Rambo
1st team Player
Posts: 1,692
|
Post by Rambo on Dec 17, 2013 22:01:27 GMT
In a time when all you seem to read about in Non League Football about falling attendances I see that tonight's important Ryman Premier match against Maidstone attracted 817 ! Extremely good when you consider it's the last Midweek game before Christmas............final score Hamlet 2 Maidstone 0
|
|
|
|
Post by Stewart on Dec 17, 2013 22:06:59 GMT
They average over 600! It seems crowds will turn up if you have a winning side.
|
|
|
|
Post by Amber Aleman on Dec 17, 2013 22:07:54 GMT
And that result takes Hamlet up to 4th. I'd rather see them come up to our level than any of the three clubs above them.  |
|
|
|
Post by Stewart on Dec 17, 2013 22:13:18 GMT
And that result takes Hamlet up to 4th. I'd rather see them come up to our level than any of the three clubs above them. Another set of fans that don't care for us  |
|
|
|
Post by Jared on Dec 18, 2013 8:47:05 GMT
Maidstone would have taken a fair few fans I assume.
Fair play to Dulwich for reaching out and attracting new fans, although winning Football will help. I can't imagine that the new breed of Hamlet fans will have any opinion of SUFC
|
|
|
|
Post by localboy86 on Dec 18, 2013 10:19:29 GMT
Top of the Ryman after last nights results..certainly close.
1 AFC Hornchurch 22 14 5 3 44 24 +20 47
2 Wealdstone 20 13 6 1 48 17 +31 45
3 Kingstonian 21 14 2 5 40 14 +26 44
4 Dulwich Hamlet 20 14 2 4 44 25 +19 44
5 Maidstone Utd 20 12 6 2 41 19 +22 42
|
|
oohaah
Top Performer
Posts: 3,142
|
Post by oohaah on Dec 18, 2013 17:01:17 GMT
We really need Maidstone to get promotion to see what the Conference do about their pitch.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andy K on Dec 18, 2013 17:04:23 GMT
We really need Maidstone to get promotion to see what the Conference do about their pitch. ....and to have a team at this level which gets decent crowds rather than ones that only get 200 to a game and take very few away! |
|
|
|
Post by ontheup on Dec 19, 2013 0:17:27 GMT
Hi, Maidstone fan here, thought I'd have a look on here because I noticed a comment on the Dulwich Hamlet forum about how many fans we take away, I'm also aware of the 3G interests you guys have.
For starters I reckon realistically Dulwich's average home gate is probably nearer the 500 mark but the current average is skewed slightly owing to them having faced us and Wealdstone in recent weeks, wealdstone and ourselves have the largest away following in the Ryman league by quite some way. In fact there is an ongoing debate as to who takes the most, us or Wealdstone.
Half of our away games this season have actually been midweek, but if you look the figures, Dulwich with an average of 500 had over 800 there last night, Cray average under 200, against us (again midweek) they had over 500. We played Hampton and Richmond on non league day, their average gate prior to that day was around 300 ( they had played Wealdstone the week before) but the gate that day was over 700. Personall I think we take 200 -250 away, but for big matches on a Saturday it could be as much as 400.
There figures sound semi impressive but as a percentage of our average home gate it isn't that great which is why I'm prepared to concede Wealdstone probably do have the greater number of away fans.
In terms of 3G, I was sceptical but I am a total convert now, the most common thing to be heard at the Gallagher Stadium by any fan (home or away) is...."I forgot they are not playing on real grass"...such is the quality. And for anybody who thinks it gives us an advantage, our home record for both last season and this has been worse than our away record....mainly because the away team tend to raise their game and relish playing on the perfect surface.
All of our club teams play on it which reduces the overheads on other pitches, but just as important it generates tremendous revenue from pitch hire, six aside leagues etc. in our first season (last year) it generated around 200k. To put it in to perspective that is an additional 20 thousand people paying £10 per game, and breaking that down further that is like having an addition 1,000 people through the turnstyles for 20 home games a season.
We could indeed host a World Cup Qualifier or a Champions League match but it's the financial security it brings to the football club that is key and I for one can't see what genuine reason the conference could give for not letting us into their league should the opportunity arise. Especially when you consider the debacle surrounding Farnborough and Truro.
I'm not saying 3G should be allowed at all levels but I actually think any club at our level who isn't even considering it is shooting itself in the foot, and any clubs fans (Tonbridge Angels) who choose to constantly mock (and yet struggle to generate additional revenue) will soon be cleaning the proverbial egg off their face.
|
|
|
|
Post by os on Dec 19, 2013 1:27:38 GMT
Before I answer that I am a supporter of 3G pitches being allowed at lower levels, but a couple of points to make.
Not all players report positively on 3G playing surfaces and that includes the one at the gallagher stadium, so its not 100% approved by all.
