botha is worth in Rand.

beshocked wrote:Observation, not obsevation - though I do like the irony.

Clearly spare seats? Where? I went to the game and didn't see spare seats. It looked pretty packed to me. Admittedly I didn't have the benefit of the TV camera to spot the empty seats like you evidently did.

Also remember there's a difference between seats sold and seats taken.

It's always a gripe where you are concerned.

they were pretty easy to spot Beshocked

Leinster used to do this sort of nonsense - including all 13,000 season ticket holders in the attendance whether or not they turned up. Lots of times they would report an attendance of 15,000-16,000 when it was clear as day that the RDS had barely 10,000 or fewer in the ground. They've given up that now, I think, and are reporting the actual number oif bums on seats.

brennomac wrote:Leinster used to do this sort of nonsense - including all 13,000 season ticket holders in the attendance whether or not they turned up. Lots of times they would report an attendance of 15,000-16,000 when it was clear as day that the RDS had barely 10,000 or fewer in the ground. They've given up that now, I think, and are reporting the actual number oif bums on seats.

to be fair to all teams, I think it's the norm to announced tickets sold, it's always going to be higher than bums on seats.

And what happens when STHs contact the club to say they won't be attending a particular game and the club can sell tickets for their seats?

BS can you try and contact Dr Venter and ask his opinions on the number of bums on seats at Welford Road?

brennomac wrote:Leinster used to do this sort of nonsense - including all 13,000 season ticket holders in the attendance whether or not they turned up. Lots of times they would report an attendance of 15,000-16,000 when it was clear as day that the RDS had barely 10,000 or fewer in the ground. They've given up that now, I think, and are reporting the actual number oif bums on seats.

They still do it Bren afaik.

If no one turned up for a game in the RDS they would have an attendance over 13000.

They obviously know the real amount as they scan all tickets.

I think there is a "health & Safety" (read actual) figure for insurance purposes. And a tickets sold figure (for sponsors and media)

For example if you have a child under 2 or 3 (whatever the limit is to get in free) you are supposed to pick up a (free) ticket for them to be scanned in. For H & S purposes.

In the 2nd figure your ST is reported as attended regardless of whether it has been re sold. In the first figure it is only reported when scanned.

As far as I know the Ospreys use actual turnstile clicks to get their attendance.

Though if they assumed every season ticket holder attended every game + tickets sold for the specific game the attendance would be much higher. Probably closer to 9,000, not 5,500.