Empowering the SMISA Membership to begin building for the future now.

[bazil85]

11 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:

The crowd against rangers this season (13/11/18) was 6,033 on a Saturday lunchtime.

The previous time we played them at St. Mirren Park (1/5/16), also a Saturday lunchtime and crowd was 5,933.

No calculator required to tell me there wasn't 1500 extra fans at this seasons game.

Source : Wikipedia

 

At that time, likely the shocking run of form and hangover from Stubbs. If you think it is due to us giving them two stands and fans staying away, it would surely have to be consistent in the two games against Celtic. It is not, I have evidenced home crowds weren't down when compared to other games played at similar times. (Killie, St Johnstone and Motherwell) 

[bazil85]

7 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:

The total crowd against celtic last week was 6597.
If you are suggesting the home attendance was similar to your quoted figures, that would suggest only around 2000 visiting fans. Not sure how that can be the case if you also claim 1500 extra visiting vans due to them having family stand.

Roughly 3,000 Celtic fans so roughly 3,500 St Mirren fans. Given the away crowds Killie and Motherwell took (both large due to their form) the home crowds must have been roughly the same. 

[BuddieinEK]

Easily buy a couple of players?

Of Stubbs quality?

Show the maths!

Mistake, lie, misdirection, calculated decision to go back on what he said! 

Any difference?
 
Well actually I think you'll find this is the  point where the conversation turned to the bigot brothers and their tickets. Will you now finally admit you're wrong and the conversation DID NOT start with W6/7? It's in black and white I was talking about the difference in one stand to two. It's on page 7 if you want to go back and look for yourself.
No doubt you'll be the one moving goalposts to worm your way out of this one... 

YOU raised the point of one stand.

YOU just proved it.

YOU are the only person discussing it as it is totally irrelevant! [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23]

[Bud the Baker]

26 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Roughly 3,000 Celtic fans so roughly 3,500 St Mirren fans. Given the away crowds Killie and Motherwell took (both large due to their form) the home crowds must have been roughly the same. 

You'll need do a bit better than that i.e. the precise splits. 

IIRC the away crowd last week was announced as 3246 (certainly over 3200 that leaves 3350 Saints) and given we were into BST last week with better weather than the Killie & Motherwell games and the added benefit of school holidays I'd have been hoping for less of a drop off particularly in young fans - I don't recall seeing many!  

**************************

Compare the two Celtic home games this season

Season 2018/19

Celtic (game 1) - 7288

Celtic (game 2) - 6597

The away ends were pretty full both times so I'd say the drop (691) were Saints fans who attended OKs first game in charge but did not want to attend a routine OF game. Like I said each game has unique circumstances so you'll need to do more than rough guesses, one of which I know to be dodgy - like I said the precise splits

Edited April 8, 2019 by Bud the Baker

[Bud the Baker]

 

Edited April 8, 2019 by Bud the Baker

[Guest TPAFKATS]

At that time, likely the shocking run of form and hangover from Stubbs. If you think it is due to us giving them two stands and fans staying away, it would surely have to be consistent in the two games against Celtic. It is not, I have evidenced home crowds weren't down when compared to other games played at similar times. (Killie, St Johnstone and Motherwell) 

Stubbs 🤣 you do realise the first celtic game was earlier in the season when Stubbs had just been bagged?

What have you evidenced about home crowds?

[bazil85]

9 hours ago, Bud the Baker said:

You'll need do a bit better than that i.e. the precise splits. 

IIRC the away crowd last week was announced as 3246 (certainly over 3200 that leaves 3350 Saints) and given we were into BST last week with better weather than the Killie & Motherwell games and the added benefit of school holidays I'd have been hoping for less of a drop off particularly in young fans - I don't recall seeing many!  

**************************

Compare the two Celtic home games this season

Season 2018/19

Celtic (game 1) - 7288

Celtic (game 2) - 6597

The away ends were pretty full both times so I'd say the drop (691) were Saints fans who attended OKs first game in charge but did not want to attend a routine OF game. Like I said each game has unique circumstances so you'll need to do more than rough guesses, one of which I know to be dodgy - like I said the precise splits

There will be many variables at each game. If fan numbers were down specifically because of the decision to give two stands then we’d be able to see much more consistency in the dip in numbers. (As in each game is down by X fans compared to similar ones) 

we dont see this across the games. The stuff you have all mentioned is actually evidence for my point that we don’t see a considerable drop off. (Certainly not close to enough for it not to be profitable) we likely see a small amount but factors including the likeliness we could get pumped will also be part of it. 

[bazil85]

10 hours ago, TPAFKATS said:

The total crowd against celtic last week was 6597.

