Mr.Carrow

This has almost certainly come from Lambert. It's pretty obvious that with his constant bs about "incredible support" etc he is trying to replicate what he did with us- turn around and enthuse a club in the doldrums. Unfortunately for him, our support was present and correct just waiting to be enthused, whilst the binners is nowhere to be seen. I actually love this offer. For all there supporters Billy big bollox attitude finally the ball is in their court to put their money where their mouth is. If they scrape 10k as I suspect despite this pretty generous offer it will just heap more embarrassment on their misery. Shame

Incredible delusion. When we went down we were still getting 25k despite several seasons of dross and Doomcaster constantly talking the club down. There is simply no evidence that they have an extra 13k or so just waiting to flock down if they are in the top 3. They've been getting 23-25k even against us and even seriously struggled to sell out the play-off semi-final, with tickets being available the day before. I would say our fan-base is at least twice the size of theirs- we have several times the amount of Twitter and Facebook followers than them.

I think the binners are rapidly becoming a Blackpool or Preston in footballing terms, but with the added noose around their neck that they simply cannot accept it. Both of those clubs had glorious histories, but neither of them exude the deluded Billy big bollox attitude that you find with 1p5wich. Leeds are a hard club to like, but you have to hand it to them that when they bang on about being a sleeping giant etc, at least you have to accept (despite their highly flakey support...) that they have a point. For the binners to claim the same is laughable to anyone in touch with modern football, yet they regularly claim just that. If you want to claim such things, at some point you have to have something to back it up, but the binners have nothing. Even their play-off season they averaged about 10,000 less than us and they can't even sell out against us! They are a small club with a limited fanbase sandwiched between a much bigger club to the North, and much bigger clubs to the South in the London area, who overachieved for a few years a long long time ago. It's a bit like when you end up with the drunk pub bore who bangs on about his illustrious boxing career 40 years ago and you walk off sadly shaking your head thinking "and just look at what you've become now...."

[quote user="daly"]With a fan base of over 1 million people they should be playing in TP if managed correctly.[/quote]

Bristol is a two-club City and large swathes of it prefer rugby to football.

You need to rethink scot-e-dog. Ask any Watford fan why they fail to sell out their ground even in the Prem and they`ll bang on about big clubs just down the road. The London conurbation is 10m, yes, but now count the clubs.... Football is tribal- whole families tend to stick with one club. City have over 1 million people in Norfolk and Waveney to draw from with no competition- that represents enormous potential.

Another example- South Yorkshire, population 1.3m. Two big Sheffield clubs plus Doncaster, Rotherham and Barnsley. Look at most big conurbations you will see a similar pattern, not to mention much more competition from other sports and leisure pursuits.

Leeds is one of the few big cities in the UK with only one team. Both Doncaster and McNally stated that demand was there for 35k per week at CR and Webber has come out recently and stated he didn`t realise the clubs potential until he got here. We are seriously under-achieving crowd wise given our catchment and potential. How we increase the ground to fulfill that potential in a practical and cost-effective way is another matter entirely!

Broadstairs, the catchment thing is a red herring. Norfolk and Waveney have a combined population of over 1 million. Yorkshire has a population of over 5 million but has 10 (i think...) league clubs and some well supported non-league clubs all vying for the same audience.

Diane, the article seems to equate crowd size with atmosphere which is totally wrong. The times he quotes in the past when CR crowds were regularly 16k we actually did have a reputation as quite a loud,intimidating place despite the dire football. Opposition managers and players regularly used to mention it- even a certain N.Warnock who generally had nothing good to say about us!

Also his "Winning games makes for a great atmosphere" quote basically shows exactly the problem we`ve got. What about when we`re not winning? "You only sing when you`re winning" is sung as an insult for a reason..... If you only want to be a "supportive" supporter when we`re winning then you`ve lost the right to claim that label in my book.

If you polled City supporters on whether they would prefer a better atmosphere at the ground i bet around 95% would reply "Yes". Yet only about 5% of the ground regularly and consistently make the effort. It looks very much like an example of "entitlement culture" in which people desire something but don`t expect to have to make any effort to get it. If you want a better atmosphere, make some noise yourself rather than expecting it to be something other people lay on for you.

For all the rightist/centrists truisms, platitudes, opinion stated as fact, straw men, false equivalences and borderline hysterical paranoia, things have changed and there is no going back. This was written nearly a year ago and read as prescient now.....http://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2016-07-22/why-corbyn-so-terrifies-the-guardian/

Paul Moy, so you want to portray these people as lazy scroungers, yet accept most are working- so not really very lazy at all then?

And in-work benefits are one of the main bugbears of the Left. And in tackling it (through a higher minimum wage, contracts with decent weekly hours and profit-sharing initiatives) you indirectly help tackle the problem of tax-avoidance and stagnant off-shore trillions- most of which comes from Corporate/shareholder profits. You also stimulate the economy as the poorest actually spend their money rather than hoarding it away, improve general health, reduce despair and it`s associated costly issues of crime, economic inactivity and addiction. But hey, let`s just watch whilst the 1% soar away from everyone else whilst blaming the bottom 5% for the worlds problems....If there`s a dystopian future coming it`s people like you who are helping it along.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jun/21/slow-wage-growth-down-to-return-to-the-past-bank-of-england-chief-economist

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]Unemployment is at 4.8%. Bearing in mind millions of jobs at the lower end are zero-hours, minimum wage, part-time and short-term contracts this does not suggest that the issue of benefit scroungers is anything other than miniscule no matter what the Sun and Mail tell you. Every society has a certain percentage who are essentially useless and always will.

Now contrast the "problem" with high level tax avoidance, trillions stagnating in offshore accounts benefiting nobody, the super-rich getting hugely richer even through the financial crash and in the stagnation beyond. Brainwashing is the only appropriate word.[/quote]

Unemployment is actually 4.6% currently.

Unemployment is at 4.8%. Bearing in mind millions of jobs at the lower end are zero-hours, minimum wage, part-time and short-term contracts this does not suggest that the issue of benefit scroungers is anything other than miniscule no matter what the Sun and Mail tell you. Every society has a certain percentage who are essentially useless and always will.

Now contrast the "problem" with high level tax avoidance, trillions stagnating in offshore accounts benefiting nobody, the super-rich getting hugely richer even through the financial crash and in the stagnation beyond. Brainwashing is the only appropriate word.

You seem to think in very individualistic terms Ricardo. I`m not really talking about what people want- i am talking about what is possible for a fair, happy and prosperous society for the greatest number of people. You have stated that people only vote in self interest but this is patently not true. Only this morning i read that the Labour vote actually went up by a greater margin amongst the wealthy than the working class. I think it was Ben Elton who quipped "No-one wants to be a millionaire in Beirut".

It`s very hard to get into economics without ending up writing a long-winded essay, but suffice to say unfettered capitalism has ended up with a 1% super-rich class who essentially have their hands on the levers of power. It was these people who caused the financial crash, yet these people were the ones who were bailed out by QE (because the unfettered institutions they had constructed were too powerful to fail) which then has to be payed for by the 99% in austerity. The end result of this is yet more trillions in tax havens and a super-rich class safe, arrogant and complacent in the knowledge that they are so powerful governments won`t let them fail. "Trickle-down" theory has utterly failed and unless you want a future in which wealth continues year on year to be increasingly hoarded at the top whilst the rest are told to suck it up, then accepting some form of Socialist-style regulation forcing the wealthiest to share a bit is utterly inevitable (particularly with widespread automation on the near horizon). I can recommend Owen Jones "The Establishment- and How They Get Away With It" if you a more eloquent and in-depth analysis of what i`m getting at.