Jump to content

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


Kombibuddie

Recommended Posts


1 hour ago, Lord Pityme said:

We lost over 1000 home fans in a few days between the recent Dundee and Celtic games... fact! Or do you contend its false?

I am not saying it’s false, you have a lack of understanding on the reasoning behind it. Yet again, do you think that was not impacted at all by the importance of the Dundee game? 

Our crowd was down 3,000 for the Falkirk game last season compared to the Livi & Morton ones. Overwhelming proof that the importance of the fixture impacts crowds. Or do you disagree? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

It’s the only way your opinion that home crowds are considerably down for OF games can be right I’m afraid :rolleyes:

You've already quoted GLS  as saying home crowds for these games are considerably down :hammer - but it's irrelevant to the issue that giving the Family Stand to the OF this season has not considerably improved attendances for these matches and generated a substantial increase in revenue for the club! :1eye

 

Edited by Bud the Baker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Bud the Baker said:

You've already quoted GLS  as saying home crowds for these games are considerably down :hammer - but it's irrelevant to the issue that giving the Family Stand to the OF this season has not considerably improved attendances for these matches and generated a substantial increase in revenue for the club! :1eye

 

Historically the home crowds are down for these fixtures regarding young and family stand fans. It was part of the point to justify the decision. Not sure what you don’t understand about this. Let me clarify my original point for you (for maybe the 100th time) 

-this arrangement makes us considerable money. I have shown evidence for this in calculations of away fan numbers. 

- we don’t see a considerable reduction in home fan numbers to make point one invalid (in fact there’s evidence that home crowds could even be slightly up on comparable fixtures) this is also backed up by us having record crowds at this stadium (by over feckin 700 bodies on average!!) and record season ticket sales. It’s either staggering ignorance to hold onto your POV or trolling  

Both are very clear, you can disagree with this by thinking home crowds are significantly down for these fixtures but you have to ignore the Killie game & believe that Motherwell took no more than 300-400 fans for your point to be valid. It literally can’t be correct without this assumption :rolleyes:

even the recent Saturday game in March against Livi, we had 3,714 home fans, that’s less than the minimum home fans for one weekday Celtic game & not a kick in the arse off the other :lol:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, bazil85 said:

Reducing them from two stands to one + W6/7 will not mitigate bigotry. Not every fan of these teams are bigots and a reduction of a few hundred tickets will not act as a deterrent to people of that disposition.  

I didn't say it would be a deterrent.

That's 5 times you have deliberately twisted my words.

Nice going.:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, bazil85 said:

Historically the home crowds are down for these fixtures regarding young and family stand fans. It was part of the point to justify the decision. Not sure what you don’t understand about this. Let me clarify my original point for you (for maybe the 100th time) 

-this arrangement makes us considerable money. I have shown evidence for this in calculations of away fan numbers. 

- we don’t see a considerable reduction in home fan numbers to make point one invalid (in fact there’s evidence that home crowds could even be slightly up on comparable fixtures) this is also backed up by us having record crowds at this stadium (by over feckin 700 bodies on average!!) and record season ticket sales. It’s either staggering ignorance to hold onto your POV or trolling  

Both are very clear, you can disagree with this by thinking home crowds are significantly down for these fixtures but you have to ignore the Killie game & believe that Motherwell took no more than 300-400 fans for your point to be valid. It literally can’t be correct without this assumption :rolleyes:

even the recent Saturday game in March against Livi, we had 3,714 home fans, that’s less than the minimum home fans for one weekday Celtic game & not a kick in the arse off the other :lol:

 

Apples and Oranges, nothing new! :snore

I'll switch to a different disco classic -take the hint! :1eye

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

I didn't say it would be a deterrent.

That's 5 times you have deliberately twisted my words.

Nice going.:lol:

How about, instead of continually typing what you’re not saying, why don’t you tell me what you are? 

You have deflected from questions regarding my stats, average home crowd numbers (when I used them to shoot down your approach to quoting six games over four years for some strange reason) and me moving goalposts.

