Capacity, capacity, capacity! Why we need more!

I was recently forwarded some rather interesting research on Argyle's attendances and how they compared to other clubs of similar size, and recent history, to ours before the development of their modern stadiums. It makes interesting reading and will hopefully help inform a debate that all too often uses the apathetic Janner line as to why we don't need a larger capacity than that proposed by Akkeron. Knowing that there are some in particular on here who enjoy a bit of statistical research and digging, I'm surprised that there hasn't been any research done so far.

In the previous ten seasons Argyle have seen 25 attendances over 16500 (an estimated figure for the amount of usable seats the new stand would see at Home Park) which it would be either impossible or very unlikely that we would have achieved if the ground was the size of that proposed by Akkeron and James Brent, the owners of the football club. It would appear strange that the football club owners would advocate a stadium capacity that would not allow for an entire season's worth of home games to reach their potential over a ten season period. The loss of income and the loss of the ability to attract new regular supporters through sharing success is not something that a club like ours can miss out on, we need the ability to capitalise or risk sliding back into obscurity as we have at every other point in our history.

It is also interesting to note that this stint in the basement division, which has seen 2 relegation scraps, has seen Argyle achieve crowds which are considerably higher than our last stint in this division, promotion season excepted. Considering that our base figure, or number of hardcore fans, would appear to have increased since the last time we had to start from such a lowly position, it is not too much of a leap to suppose that the potential to achieve higher crowds may also be there with the arrival of future success, this however cannot be tested without said success so is just speculation at this point. What I can say though is that our crowds are comparable, if not bigger than, to those of Reading when they were in the third tier, and Hull and Swansea when they were in the fourth tier. These clubs are of particular interest because all three developed modern stadiums which helped provide a catalyst for their moves up the leagues and eventually to the highest division, they also hugely increased their average crowds from a base level of support which is less than ours is currently.

Following the development of their modern stadiums, all three of these clubs improved their attendances dramatically both in terms of averages and in terms of the relative attendances from stints in each division.

Hull's average attendance has almost quadrupled and their stadium was built with them in the basement division, spending 2 years in tier 4, 1 year in tier 3 and then a further 3 years in tier 2 before gaining promotion to the Premier League. In all of these seasons, there average attendance was vastly superior to their previous averages and this is of course before they reached the top tier and after years of lower league mediocrity. Their stadium provided them with a catalyst for success and has seen them compete in the top division and maintain an excellent following since their relegation. Given their lower league history, comparable attendances with us when in these leagues, city population, and of course them being the other big city not to play top flight football until recently, Hull are an excellent comparison for Argyle. The capacity of their new stadium far exceeds that proposed by Akkeron and with sustained average attendances of over 18000 in the second tier having had previous low attendances comparable with ours when in the lower leagues it would appear that Hull were in position to capitalise on success and have done, the Akkeron plans would not allow us to do so.

Swansea, who started in a very similar position to us before their rise up the leagues, have almost trebled their average attendance since the development of a modern stadium. Swansea again have comparable fourth tier attendances to our own and is a city similar to our own if with a smaller population. Again Swansea saw their average attendances improve dramatically with the development of a modern stadium, even when spending the first few years of its life in the third tier. Again here their modern stadium was able to prove a catalyst for success and to increase their average attendance to a point where they are now considering expansion. Swansea's stadium is roughly the size of that proposed by the AFT Working Group, and therefore larger than that proposed by Akkeron, and is no longer big enough for them now that they are in the top flight. It served them in the third and second tiers, but, crucially, when real success came about they have not been able to satisfy demand and are now looking to improve it. Swansea are a good example of how a modern stadium sees an uplift in attendances and why it is important to have enough capacity in place to capitalise on success.

