Never mind about a few empty seats at Rodney Parade because 5.3 million watched the County beat Leicester on BBC1.

Blackandamber wrote:Never mind about a few empty seats at Rodney Parade because 5.3 million watched the County beat Leicester on BBC1.

Does that fig. include those that bought tickets but couldn't go to the game for some reason. Does it include those viewers who only caught sight of the game for a short period or those that left their TV on BBC1 accidentally whilst they were out taking their dog for a walk?

Have we an expert on this board who can unravel the mysteries of this fig. that we are being told?

Fourthousand wrote:

Blackandamber wrote:Never mind about a few empty seats at Rodney Parade because 5.3 million watched the County beat Leicester on BBC1.

Does that fig. include those that bought tickets but couldn't go to the game for some reason. Does it include those viewers who only caught sight of the game for a short period or those that left their TV on BBC1 accidentally whilst they were out taking their dog for a walk?

Have we an expert on this board who can unravel the mysteries of this fig. that we are being told?

I think they are lying. it wasn't 5.3 million it was 5.25 million. It's about time people were told the truth.

My wife took the dog for a walk and she saw lots of TVs not tuned to BBC1 through people's windows.

G Guest wrote:I think they are lying. it wasn't 5.3 million it was 5.25 million. It's about time people were told the truth.

My wife took the dog for a walk and she saw lots of TVs not tuned to BBC1 through people's windows.

Why are you trying to hijack this thread by bringing up an argument which is being aired elsewhere? I suspect that while some might be interested the majority of people who read this board couldn't give a flying f@ck about two overweight middle aged men having a slugfest.

Show them some respect. The people who might want to talk about the viewing figures that is.

That 5.3 million was just for this country, it was shown in a lot of countries throughout the world judging by the response on twatter

daftasfxxx wrote:That 5.3 million was just for this country, it was shown in a lot of countries throughout the world judging by the response on twatter

Well said Paul, I was hoping we made something for international advertising, say Coca-Cola or equivalent and had hoped to see shirt advertising considering Leicester’s Asian links.

lowandhard wrote:

daftasfxxx wrote:That 5.3 million was just for this country, it was shown in a lot of countries throughout the world judging by the response on twatter

Well said Paul, I was hoping we made something for international advertising, say Coca-Cola or equivalent and had hoped to see shirt advertising considering Leicester’s Asian links.

I’ve heard we made a fortune from advertising and as a comparison have made much more in commercial revenue that the Dragons this year.

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

G Guest wrote:I think they are lying. it wasn't 5.3 million it was 5.25 million. It's about time people were told the truth.

My wife took the dog for a walk and she saw lots of TVs not tuned to BBC1 through people's windows.

Why are you trying to hijack this thread by bringing up an argument which is being aired elsewhere? I suspect that while some might be interested the majority of people who read this board couldn't give a flying f@ck about two overweight middle aged men having a slugfest.

Show them some respect. The people who might want to talk about the viewing figures that is.

I suspect that the ‘majority is people’ are actually very much enjoying taking the piss out of you because or your recent shocking episode.

stan I for one found this thread humorous if you dish it out you gotta be prepared to take it . BTW I recorded the match on BBC but actually attended so I dont know if that counts or not so the fig may be incorrect.I should write a letter to the BBC asking for confirmation or maybe I will just chill out and say we are in the 4th round of the FA cup.
Up The county

Lysaght Dancer wrote:

lowandhard wrote:

daftasfxxx wrote:That 5.3 million was just for this country, it was shown in a lot of countries throughout the world judging by the response on twatter

Well said Paul, I was hoping we made something for international advertising, say Coca-Cola or equivalent and had hoped to see shirt advertising considering Leicester’s Asian links.

I’ve heard we made a fortune from advertising and as a comparison have made much more in commercial revenue that the Dragons this year.

That's what relative sporting success does for you. Long may it continue

Lysaght Dancer wrote:

lowandhard wrote:

daftasfxxx wrote:That 5.3 million was just for this country, it was shown in a lot of countries throughout the world judging by the response on twatter

Well said Paul, I was hoping we made something for international advertising, say Coca-Cola or equivalent and had hoped to see shirt advertising considering Leicester’s Asian links.

I’ve heard we made a fortune from advertising and as a comparison have made much more in commercial revenue that the Dragons this year.

I heard that too. No more having to listen to we have one of the lowest budgets in League 2 nonsense as an excuse when things go wrong.

Well said Paul, I was hoping we made something for international advertising, say Coca-Cola or equivalent and had hoped to see shirt advertising considering Leicester’s Asian links.[/quote]

I’ve heard we made a fortune from advertising and as a comparison have made much more in commercial revenue that the Dragons this year.[/quote]

I heard that too. No more having to listen to we have one of the lowest budgets in League 2 nonsense as an excuse when things go wrong.[/quote]

Well that surely depends where these 'extras' take us relative to the other teams in the league. If the additional revenue doesnt leapfrog us above them then the statement is still valid and not 'nonsense'.
One thing is sure it will help towards the costs of running my football club - the same football club that you don't contribute to, but you still nevertheless feel the need to comment incessantly about.

Fourthousand wrote:

Well that surely depends where these 'extras' take us relative to the other teams in the league. If the additional revenue doesnt leapfrog us above them then the statement is still valid and not 'nonsense'.
One thing is sure it will help towards the costs of running my football club - the same football club that you don't contribute to, but you still nevertheless feel the need to comment incessantly about.

A few years ago I did the calculation of dividing the average crowd into the total gate receipts for a season to give an average price per attendee. The figure is about £13-50p.

For the ease of doing this calculation I will round up the average price paid per attendee to £14-00 and compensate by lowering our average attendance to 3,000. I stress that these ball park figures are not entirely accurate but the principle outcome may surprise you.

So 3,000 spectators, paying £14 on 23 occasions for each League game. This gives a total income from gate receipts of £966,000.

Do the same calculation on 4,000 spectators and you get a gate receipts figure of £1,288,000 So a Cup run which makes a profit of £322.000 would be the equivalent of having no Cup run but an average gate of 4,000 not 3,000.

Do the same calculation at 5,000 spectators the increase remains the same. So £1,610,000 would be gate receipts. Take away the original £966,000 and a club with an average home gate of 5,000 but no Cup run would have an equivalent income as a club with a 3,000 average gate and a Cup run profit of £644,000.

A stress these figure are ball park. But last season had we not had the Cup run profit to be in the same financial position, our average home attendance would have needed to be 5,174.

Now ask yourself this. Had Walsall won the FA Cup tie last year but our average League gate been over 5,000 would you say that because of low crowds we can't compete?