If you are suggesting the home attendance was similar to your quoted figures for those other games, that would suggest only around 2000 visiting fans. Not sure how that can be the case if you also claim 1500 extra visiting fans due to them having family stand.

 

Not at all, Killie probably took over 1,000 away fans and Motherwell there abouts. They were on the back of a five game unbeaten streak. That would result in our home crowd being similar. 

As I have said before, I’m not suggesting our home crowds don’t go down for these games (they also do for mid week games). I’m saying it isn’t considerable or to a level where this costs us money. In GLS statement when he announced this, he said that generally we see a dip in young/ family fans at these games anyway which was part of why the decision was made. People can argue that our crowds dip during these games but have to accept there is a number of factors and a dip against the bigot brothers has been the norm or they can just call our chairman a liar. 

The fact of the matter is, season ticket sales are up, crowds are up and we have in the region of an extra 4,500 away fans paying money this season (compared to if we only gave them one stand) people can argue on that all they want but those be the facts. 

[bazil85]

10 hours ago, BuddieinEK said:

YOU raised the point of one stand.

YOU just proved it.

YOU are the only person discussing it as it is totally irrelevant!

But you agree you were wrong that the initial point was about W6/7 since what I quoted was when this thread first turned to Celtic and Rangers? Or are you not a big enough person to admit you were wrong in that claim? 

[bazil85]

9 hours ago, TPAFKATS said:

Stubbs you do realise the first celtic game was earlier in the season when Stubbs had just been bagged?

What have you evidenced about home crowds?

You mean OK first game in charge?  what a shocker of a comeback haha

season ticket sales are up, home crowd numbers are up over the season. So what I’ve evidenced is in the grand scheme this decision hasn’t lowered home crowds. Yes we see a dip in these games but as GLS said at the time, we see a natural dip in these games with families and young fans staying away. So you can call him a liar on that or accept there is a number or factors not just the two stands. 

What people are doing on here are asking me to provide an impossibility where I give every single detailed factor to why fans were or weren’t at different games. It proves without doubt they are looking at it from a bias perspective when I am simply dealing in numbers and educated assessments. 

[Bud the Baker]

1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

1There will be many variables at each game. If fan numbers were down specifically because of the decision to give two stands then we’d be able to see much more consistency in the dip in numbers. (As in each game is down by X fans compared to similar ones) 

we dont see this across the games. The stuff you have all mentioned is actually evidence for my point that we don’t see a considerable drop off. (Certainly not close to enough for it not to be profitable) we likely see a small amount but factors including the likeliness we could get pumped will also be part of it. 

 

No matter how many times you deny it we have seen a noticeable drop in home support for the OF games which most posters consider to be linked to giving them the Family Stand, and you haven't given any substantial evidence to counter this - only guesses. IMO oaksoft has given actual figures that show the money banked for may not be that substantial. What is undeniable is giving them the Family Stand makes for a poisonous atmosphere and I certainly won't be back while the policy continues. 

 

Your policy of outposting anyone who disagrees with you won't change any of the above.

Edited April 9, 2019 by Bud the Baker

[BuddieinEK]

Not at all, Killie probably took over 1,000 away fans and Motherwell there abouts. They were on the back of a five game unbeaten streak. That would result in our home crowd being similar. 
As I have said before, I’m not suggesting our home crowds don’t go down for these games (they also do for mid week games). I’m saying it isn’t considerable or to a level where this costs us money. In GLS statement when he announced this, he said that generally we see a dip in young/ family fans at these games anyway which was part of why the decision was made. People can argue that our crowds dip during these games but have to accept there is a number of factors and a dip against the bigot brothers has been the norm or they can just call our chairman a liar. 
The fact of the matter is, season ticket sales are up, crowds are up and we have in the region of an extra 4,500 away fans paying money this season (compared to if we only gave them one stand) people can argue on that all they want but those be the facts. 

We were NEVER and HAVE NEVER given them only one stand in the new stadium.

What is hard to understand?

Your whole argument is complete flawed, null and void as it is based on fantasy!

[BuddieinEK]

But you agree you were wrong that the initial point was about W6/7 since what I quoted was when this thread first turned to Celtic and Rangers? Or are you not a big enough person to admit you were wrong in that claim? 

Nope.
The whole debate has always been about the additional profit generated by the current set up over previous arrangements.

Only you have created some weird diversionary tactic to try and justify your flawed numbers and failing argument.

[bazil85]

9 minutes ago, Bud the Baker said:

 

No matter how many times you deny it we have seen a noticeable drop in home support for the OF games which most posters consider to be linked to giving them the Family Stand, and you haven't given any substantial evidence to counter this - only guesses. IMO oaksoft has given actual figures that show the money banked for may not be that substantial. What is undeniable is giving them the Family Stand makes for a poisonous atmosphere and I certainly won't be back while the policy continues. 