So far you have provided zero evidence of inconsistencies or mistakes from me and no explanation (or your clear viewpoint) to how crowds can be way up this season but this arrangement can still 1. Not be generating considerable money 2. Causing large numbers of fans to stay away 

Your deflection techniques aren’t unique, it’s the same as the other posters arguing with me on here :rolleyes: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Still refusing to address points and answer questions. Nothing new. :rolleyes:

I already have answered them, several times - like I said nothing new! :rolleyes:

It's you who's trying to change my opinion, I'm not really bothered about what you choose to believe! :1eye

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

Like I said............

 

Edited by Bud the Baker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Bud the Baker said:

I already have answered them several times - like I said nothing new! :rolleyes:

It's you who's trying to change my opinion, I'm not really bothered about what you choose to believe! :1eye

 

Don’t remember you giving any sensible answer to how average crowds can be through the roof, season ticket sales can be at record levels and comparable crowds not showing a significant (or any) drop off can still suggest fans aren’t going to these games in large numbers and/ or we don’t make significant money :rolleyes:

deflection like so many of your compadres  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

1. Don’t remember you giving any sensible answer to how average crowds can be through the roof, season ticket sales can be at record levels and comparable crowds not showing a significant (or any) drop off can still suggest fans aren’t going to these games in large numbers and/ or we don’t make significant money :rolleyes:

2. deflection like so many of your compadres  

1. I can't help it if you have a defective memory, it's already been explained by several people (including myself ) just because you disagree doesn't mean that it hasn't happened - it's just become a game of posting attrition played by arseholes. :1eye

2. Deflection - pots & kettles. :1eye 

Once again you have nothing new to offer - oh and at least I have some compadres. :1eye

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

Decisions KC or AWB? 

 

Edited by Bud the Baker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Bud the Baker said:

1. I can't help it if you have a defective memory, it's already been explained by several people (including myself ) just because you disagree doesn't mean that it hasn't happened - it's just become a game of posting attrition played by arseholes. :1eye

2. Deflection - pots & kettles. :1eye

Once again you have nothing new to offer.

Decisions KC or AWB? 

 

1. I am more than happy for people to have different opinions from me. I have simply asked how it is possible for home crowds to be massively up on average, season ticket sales to be up, no sign of significantly lower crowds at these games (due to fans staying away) yet income to not be significant and/ or us to be somehow losing considerable fans to these games? My point has never been on the disagreement, it's asking for an explanation. Which none of you have provided.

2. I have not deflected, I have provided evidence where it's available and been honest where it has not, where it is not I have made an educated guess. You might disagree in the guess and for example think Motherwell only took a few hundred fans in our last game or that day light savings has cause 100s of St Mirren fans to attend the Celtic game but not Kilmarnock, that's your choice. I disagree and think it's massively unrealistic. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/12/2019 at 4:49 PM, bazil85 said:

It isn't my fault the figures aren't available but applying a little common sense will tell us all evidence points to home crowds being up. Are you saying GLS has lied in saying season tickets are at record high numbers? :huh: Evidence? 

 

1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

 

-this arrangement makes us considerable money. I have shown evidence for this in calculations of away fan numbers. 

- we don’t see a considerable reduction in home fan numbers to make point one invalid (in fact there’s evidence that home crowds could even be slightly up on comparable fixtures)

 

Against my better judgement and not getting involved in any of the details of the argument, your top post says the figures(which would be evidence) isn't available, yet you ask for evidence from others. 

 

The second post then claims you have shown evidence of the numbers you previously said weren't available, followed by saying there's evidence that numbers "could" be up. 

Without the numbers it's all speculation. What you have referenced in the second post is an opinion you have formed. Not evidence. If it had been evidence it would show either way and not what the numbers "could" be. 

 

Wether your opinion is right or wrong, or based on likely scenarios, it is still just an opinion. A guess, not the evidence you're claiming. 

 

Your posting style is very off-putting and you consistently paint opinions as fact. Same on the BtB threads to the point where it out me off wanting anything to do with it. 