Reading are an interesting one as their location makes them less comparable to us as you'd have thought it would give them an advantage anyway. It turns out however that, in comparison to Argyle's attendances, their average crowds were frankly rubbish compared to ours when in comparable divisions, not even reaching 10000 when in the second tier! Following the development of a modern stadium however things changed dramatically. They spent four seasons in the third tier but saw their average attendance at that level treble and even beat that of their second tier attendances for three of those seasons. Once into the second tier their attendances continued to grow until they got promoted and they improved to be well over 20000. Since relegation they have maintained a supporter base far exceeding than that they achieved without a modern stadium. Reading is also far smaller than Plymouth, so they achieved all of this with a new stadium as a catalyst which allowed them to really take advantage of success. They had far smaller attendances than us before but now average more than we did in the Championship, thus showing the importance of modern stadiums to allow success to achieving success and increasing attendances.

When you consider the above figures, and how they compare with Argyle, it would seem madness for the club to plan a stadium that would not enable us to reach attendances that we have proven we can reach, and, with uplift expected and seen elsewhere, it would again seem counter productive to build a stand that will limit the club and its ambitions even further. The above clubs, with similar averages to our own, built for success and have reaped the rewards from doing so. Akkeron's proposals would not only hamstring our ability to capitalise on success and the uplift of a truly ambitious modern stadium, but they would limit our ability to expand in the future as Swansea are looking to do now. If we look at these clubs recent histories before their stadiums were developed, in terms of league position and average attendance, which are so similar to ours and consider the argument of not having needed capacity in the past (even though we have 25 times in the past 10 seasons) then I think it is entirely blown out of the water. Not only have we proven in the past that we can reach those attendances, but these clubs who experienced lower crowds than us have proven that, with the benefits of a modern stadium, that capacity is needed to build on future success that will allow a club to establish itself in the second tier and challenge for promotion to the top tier. Settling for too small a ground now that is hemmed in by the other development and overshadowed by an ice rink instead of being the main feature of the development will quite simply be planning for failure and embedding the same cycle of failure where we are unable to build on a promotion to the second tier.

The figures are below:

Plymouth Argyle attendances above 16500 since 2002

20/04/02 - Cheltenham - 18517
28/12/03 - Brentford - 17882
02/03/04 - Sheffield Wednesday - 17218
24/04/04 - QPR - 19888
08/05/04 - Colchester - 19868
21/08/04 - Sunderland - 16874
30/08/04 - Nottingham Forest - 17538
14/09/04 - Leeds - 20555
18/09/04 - Wolves - 18635
30/10/04 - West Ham - 20220
26/12/04 - QPR - 19535
03/01/05 - Ipswich - 17923
08/01/05 - Everton - 20112
02/04/05 - Cardiff - 18045
23/04/05 - Coventry - 18443
08/05/05 - Leicester - 19199
15/10/05 - Sheffield Wednesday - 16534
02/01/05 - Leeds - 17726
04/11/06 - Birmingham - 17008
25/11/06 - Leeds - 17088
17/02/06 - Derby - 18026
11/03/06 - Watford - 20652
08/12/07 - Bristol City - 16530
26/12/07 - QPR - 16502
22/03/08 - Watford - 17511

Data was obtained from Andy Riddle's "Plymouth Argyle-the modern era" and from Greensonscreen.

Reading - 28 season analysis

Moved to the Madejski,capacity 24161, in August 1998 from Elm Park,final capacity 14800.

1984/85 - 3689 - Level 3
1985/86 - 6893 - Level 3
1986/87 - 6883 - Level 2
1987/88 - 6945 - Level 2
1988/89 - 5106 - Level 3
1989/90 - 4060 - Level 3
1990/91 - 4079 - Level 3
1991/92 - 3841 - Level 3
1992/93 - 4782 - Level 3
1993/94 - 6932 - Level 3
1994/95 - 9350 - Level 2
1995/96 - 8918 - Level 2
1996/97 - 9160 - Level 2
1997/98 - 9676 - Level 2