 

Your policy of outposting anyone who disagrees with you won't change any of the above.

GLS has stated we see a dip anyway when playing these clubs, are you saying that’s false? I have not denied it once, I have no doubt there will be a bit of a dip that’s partly due to the arrangement. It isn’t perfect and no one is claiming it is. My point is it generates significant income. It always has been. Season tickets up, home crowds up over the season as a whole proves my point that even with a slight dip this isn’t greatly impacting crowds overal  

What oakfield has shown is crowd vs crowd comparison from four seasons ago. The actual relevant figures are the away numbers. Even you have admitted this is the case by listing a number of other factors that impact crowd numbers. Are you now going back on that and saying giving them two stands is the one and only factor? 

The reason his comparison completely falls down is because there were less home fans at the Rangers game than the two Celtic games. If the only factor was the two stands, we would not see such a difference. Clear evidence of other factors which again you have admitted to. 

[bazil85]

6 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:

We were NEVER and HAVE NEVER given them only one stand in the new stadium.

What is hard to understand?

Your whole argument is complete flawed, null and void as it is based on fantasy!

Again, (I really can’t make this any simpler for you) regardless of your opinion that one stand was impossible and W6/7 was possible (I think suggesting that would happen this year was the fantasy and GLS comment backs it up saying because of the singing section they were looking at other options) , I AM ALLOWED A DIFFERENT OPINION. I know that pains you but I’m allowed. 

I was only ever comparing two stands vs one and I have shown you my first post to confirm that’s what I was talking about. Are you not man enough to admit you were wrong and I was never referencing W6/7 even after showing you the first post?

That was when the subject changed to Rangers and Celtic, there was no chat before that about W6/7 like you wrongly claimed. 

[bazil85]

11 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:

Nope.
The whole debate has always been about the additional profit generated by the current set up over previous arrangements.

Only you have created some weird diversionary tactic to try and justify your flawed numbers and failing argument.

See below and look at page 7. This is when the debate changed from the members vote a week past Saturday to the Rangers Celtic debate. Not one mention of W6/7 but a clear message from me regarding one/ two stands. Will you now finally be man enough to admit you were wrong and it was nothing to do with that? 

[BuddieinEK]

Again, (I really can’t make this any simpler for you) regardless of your opinion that one stand was impossible and W6/7 was possible (I think suggesting that would happen this year was the fantasy and GLS comment backs it up saying because of the singing section they were looking at other options) , I AM ALLOWED A DIFFERENT OPINION. I know that pains you but I’m allowed. 
I was only ever comparing two stands vs one and I have shown you my first post to confirm that’s what I was talking about. Are you not man enough to admit you were wrong and I was never referencing W6/7 even after showing you the first post?
That was when the subject changed to Rangers and Celtic, there was no chat before that about W6/7 like you wrongly claimed. 

You have said that the system we have used since going to the stadium cannot be counted as it was never an option...

Despite it being used from day one in that stadium.

Your justification is simply "GLS said".

GLS said there would be consultation and there wasn't.

But hey... That was just "a mistake".

Maybe what you are basing your whole belief system on was a "mistake".

So you rule out a valid option as you say it was never an option.

Fair enough.

But you then replace it with an option that has never happened and was never on.the table!

Seriously?

You honestly cannot see the flaw?

You are certainly allowed an opinion, but when you argue so stubbornly to defend a farcical opinion like that, you defeat yourself every time you type!

Anyway... I need to leave the playground for now. Got to go play with the adults for a while or I don't get pocket money.
[emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji14]

[bazil85]

5 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:

You have said that the system we have used since going to the stadium cannot be counted as it was never an option...

Despite it being used from day one in that stadium.

Your justification is simply "GLS said".

GLS said there would be consultation and there wasn't.

But hey... That was just "a mistake".

Maybe what you are basing your whole belief system on was a "mistake".

So you rule out a valid option as you say it was never an option.

Fair enough.

But you then replace it with an option that has never happened and was never on.the table!

Seriously?

You honestly cannot see the flaw?

You are certainly allowed an opinion, but when you argue so stubbornly to defend a farcical opinion like that, you defeat yourself every time you type!

Anyway... I need to leave the playground for now. Got to go play with the adults for a while or I don't get pocket money.

My opinion is W6/7 wasn't an option this season. Why have you got issue with me having a different opinion from you?

