Jump to content

Follow Follow Rangers. Season 2024/25


Recommended Posts

Just now, RandomGuy. said:

Only if you believe the attendance figures Celtic push out.

Celtic reported just shy of 50k for a match against County in 2012, official police report had the crowd at 35k

Not really.

Unless they radically altered whatever method they use in summer 2016, the point stands.   It's not about how big the gates were in absolute terms.  It's about the relationship between the figure for a top flight season devoid of Rangers, and for one that includes Rangers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tartantony said:

Was I?

2 questions for you then

1. What was the average attendance for season 2009/2010?
2. What year did Rangers die?

As you say, we've done this.

You've cherry picked one very unusual season.  They were dreadful under Mowbray and that one season bucks an undeniable trend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As you say, we've done this.
You've cherry picked one very unusual season.  They were dreadful under Mowbray and that one season bucks an undeniable trend.
Nah, you're talking pish and letting your hatred get in the way of the facts. Attendances are shown below since the stadium became 60,000.

It's pretty clear attendances dived in 2009 and recovered in 2016. Just so happens that period falls between two managers who were financially backed. The fans stopped going due to downsizing and uninspiring appointments, it quite clearly had nothing to do with Rangers being in the league or not.

You just keep making up stories to suit your sad agenda though.

Screenshot_20190220-194402_Chrome.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Not really.

Unless they radically altered whatever method they use in summer 2016, the point stands.   It's not about how big the gates were in absolute terms.  It's about the relationship between the figure for a top flight season devoid of Rangers, and for one that includes Rangers.

My point was Celtic fans always point to the official attendances as "proof" crowds didn't dip, despite the fact it's a stone cold fact Celtic heavily fluff their attendances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Tartantony said:

Nah, you're talking pish and letting your hatred get in the way of the facts. Attendances are shown below since the stadium became 60,000.

It's pretty clear attendances dived in 2009 and recovered in 2016. Just so happens that period falls between two managers who were financially backed. The fans stopped going due to downsizing and uninspiring appointments, it quite clearly had nothing to do with Rangers being in the league or not.

You just keep making up stories to suit your sad agenda though.

Screenshot_20190220-194402_Chrome.jpg

Seriously?

Are you actually claiming that Rangers' absence had no bearing on those figures?

My God!  That's extraordinary.

The figures absolutely and unequivocally back what I'm saying.  

It's very clear that 2009/10 is the big outlier.  You'd be on firmer ground had gates not got up again before Rangers  met their 2012 fate.

We then have a steep drop that continues, taking gates even below that outlying figure.  We than have that huge leap of almost a quarter that accompanies a version of Rangers joining them in the top division.  Clearer evidence of the 'pining' I mentioned earlier, would be hard to envisage.

I'm prepared to admit that several factors can contribute to fluctuations in attendances.  To seriously suggest that the correlation between Celtic's gates dipping and Rangers not being there is merely incidental however, is complete lunacy.  It's actually quite amusing to see someone making a genuine attempt to say such a thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RandomGuy. said:

McFadden got longer spent on him giving Hamilton the GIRUY than match highlights.

They spent longer showing Graham diving than match highlights too.

We also had the bizarre scenario of them having multiple angles, and zoomed in clips, of Frazer Wright "elbowing" a Celtic player at a corner, an incident that didn't see the player react, and wasn't mentioned at all in any report, by any opposition player, or by the opposition manager. He got a ban despite the footage being grainy as f**k with no clear evidence.

Sure that was the same season Wanyama had Frazer Wright by the throat, and it didn't get brought up at all, despite being brought to the BBCs attention on twitter..

download.jpeg.0238ce26da539641f96e8bc8856d97f5.jpeg

 

And the Lee Croft challenge v Ross County that I don't think was even in the match highlights, they just decided to do a separate feature on the tackle!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously?
Are you actually claiming that Rangers' absence had no bearing on those figures?
My God!  That's extraordinary.
The figures absolutely and unequivocally back what I'm saying.  
It's very clear that 2009/10 is the big outlier.  You'd be on firmer ground had gates not got up again before Rangers  met their 2012 fate.
We then have a steep drop that continues, taking gates even below that outlying figure.  We than have that huge leap of almost a quarter that accompanies a version of Rangers joining them in the top division.  Clearer evidence of the 'pining' I mentioned earlier, would be hard to envisage.
I'm prepared to admit that several factors can contribute to fluctuations in attendances.  To seriously suggest that the correlation between Celtic's gates dipping and Rangers not being there is merely incidental however, is complete lunacy.  It's actually quite amusing to see someone making a genuine attempt to say such a thing.
Wow! There aren't really any words for you. It's actually embarrassing reading some of your posts at times.