TOTAL=85109 AVERAGE ATTENDANCE 6079

1998/99 - 11265 - Level 3
1999/00 - 8985 - Level 3
2000/01 - 12649 - Level 3
2001/02 - 14115 - Level 3
2002/03 - 16011 - Level 2
2003/04 - 15095 - Level 2
2004/05 - 17169 - Level 2
2005/06 - 20207 - Level 2
2006/07 - 23829 - Level 1
2007/08 - 23585 - Level 1
2008/09 - 19936 - Level 2
2009/10 - 17682 - Level 2
2010/11 - 19219 - Level 2
2011/12 - 16258 - Level 2

TOTAL = 227610 AVERAGE ATTENDANCE=16258

Swansea City - 14 season analysis

Swansea City-Liberty stadium opened July 2005 capacity 20750,replacing Vetch Field, final capacity 11475

1998/99 - 5225 - Level 4
1999/00 - 5895 - Level 4
2000/01 - 4913 - Level 3
2001/02 - 3690 - Level 4
2002/03 - 5160 - Level 4
2003/04 - 6853 - Level 4
2004/05 - 8458 - Level 4

TOTAL = 40194 TOTAL AVERAGE GATE PER MATCH PER SEASON =5742

2005/06 - 14112 - Level 3
2006/07 - 12720 - Level 3
2007/08 - 13520 - Level 3
2008/09 - 15187 - Level 2
2009/10 - 15407 - Level 2
2010/11 - 15507 - Level 2
2011/12 - 19946 - Level 1

TOTAL=106399 TOTAL AVERAGE GATE PER MATCH PER SEASON=15200

Hull City - 20 season analysis

Attendances from 1992-2012,covering the move from Booothferry Park [final capacity 15576] to the KC Stadium [opening capacity 25404],which took place in December 2002.

1992/93 - 4672 - Level 3
1993/94 - 5943 - Level 3
1994/95 - 4721 - Level 3
1995/96 - 3803 - Level 3
1996/97 - 3413 - Level 4
1997/98 - 4684 - Level 4
1998/99 - 6051 - Level 4
1999/00 - 5736 - Level 4
2000/01 - 6684 - Level 4
2001/02 - 9506 - Level 4

Total = 55303 Average gate per match per season = 5530

2002/03 - 12843 - Level 4
2003/04 - 16847 - Level 4
2004/05 - 18025 - Level 3
2005/06 - 19841 - Level 2
2006/07 - 18758 - Level 2
2007/08 - 18025 - Level 2
2008/09 - 24816 - Level 1
2009/10 - 24390 - Level 1
2010/11 - 21169 - Level 2
2011/12 - 18790 - Level 2

Total = 193504 Average gate per match per season= 19350

Plymouth Argyle - 20 season analysis

1992/1993 - 6377 - Level 3
1993/1994 - 9003 - Level 3
1994/1995 - 5832 - Level 3
1995/1996 - 7120 - Level 4
1996/1997 - 6495 - Level 3
1997/1998 - 5323 - Level 3
1998/1999 - 5323 - Level 4
1999/2000 - 5372 - Level 4
2000/2001 - 4945 - Level 4
2001/2002 - 8788 - Level 4
2002/2003 - 8981 - Level 3
2003/2004 - 12654 - Level 3
2004/2005 - 16420 - Level 2
2005/2006 - 13776 - Level 2
2006/2007 - 13012 - Level 2
2007/2008 - 13000 - Level 2
2008/2009 - 11427 - Level 2
2009/2010 - 10316 - Level 2
2010/2011 - 8613 - Level 3
2011/2012 - 6915 - Level 4

Total = 179692 Average gate per match per season = 8985

The data was compiled from the following source;

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] ... ontent.htm

I know that you've steered away from t'internet due to your own issues, but you just reappear using facts and stuff, you educated wanker. Great that you've pulled the club/pasoti up on this though.

Take it easy,
Steve

PS Being educated, I hope you're aware I'm joking.

Yes indeed John. Greenskin and I have been trying to get this sort of reasoning across for years, to no avail.

In addition to the clear evidence you have provided for clubs 'on the up', with new larger stadia, are the other statistics which show how comparable we were to the likes of Norwich, Ipswich and Southampton before they achieved top flight exposure in the 60's & 70's. A few seasons at the top level for city clubs tends to cement a 20k fanbase.