 

You'd do yourself a lot more favours if you just said that it was your opinion based on likelihood rather than using words like fact or evidence all over the place. 

 

 

This thread would give an aspirin a sore head! 

Edited by slapsalmon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bazil85 said:

I am not saying it’s false, you have a lack of understanding on the reasoning behind it. Yet again, do you think that was not impacted at all by the importance of the Dundee game? 

Our crowd was down 3,000 for the Falkirk game last season compared to the Livi & Morton ones. Overwhelming proof that the importance of the fixture impacts crowds. Or do you disagree? 

So morton brought a bigger support than Falkirk... way to go einstein!

what your half assed comparisons reveal is you only ever look at the side of the stat you think backs you up. For instance, you staing we got more home fans against Dundee, than celtic because it was more relevant cant be the case as we were, and are still in the shitter desperate for points.

contrast that with the fact if celtic werent on for a title would they have sold out both stands? Nope, and thats looking at both sides. 

Your points are moot as MOST saints fans want a deal for every home game to fill the family stand with the people it was intended for, and restrict away fans to one stand. Thats the way the ground was designed, thats how it should be used. Tonfabour the home team and support who fund it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, slapsalmon said:

 

Against my better judgement and not getting involved in any of the details of the argument, your top post says the figures(which would be evidence) isn't available, yet you ask for evidence from others. 

 

The second post then claims you have shown evidence of the numbers you previously said weren't available, followed by saying there's evidence that numbers "could" be up. 

Without the numbers it's all speculation. What you have referenced in the second post is an opinion you have formed. Not evidence. If it had been evidence it would show either way and not what the numbers "could" be. 

 

Wether your opinion is right or wrong, or based on likely scenarios, it is still just an opinion. A guess, not the evidence you're claiming. 

 

Your posting style is very off-putting and you consistently paint opinions as fact. Same on the BtB threads to the point where it out me off wanting anything to do with it. 

 

You'd do yourself a lot more favours if you just said that it was your opinion based on likelihood rather than using words like fact or evidence all over the place. 

 

 

This thread would give an aspirin a sore head! 

Take your paragraphs one at a time. 

1 & 2.  The away crowd stats aren't available for a lot of our games. I have evidenced we had more away fans for Celtic than we did for Killie (both weekday fixtures) we also had more in one mid-week Celtic game than a recent Saturday home game against Livi. My point is some figures are available, others are not. I don't necessarily need to see evidence, a high level explanation of how it is possible to have record crowds, season ticket sales, no clear dip in fans yet still not make decent money (based on away fans and ticket prices) would be enough. I don't think it could be provided (again I don't need the fact, I doubt they exist tbh).

3. Without numbers it is speculation correct, however we have some of the numbers which I have evidenced. I have also made some massively reserved calculations on crowds and income. My point here is common sense should prevail. If people still disagree, I simply ask what's their basis for that? Do they think my figures aren't reserved enough? Do they think the Motherwell away crowd was way lower than my estimate? Do they think GLS and SMFC are lying about attendances?

4. Again, I'm not looking for people to be proven right or wrong, just an explanation of how they arrived at it. It is a discussion forum after all. No one has been willing to provide reasoning yet. 

5. Where have I painted opinion as fact? I have stated where details are known and clearly referenced where it is estimates. 

6. I think it is based on likelihood, absolutely. Is this maybe peoples issue here? They aren't willing to admit my information is all very likely? Some people seem to proud to admit this and choose instead to twist my words as if I'm stating everything as fact, something I have never claimed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bazil85 said:

Take your paragraphs one at a time. 

1 & 2.  The away crowd stats aren't available for a lot of our games. I have evidenced we had more away fans for Celtic than we did for Killie (both weekday fixtures) we also had more in one mid-week Celtic game than a recent Saturday home game against Livi. My point is some figures are available, others are not. I don't necessarily need to see evidence, a high level explanation of how it is possible to have record crowds, season ticket sales, no clear dip in fans yet still not make decent money (based on away fans and ticket prices) would be enough. I don't think it could be provided (again I don't need the fact, I doubt they exist tbh).