[Bud the Baker]

47 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

GLS has stated we see a dip anyway when playing these clubs, are you saying that’s false? I have not denied it once, I have no doubt there will be a bit of a dip that’s partly due to the arrangement. It isn’t perfect and no one is claiming it is. My point is it generates significant income. It always has been. Season tickets up, home crowds up over the season as a whole proves my point that even with a slight dip this isn’t greatly impacting crowds overal  

What oakfield has shown is crowd vs crowd comparison from four seasons ago. The actual relevant figures are the away numbers. Even you have admitted this is the case by listing a number of other factors that impact crowd numbers. Are you now going back on that and saying giving them two stands is the one and only factor? 

The reason his comparison completely falls down is because there were less home fans at the Rangers game than the two Celtic games. If the only factor was the two stands, we would not see such a difference. Clear evidence of other factors which again you have admitted to. 

I've admitted to nothing that would support your argument about last weeks match - I've asked you to provide the home/away splits for the other midweek games which you've yet to do!

Your claim that @oaksoft's argument "completely falls down is because there were less home fans at the Rangers game" is both bizarre & contradictory.

You admit home crowds at these matches are down "partly due to the arrangement" - the argument is how much and given the poisonous atmosphere is it worthwhile!

What oakfieldsoft provided was a comparison of the crowds vs the OF this season and SEVEN seasons ago.

Until you can provide a better model than oaksoft's with figures to back up your arguments then I'm not going to give any credence to your posts.

My advice - take a bit more time over your posts!

 

Edited April 9, 2019 by Bud the Baker

[BuddieinEK]

My opinion is W6/7 wasn't an option this season. Why have you got issue with me having a different opinion from you?

You are welcome to that opinion.

I totally respect your right to be wrong.

If this were a scientific experiment based on evidence though, your entry quite simply wouldn't be allowed. It would be laughed at.

The belief is fine... All the fanciful figures you extrapolated to try and justify your stance are what I am shaking my head in disbelief at!

[BuddieinEK]

My opinion is W6/7 wasn't an option this season. Why have you got issue with me having a different opinion from you?

Your opinion is based on nothing more than "GLS said".
That's it!
[emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23]

[bazil85]

24 minutes ago, Bud the Baker said:

I've admitted to nothing that would support your argument about last weeks match - I've asked you to provide the home/away splits for the other midweek games which you've yet to do!

Your claim that @oaksoft's argument "completely falls down is because there were less home fans at the Rangers game" is both bizarre & contradictory.

You admit home crowds at these matches are down "partly due to the arrangement" - the argument is how much and given the poisonous atmosphere is it worthwhile!

What oakfieldsoft provided was a comparison of the crowds vs the OF this season and SEVEN seasons ago.

Until you can provide a better model than oaksoft's with figures to back up your arguments then I'm not going to give any credence to your posts.

My advice - take a bit more time over your posts!

 

So you don't think there are other factors that impact crowds, only the decision to give two stands? 

It takes a fair bit of looking back on twitter to get the details but I've found the Killie details. Crowd 4,458 with 1,214 away fans so 3,244 home fans. No significant difference from the Celtic game. No doubt you'll now bring up day light saving, school holidays and temperature, moving goalposts after I have provided yet more evidence the dip in fans at OF games is not significant enough to greatly impact the financial value. 

I would say it is worthwhile, I don't like it but all my evidence backs up significant income. 

My model where I look at actual bums on seats and provide evidence of minimum impact to home crowds is far more relevant. 

[bazil85]

18 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:

Your opinion is based on nothing more than "GLS said".
That's it!

My opinion is based on what we do with the other nine teams in the league, we give them one stand. Also let's not deflect from the fact I was right, given the W6/7 didn't happen this season. 

So you aren't a big enough person to admit you were wrong in saying I 'moved goalposts' regarding W6/7 even after showing evidence I in no way mentioned it? Cool. 

[BuddieinEK]

My opinion is based on what we do with the other nine teams in the league, we give them one stand. Also let's not deflect from the fact I was right, given the W6/7 didn't happen this season. 
So you aren't a big enough person to admit you were wrong in saying I 'moved goalposts' regarding W6/7 even after showing evidence I in no way mentioned it? Cool. 

You have been moving the goalposts consistently.

So much so you cannot remember where they are and all you have left to cling to is this fantasy scenario of only one stand as a basis for your whole argument...

A scenario that has never happened and was never an option!
[emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23]

[bazil85]

2 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:

You have been moving the goalposts consistently.

So much so you cannot remember where they are and all you have left to cling to is this fantasy scenario of only one stand as a basis for your whole argument...

A scenario that has never happened and was never an option!

If in doubt just blatantly lie eh? Still can't admit you're wrong? Suppose it takes a certain kind of person to put their hands up... I have shared the screenshots, everyone can see I have been consistent, all your corners to hide in have been filled, sorry about that. 

The W6/ W7 has not happened in four years and not happened under this board, it pains you my opinion was that wasn't an option this season, it pains you even more that I was right given it didn't happen. Ouch.