It has nothing to do with apathetic janners. Fans anywhere would be and have been apathetic [Hull/ Swansea/Reading etc] with decades of false dawns and missed opportunities.
I remember well the third tier promotion season 74/75 ?,when Mariner was playing. Attendances were 5/6 k but as soon as people saw the quality on show and we were winning, they shot up over 20k on several occasions and reached almost 30k the night we beat Blackburn 2 - 1 to go top.

Bloody hell, John, when you manage to get out of first gear you could conquer the world!

Thanks for the work. Great and convincing information.

That post took a lot of research and work.

Top post John.

I hope those that matter take notice of it.

And very well done to those individuals who did the research.

The Sleeping Giant mmmmmm............ Tis will love this

Tis is an Xisle multi.

Now if you put Gob's research to John's, a picture appears. Now which bloody thread and page is Gob's statistics on? The ones that show number of seats per head of population.

Iggy wrote:

Tis is an Xisle multi.

He wishes.

Figures are always good if you really understand what they mean, my first thought with respect to this particular missive is that it refers to three clubs who got sparkly brand new grounds in different locations from pretty scabby old ones, all you are talking about is is tacking a slightly bigger new bit on an existing ground. I would also point out that none of those bigger crowds have occurred in the last five years.

Bottom line, I suspect it will cut little ice with Harry Potter, I guess his current plan is pretty much revenue neutral and his intention would be that it remain so.

love to see the working group plans taken up,,,,do the group have a ball park £££? for the extra seats,cus obviously that's what will define wether it can be done or not,,,for me ive got a feeling james brent wont budge,hope iam wrong,,if he wont the next best thing has to be moving the ice on to cottage fields,,(the no cost option),,then atleast the new stand can be,,( the new stand faze 1),,,at the meeting at city bus mr brents only concern with the moving on to cottage fields debate came from a green point of view,,so if that's his only concern theres room to move there,,,thats my plan b if all else fails,,,if its no extra cost( which again was the main factor behind a smller stand }we must be left room to expand

Great work with the figures John, but where I think the new grandstand will attract more at first out of curiousity, I don't think it will be on the scale of those who moved to a brand new stadium.

The research still shows that there definitely is call for a bigger capacity stand with so many games that have previously exceeded what will be on offer with Brent's planned development.

It has been pointed out, and rightly so, that there are differences between Argyle and these teams, in particular that they all moved to entirely new facilities (in some cases out of town) and that this could mean that we will not see the same uplift in attendances as they did. This is a valid criticism, but, one I feel I can counter.

First of all, in any case it is not possible to compare like for like as every football club is different and experiences different circumstances. The three clubs I included in the original post are the most comparable to Argyle in terms of history over the past three decades, population size, average attendances and stated ambition. I chose them over clubs like Coventry or Darlington which have also been raised as we share a lot in common with them which we don't with Coventry and Darlington whose histories are vastly different to ours as are their attendance records.

In terms of the uplift from their stadiums being completely new builds, I would argue that what we will see on offer at Home Park and its surrounds will actually be better and more attractive to almost everyone than their stadiums. It won't have the same curiosity factor as a new build with it just being one stand being completed but we will have the advantage of the setting and the development of this setting. Whilst I am certain that there will be interest generated by the completion of the stadium in itself, as it will pique the interest of those who have an interest in football, I am even more convinced that there will be interest in watching Argyle games as part of a greater leisure experience that will be provided by the rest of the development, the Life Centre and the park. We will have the advantage of having a completed modern stadium surrounded by facilities that will be of interest to the whole family. People will literally be able to spend a whole Saturday enjoying the park and enjoying Argyle, as they will be able to eat, drink, walk, cycle, play football, go for a swim, go on a water slide, see a film, spend the night, shop or whatever. There will be so much for almost everyone to enjoy and that, I believe, will prove to be a big part of our uplift.

I just hope that something more in line with the proposals of the Working Group are used so that this experience which should see an uplift in crowd numbers is capitalised on as much as possible by providing an open, communal and attractive space for people to enjoy rather than the rather cramped original plan.