The facts speak for themselves so I'll just leave it at that and let you get on with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Tartantony said:

Wow! There aren't really any words for you. It's actually embarrassing reading some of your posts at times.

The facts speak for themselves so I'll just leave it at that and let you get on with it.
 

I think it's very wise of you to leave it there.

Still not really embracing the Dumbarton thing, are we?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking at the average attendances from 2006, it looks to me like the drop off was Tony Mowbray inspired in 2009/10 where below 50,000 crowds were maintained until Sevco saved Scottish football by returning to the top flight in 2016/17. The orange line is the average from 2006 to 2019 (to date).

Screen Shot 2019-02-20 at 4.37.29 PM.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Tartantony said:
19 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:
I think it's very wise of you to leave it there.
Still not really embracing the Dumbarton thing, are we?

Haha Do i have to have an irrational hatred of Celtic now that i go to Dumbarton. Am I doing it wrong?

Of course you're doing it wrong(ly).

All of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MSU said:

Looking at the average attendances from 2006, it looks to me like the drop off was Tony Mowbray inspired in 2009/10 where below 50,000 crowds were maintained until Sevco saved Scottish football by returning to the top flight in 2016/17. The orange line is the average from 2006 to 2019 (to date).

Screen Shot 2019-02-20 at 4.37.29 PM.png

Shoosh.

That big drop, then huge leap that bookended the years without Rangers, are not in any way related to the fact that they involved the years without Rangers.  

No siree. No way.  Just because it looks exactly like that doesn't mean that it is. Alright.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tartantony said:
6 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:
Of course you're doing it wrong(ly).
All of it.

Go on then, explain it to me

You're drawing ludicrous conclusions from the figures you provided yourself.

Following your local diddy team is the antithesis of following either bit of the OF.  It would make more sense to follow both bits together, than it would to harbour affection for one of them, while supporting a diddy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Shoosh.

That big drop, then huge leap that bookended the years without Rangers, are not in any way related to the fact that they involved the years without Rangers.  

No siree. No way.  Just because it looks exactly like that doesn't mean that it is. Alright.

The numbers look like the huge jump was very much Sevco related. The drop off the cliff less so. Seven consecutive years below 50,000 is tricky to ignore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're drawing ludicrous conclusions from the figures you provided yourself.
Following your local diddy team is the antithesis of following either bit of the OF.  It would make more sense to follow both bits together, than it would to harbour affection for one of them, while supporting a diddy.
You're all over the place as usual. Your outlook/ opinions make no sense at times
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Tartantony said:
27 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:
You're drawing ludicrous conclusions from the figures you provided yourself.
Following your local diddy team is the antithesis of following either bit of the OF.  It would make more sense to follow both bits together, than it would to harbour affection for one of them, while supporting a diddy.

You're all over the place as usual. Your outlook/ opinions make no sense at times

That they make no sense to you does not, I'm afraid, render them senseless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MSU said:

The numbers look like the huge jump was very much Sevco related. The drop off the cliff less so. Seven consecutive years below 50,000 is tricky to ignore.

There's some truth there.  

The huge jump is the very clear marker of the pining which Tony sees such pressing need to deny.

Yes, the gates were below 50,000 for a spell before Rangers went under.  In the final year before that event though, they were only just below - indeed the figures were recovering at that point.

It's also the case that since the turn of the century, Celtic's two seasons of lowest attendance fell during the years without Rangers.  In fact four of their five poorest seasons in terms of attendance, fell during the four when Rangers weren't alongside them.  

When we consider that they won the League during those seasons (in contrast to what happened in the Mowbray year) the pattern becomes yet clearer.  

As I said before, other factors, such as form and managerial appointments, can play a part in such fluctuations.  To deny that Rangers' absence had any impact however, despite these figures, is just crazy.

ETA: Actually, an edit of this post is required because I'm mistaken in that third paragraph.  In the final year before Rangers expired, gates were in fact above the 50,000 mark; they were just a little below it in the previous season.  We therefore needn't ignore that run of "seven consecutive years below 50,000" because it didn't occur.  I made the same mistake I presume you did, of seeing the Orange line as representing such a threshold.  However, it represents an average over the entire period, and is only quite so high, because gates soared to such an extent from 2016 on.

Edited by Monkey Tennis
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
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
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...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...