^^Sorry. Not convinced by that argument at all. Brightons average attendance figures crept up over the 20k mark for 4 seasons or so 30 years ago in a stadium that had a capacity of 32k.
did you not read my post??
You quote the 20,000 figure like it has always been the barometer for a well supported team…
As I mentioned, you look to actual attendances, and compare them to now. Whereas I look and see a clubs position in the attendance charts and relate it to now. As I mentioned Brighton tend to finish above certain clubs when ever they are in the same division as them and many times when they are not, not below, and the reason for the small crowds of late is down to the restriction of their stadiums.
Let me explain why you can't directly compare attendances of different eras
There is a table that says Tottenham are the third best supported club of all time. (
http://www.nufc.com/html/attendance-all-time.html). I found this staggering, and had to investigate myself. Basically the table takes average attendances from when a club joined the league and averages them out over a leagues history. That sounds a fair way to adjust, no? However a few things make it not so.
Different eras have different averages, basically, the chart showed Tottenham had an higher all time average than Arsenal which, although statistically correct, was statistically misleading, as Arsenals sample was taken from 10 more league seasons than Tottenham’s and those extra ten seasons were from an era when the game was growing and thus attendances were always going to be Lower than the statistical average. If you take it from the point when Tottenham joined the league Arsenal were higher. However this can still be considered incorrect as different eras produce different average highs. Meaning a team that was successful in a fallow attendance period would likely have similar attendances to a team that was average in a remarkable attendance period. And it doesn’t take into account what division you were in. Thus the best way to rank is to average your position in the attendance charts, and for that, Arsenal in the 20th century were the countries best supported,
Top 10 in order
Arsenal, Liverpool, Man U, Everton, Spurs, Newcastle, Man City, Chelsea, Villa, Sunderland.
However even that is a flawed average as it doesn’t take into account different divisions. So the best way to do it, is to have every clubs average national rank based on the division they were in then you can compare. It would take an age to do that. Brighton’s top flight average position is 17th although to see where that would rank them against others I’d have to do a massive comparison and I can’t be bothered!
Basically this amounts to the fact that you can’t compare a clubs average in the 1940s or 1960s to that of the 1980s because different factors made it so that attendances during both eras were wildly different. If I take a random sample of seasons, lets say as we are in the 2008/09, lets take 20 years ago and 60 years ago, for comparisons sake.
1948/49
The champions were Portsmouth who averaged 37,082. That was however below the league average of 38,792 (League record). Two clubs averaged above 50,000 that season Newcastle and Arsenal, Tottenham in the second division averaged above 48,000. The lowest in the top flight was from Huddersfield who averaged 22,100. The Lowest in the league was Accrington Stanley who averaged around 6,000. Those are the key stats.
1988/89
The champions were the mighty Arsenal. The gunners averaged a “paltry” 35,595. However that was the third highest. Not one club averaged above 39,000. The highest average was 38,574 by Liverpool. The second division high was 23,500 from Manchester city. And the top flight low was 7.800 from Wimbledon. The top flight average was 20,561 (the 4th highest in the 80s and the highest since 81/82). The league low was 1,947 from Halifax Town.
The highest attendance in 1948/49 was 78,299 in the Merseyside derby @ Goodison (coincidentally their record high). The highest in 1988/89 was 46,377 from the Man U/QPR game.
Basically all this proves is that you can’t compare eras. So to say that Brighton have only broke 20,000 5 times makes them small. Means nothing, because in the seasons they broke those figures, it put them in the top supported clubs in the country, which should be the main factor!!
When they got to the top their attendances did not continue to rise and when they went down so did their attendances. As Jim B says, if Brighton ever came back to the top division then a 30k stadium might be up for argument but 40k is way too big for the forseeable future.
They did not continue to rise because they couldn’t. Most clubs attendances go down when they do. Whether it be Leeds or Leicester. Their crowds have still gone down, no matter how remarkable they are for their division.
I also explained why 24-25,000 in a 32,000 capacity stadium was a near sell out!! 32,000 represented the maximum the stadium could hold if everyone was bundled in a filled space effectively. Thats why if you look through the record books most clubs highest 10 or so crowds are at fluctuating levels, rather than around a constant number!
In 1987/88 Arsenal’s given capacity was around 57,000. In that season Arsenal got the league’s highest attendance. 54,703. I obviously wasn’t there that day being barely 2 years young. But by all accounts talking to older friends/relatives who went it was rammo despite Arsenal apparently having space for 2,000 more people!!
bigbossman - I don't think that anyone would dispute that a 30K capacity stadium would serve Brighton well if and when they get to the Premiership.
But, as things stand, a 40K stadium would be too much. There is no evidence or history to support the argument that such a stadium would be required. Sure, if Brighton were to get to the Premiership and if they were to consolidate their top flight status over a number of years, then it might be worth looking at 40K. But not now. And not on the never-never.
Firstly the debate shouldn’t really take into account Brighton’s current division as a 40K stadium would be for the world cup. The case would be then could Brighton ever sustain a 40,000 seater and imho they definitely could!
Let me put it this way, when Southampton were getting 32,000 every week, there was definitely a mandate for them to add an extra 5-8,000 seats. For the simple reason they weren't getting the maximum value. I.e. most games could've got higher crowds, and the really big games, would've got even higher. Same with Brighton, and the same with a lot of clubs.
Sell outs are all well and good but anyone can sell out a stadium that is too small for them. Manchester united, Arsenal, Tottenham etc. and even if you are not it doesn't mean you couldn't get bigger crowds Chelsea, Liverpool, Aston villa etc season tickets being the main reason
You mention the likes of Southampton, Portsmouth, Leicester and Derby. You say that Brighton would need a bigger stadium than any of these. I fail to see why. Brighton is comfortably the smallest city among them, with a population in the region of 150,000. By contrast, Leicester has a population of about 330,000; Southampton, 300,000; Derby, 230,000; and Portsmouth, 190,000. And I cannot imagine that Brighton is more of a hotbed of football than the others. If anything, I would incline towards the opposite.
I didn't actually mention Brighton being bigger than Southampton, Portsmouth or Leicester, however. Let's do a quick comparison.
Brighton is not comfortably the smallest city, it is actually comfortably the biggest, the football club is called Brighton and hove Albion and represent the twin city of Brighton and Hove. Which has a population of
253,000.
According to the ONS (official) figures on urban areas out of the cities you mentioned it goes like this:
(City proper)urban area
Brighton (253,000) 461,000
Portsmouth (198,000)442,000
Leicester urban area (285,000) 441,000
Southampton (228,600) 304,000
Derby (222,000) 229,000
Brighton is the
12th largest urban area in the country
The teams I actually said Brighton were bigger than are your derby’s, Middlesbrough’s and Blackburn’s, and I see you didn’t try and compare them to Brighton!
One thing you guys don’t take into account is catchment area, Brighton’s nearest league clubs are Gillingham, Portsmouth and Crystal Palace, if you take in the approximate population between, lets say
only Sussex (for arguments sake)with a population of 1.5 million, and one league club. You can see why Brighton might be so big. Even if Crawley or Eastbourne borough made the league the catchment area is still large enough to sustain two to three well supported clubs. After all Crawley is on the borders of league-less Surrey which has a population of over a million, and Eastbourne catchment area moves into Kent with over 1.8 million people.
The reason for me is simple we have more people in the south than the north. Wigan are comparatively big in Greater Manchester as Fulham are in London the obvious difference being Fulham take their fan base from a greater population. Thus Fulham can get bigger crowds!