Build it and they will come, no one wants a darlington situation where they had a thirty thousand capacity ground with three thousand fans, but seventeen thousand capacity is a no ambition dead duck as far as i'm concerned. good work john!

Playing devil's advocate, you could also use those figures to conclude that in the last 5 seasons we haven't had an attendance over 16500. Of course those 5 seasons have seen us in our downward spiral but still: lies, damn lies and statistics.

I think Brent is well aware that should we find ourselves at the top of 'level 3', or even back in level 2, that the proposed capacity would be restrictive. However I strongly suspect that he has no plans to be hanging around long enough for us to return to that level. He's getting his development done, and then selling to the highest bidder at whatever point he can achieve a decent sell on value. He's hoping to make a quickish buck from the club. That seems the obvious from his interaction with the Trust (trying to see them a 'dead man's share' for a large price) and the short-termism of this new stand idea/

Flat_Track_Bully wrote:

Playing devil's advocate, you could also use those figures to conclude that in the last 5 seasons we haven't had an attendance over 16500. Of course those 5 seasons have seen us in our downward spiral but still: lies, damn lies and statistics.

I think Brent is well aware that should we find ourselves at the top of 'level 3', or even back in level 2, that the proposed capacity would be restrictive. However I strongly suspect that he has no plans to be hanging around long enough for us to return to that level. He's getting his development done, and then selling to the highest bidder at whatever point he can achieve a decent sell on value. He's hoping to make a quickish buck from the club. That seems the obvious from his interaction with the Trust (trying to see them a 'dead man's share' for a large price) and the short-termism of this new stand idea/

Exactly. ...... and the acceptance that he won't budge by Newell, Webb, De Lar etc etc would suggest to me that they might be privy to an arrangement whereby the unfit for purpose development goes ahead, the fine gentleman makes his money, then hands over a terminally mediocre and restricted football club to said self promoting dimwits and their sponsors.
Avivafests and bucket rattling for evermore because nobody but them and the Avivas will be interested.

In fact, there will undoubtedly be outright hostility towards the Pasoti Politburo from all decent, thinking fans.

argyle average crowds holding up very well indeed,,no sign of the back lash that some are saying will happen?

There will be if brent's development plans aren't dramatically changed. All he has to do is provide a lighthouse to keep some idiots happy

tcm wrote:

argyle average crowds holding up very well indeed,,no sign of the back lash that some are saying will happen?

Yes exactly - thats why we need a decent capacity.

iam with you brother,,,i want the bigger capacity too,,( iwas just countering trings statement)

move the ice to cottage fields now,,,thats what we must be pushing for,,

What sort of Argyle 'fan' wants the 'stand' built small and once it's built knowing full well that the capacity can NEVER be increased to levels that are needed even for a L1 propmotion challenge. Are they stupid? Or do they just love brent far far more than Argyle?

I want to know why mr brent is so againt cottage field for the ice,,( I think ive got a good idear),,I sat and listenend to his green argument so obviously he/ackerton don't want to get involved in developing that site in the future,,do they?( it has planning),,as far as iam awere the field is 1% of the park,,so if I had a 100 trees in my garden and had to loose one of them it wouldn't be such a big deal would it james,,,,,,if you havnt got the cash then move the ice on to the field and then we can all say thanks for the south stand faze 1,,,

Cottage field is marked for development, the question is, are there any plans in place for this and who will be carrying out said development?
In an attempt to judge scale do we have a side view of the whole development with an idea of how big the hotel will be in the grand scheme of things?

are the working group in talks with the council( re cottage field?) that the short term answer to a our problem,,not the whole answer but would leave wriggle room ,,,at then we have room to breeth and tack stock,,,we need a ballpark figure of the difference between a 4800 and a 7000 ? is that known?

I think Brent is so reluctant to build the ice rink on cottage field because he's got something else lined up to go there to make himself even more cash.

This man JB NOT a property developer though.