3. Without numbers it is speculation correct, however we have some of the numbers which I have evidenced. I have also made some massively reserved calculations on crowds and income. My point here is common sense should prevail. If people still disagree, I simply ask what's their basis for that? Do they think my figures aren't reserved enough? Do they think the Motherwell away crowd was way lower than my estimate? Do they think GLS and SMFC are lying about attendances?

4. Again, I'm not looking for people to be proven right or wrong, just an explanation of how they arrived at it. It is a discussion forum after all. No one has been willing to provide reasoning yet. 

5. Where have I painted opinion as fact? I have stated where details are known and clearly referenced where it is estimates. 

6. I think it is based on likelihood, absolutely. Is this maybe peoples issue here? They aren't willing to admit my information is all very likely? Some people seem to proud to admit this and choose instead to twist my words as if I'm stating everything as fact, something I have never claimed. 

I couldn't care less about the numbers etc, I'm only pointing out why this thread is going round in circles. You've painted a lot of your opinion as fact and that is exactly what people are getting at from what I've read. 

 

Most of the comments are about you calling the things your having a go at interpreting facts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

So morton brought a bigger support than Falkirk... way to go einstein!

what your half assed comparisons reveal is you only ever look at the side of the stat you think backs you up. For instance, you staing we got more home fans against Dundee, than celtic because it was more relevant cant be the case as we were, and are still in the shitter desperate for points.

contrast that with the fact if celtic werent on for a title would they have sold out both stands? Nope, and thats looking at both sides. 

Your points are moot as MOST saints fans want a deal for every home game to fill the family stand with the people it was intended for, and restrict away fans to one stand. Thats the way the ground was designed, thats how it should be used. Tonfabour the home team and support who fund it.

Our home crowd was way bigger for Morton and Livi, so you agree that occasion plays a part in crowds? 

Are you saying to SMFC fans, the often quoted 'must win' game against Dundee was not seen as more important? Why don't you go on record as saying that? Also while you're at it why not go on record as saying 'week day/ Saturday has no impact on attendance numbers' 

Celtic didn't sell out both stands for that game, not sure what you're getting at here. 

My point is not moot unless you can demonstrate for every single game we can bring the same crowd as we did against Dundee. Killie? Motherwell? Livi? I know you hate it but I have clearly shown that occasion impacts crowd. No luck. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, slapsalmon said:

I couldn't care less about the numbers etc, I'm only pointing out why this thread is going round in circles. You've painted a lot of your opinion as fact and that is exactly what people are getting at from what I've read. 

 

Most of the comments are about you calling the things your having a go at interpreting facts. 

You haven't though and my points tell you why. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

You haven't though and my points tell you why. 

Your doing now exactly what you've done all through the thread. I was trying to give you a insight into why there isn't a single poster on this thread agreeing with you. Your points above aren't telling me anything. 

 

I'm pointing out from an outsider to the threads point of view what it appears like. Do with that what you will, but I have 0 desire to get into a conversation with you because I've seen 20 odd pages here of how that goes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, slapsalmon said:

Your doing now exactly what you've done all through the thread. I was trying to give you a insight into why there isn't a single poster on this thread agreeing with you. Your points above aren't telling me anything. 

 

I'm pointing out from an outsider to the threads point of view what it appears like. Do with that what you will, but I have 0 desire to get into a conversation with you because I've seen 20 odd pages here of how that goes. 

If one of you wants to answer my question on how higher crowds (much), record season ticket sales & no clear evidence of a drop in attendances at these games can result in a scenario where my income calculations are wildly over exaggerated i’ll Leave this thread. No one has done. 

This isn’t about right/ wrong, opinion or anything else. I’m simply asking how people in light of the discussion can hold that view. It’s strange that roughly half a dozen people won’t answer that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, bazil85 said:

How about, instead of continually typing what you’re not saying, why don’t you tell me what you are? 