The other point is that at the moment 3G pitches are banned in the Conference and any club attempting to replace their grass surface faces the possibility of being expelled from the league or being made to play home matches elsewhere. It doesn't seem fair to me that one side winning promotion from the Ryman should be able to dictate the time table for introduction. That would bring a unfair financial advantage to that team at least in the short term.
So I say yes to 3G pitches but all clubs currently in the conference should be given time to replace their current surface before they are universally allowed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stewart on Dec 19, 2013 10:19:17 GMT
I agree synthetic pitches are the way forward, and I would support our club if it intended to introduce 3G - even at the expense of us being relegated. Clubs need other income streams. Our support is declining and that is during a successful period! At some point 3G will be allowed. Therefore clubs who have it installed will be in a strong position to reap the benefit that 3G has given them and their community.
|
|
|
|
Post by ontheup on Dec 19, 2013 11:35:31 GMT
Before I answer that I am a supporter of 3G pitches being allowed at lower levels, but a couple of points to make. Not all players report positively on 3G playing surfaces and that includes the one at the gallagher stadium, so its not 100% approved by all. The other point is that at the moment 3G pitches are banned in the Conference and any club attempting to replace their grass surface faces the possibility of being expelled from the league or being made to play home matches elsewhere. It doesn't seem fair to me that one side winning promotion from the Ryman should be able to dictate the time table for introduction. That would bring a unfair financial advantage to that team at least in the short term. So I say yes to 3G pitches but all clubs currently in the conference should be given time to replace their current surface before they are universally allowed. This is exactly the sort of debates and discussions 3G needs. I fully accept that not all players report positively, but do all players report positively about all grass pitches? Many many comments have been made about our pitch, most notably from the Kingstonian and Ebbsfleet managers, who by coinscidence lost games at our place. The Ebbsfleet manager complained the pitch was too slow and the ball held up, word for word the same excuse was offered when they lost at Chelmsford on a grass pitch. The pitch, in my opinion, offers an easy excuse when teams lose, but more commonly I see reports from away fans claiming it was their teams "best away performance" of the season. For the record, I have witnessed 3 season ending/career threatening injuries this season, all of which have been on grass pitches so the argument suggesting 3G pitches causes more injuries to players is one that has been proved to be incorrect. 3G is allowed at the very top level of Rugby in this country (it is also used in the US for American Football) and I would have thought as a sport Rugby is much tougher on the joints/muscles etc. I don't think Maidstone are trying to dictate when these pitches are to be allowed, and we are not suggesting that conference clubs should use them, we are asking for the OPTION to use them so there is no question of clubs being expelled because they have grass pitches. Maidstone are potentially one of the first clubs to be in a position whereby they will be asking the Conference for acceptance, I don't think that is us dictating a rule change to suit us. The point is, the Conference, (or any league for that matter) are not going to wake up one day and agree to these pitches being used, ie they are not going to answer a question until the question has been asked, Maidstone are simply in a position to ask the question. |
|
|
|
Post by sallycat on Dec 20, 2013 14:47:10 GMT
Well said, OS. Both of you, in fact. I'd love to see more games played on 3G. Frankly sick of the number of damp-related postponements year on year at this level. For the record, I have witnessed 3 season ending/career threatening injuries this season, all of which have been on grass pitches so the argument suggesting 3G pitches causes more injuries to players is one that has been proved to be incorrect. Three data points do not an analysis make  That proves nothing - but do you know of any stats that have been collected? Do you know where the argument that they're dangerous comes from? I'd like to have a look at that. |
|
|
|
Post by ontheup on Dec 21, 2013 11:32:58 GMT
Well said, OS. Both of you, in fact. I'd love to see more games played on 3G. Frankly sick of the number of damp-related postponements year on year at this level. For the record, I have witnessed 3 season ending/career threatening injuries this season, all of which have been on grass pitches so the argument suggesting 3G pitches causes more injuries to players is one that has been proved to be incorrect. Three data points do not an analysis make That proves nothing - but do you know of any stats that have been collected? Do you know where the argument that they're dangerous comes from? I'd like to have a look at that. Hi Sallycat, Totally agree the three data points do not make an analysis, but whenever a player suffers a bad injury on a 3G pitch the immediate reaction is to abortion blame to the pitch. My point was/is that players suffer injuries on both grass and 3G pitches and the modern day artificial pitches are nothing like the old astroturf carpets, players are able to make sliding tackles and go to ground without fear of burns etc. Incidentally I'm not sure whether you are familiar with our owner Oliver Ash (who heads up 3G4US) but in a recent interview regarding the latest letter sent to the Conference he mentioned Sutton United quite extensively. This interview is available on podcast. It's days like this I value 3G more than ever, it's great to be planning the day knowing the game will definitely be on. |
|
That proves nothing - but do you know of any stats that have been collected? Do you know where the argument that they're dangerous comes from? I'd like to have a look at that.