 

I tried doing that but every response you gave deliberately twisted my words.

You can't do that and then complain when people pull you up on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Simply not true. 

Well, I have explained 5 instances of where you have done it. It might be 6. I won't lie, I've lost count.

Just like my figures from an earlier page, I'm happy to let others make their own minds up about what you are doing here.

Edited by oaksoft
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, slapsalmon said:

Your doing now exactly what you've done all through the thread. I was trying to give you a insight into why there isn't a single poster on this thread agreeing with you. Your points above aren't telling me anything. 

 

I'm pointing out from an outsider to the threads point of view what it appears like. Do with that what you will, but I have 0 desire to get into a conversation with you because I've seen 20 odd pages here of how that goes. 

Re the bit in bold, are we talking midweek or weekend posters? Baz has got some facts to dispute you somewhere!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

Well, I have explained 5 instances of where you have done it. It might be 6. I won't lie, I've lost count.

Just like my figures from an earlier page, I'm happy to let others make their own minds up about what you are doing here.

Do you know what the irony is Oak? I actually think we likely have very similar views on this. Why you have aligned with others and seem to be going for my posts is beyond me. Some examples below:

Look we can all agree or disagree about this but can we all PLEASE stop trying to push this utter shite argument.

It is not going to be anywhere NEAR enough for two players - possibly not even one.

My initial point was on one stand vs two. I know you didn't think this was appropriate (or the case) but I actually fully agree with you that comparing W6/7 to two stands is just about (over) one player. Would stand to reason my comparison of one stand vs two would therefore be accurate in roughly two players. I even went onto do the calculations of W6/7 vs two stands and it's consistent with the 'possibly not even one' It comes in just over (very reserved figures) 

When we were last in the top flight we averaged 6300 or so for OF home games.

This season we averaged about 6800.

I have no idea where you are getting this extra 1200 fans from.

Again I did clarify it was two stands vs one and even sent a screenshot of my first message to prove this. Fair enough you didn't think I should have done that comparison but it was completely transparent. Your crowd quotes though seem to be in line with an increased in crowd numbers which is literally my point (we aren't seeing a drop off, we do make money off this) 

And that is why your figures are so far out. You are making a mistake with your assertion above because the differential was being used to justify the change from giving them W6 and W7 to giving them the family stand. There is no way that the difference between those two situations is two players. It's obviously not and it's disengenious to claim that we are getting that advantage.

Again seems to be aligned views, just looking at the difference between one vs two and w6/7 vs two. 

I do run my own business but I purposely don't hire employees so I can't tell you the answer to that but I suspect you are right. You have to remember though that an employer will need to pay employers NI, sick pay, holiday pay and f**king pension contributions as well (don’t get me started on this nonsense) so it's not as clean cut as you would think.

Early on people were saying about tax, looks again like we agree. Point about all the other stuff is completely fair, never denied it

I understand where you are coming from but you are not asking WHY the gates have gone up which means you have no way of knowing whether it's a temporary high blip or not.

Could be a blip, never said otherwise and I have never tried to predict the future. Again agreement 

'll even help you out a wee bit basil.

One of the prime reasons we have such high crowds this season is because we have sold significantly (record?) numbers of season tickets off the back of the joy from the end of last season. We have, to my recollection, never had such optimism before the start of a new season.

In addition, Hearts were pushing top of the league at one point, as were Killie and Aberdeen. Hibs were even doing well at one point. Add in more OF fans because Rangers have actually competed well this season and so both clubs have seen an upturn in interest and then finally throw in some relegation battles between the likes of us and Dundee and it's obvious where a lot of the increase has come from.

All relevant points I fully agree with, but again the point is, are we seeing a reduction in SMFC fans wanting to go to games because of the arrangement? Seems like you are in agreement that isn't the case given the 'optimism' from the situation. I think it's clear the positives for this season outstrip the negatives and that's evidenced in crowds not being down. For OF games or otherwise. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...