Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
Egan wrote: There have been numerous studies that show the distance from the pitch is impacting on attendance.
But at least 20k seats would have better viewing than the SCG .
.
f**k you're annoying. i resolve not to complain about egan while you're on here pushing barrows. [/off topic whinge]
what do you base that on exactly? and which seats at the SCG are you talking about?
there may be 20k seats that are better than the SCG on the basis that the SCG seats you're talking about are obstructed view jobs at the top corners of the stands where neighbouring stands' rooves get in the way, but otherwise the SCG is tight and has lovely sightlines.
i've been to the scg dozens of times and haven't been to subi, but on the basis of the long and loud complaining about subi on here i'd be surprised to the point of falling over if you're even merely claiming that the best 20k seats are better than the SCG's best 20k.
Egan wrote:
And Rob, there is a reason why crowds are dropping. "not for no apparent reason" Subiaco Oval. There have been numerous studies that show the distance from the pitch is impacting on attendance.
Funny, I though they'd always played at Subiaco Oval. You may have a point if they moved from a venue with better viewing to there.
And it's not something you can prove with 'studies'. You go around asking people why they aren't renewing their membership, and not many are going to say that they just couldn't be stuffed going anymore.
I'm sure the Glory probably thought something similar when their crowds declined, and had 'studies' to prove it. Of course, MES was upgraded and didn't make a rats ass of difference.
I'm certainly not disagreeing with you that Subi is a pus filled hell hole, I just don't think it's had as much impact on declining crowds as you think.
Eg There pre-season game had more people than the last regular season game at the sh*t hole.
It also had the christ promoted out of it. Didn't last years equivalent practice match at MES only get a few thousand? Against Samoa IIRC.
dibo wrote:i've been to the scg dozens of times and haven't been to subi, but on the basis of the long and loud complaining about subi on here i'd be surprised to the point of falling over if you're even merely claiming that the best 20k seats are better than the SCG's best 20k.
The reference by Egan was distance from the pitch .
There would be 20k seats on Subiaco's wings that are a lot closer than the nearly circular SCG .
Nines wrote:There would be 20k seats on Subiaco's wings that are a lot closer than the nearly circular SCG .
.
That's typically absurd of you.
The SCG if 23m wider than Subi. That's 11.5m on each wing. There is only 11.5m of seating at Subi's wings closer to the pitch than the SCG at it's widest point. Hardly 20,000. As you go to the corners the distances are more comparable. In fact, the big playing field at Subi means that very few seats at Subi are closer than the SCG.
Jeffles wrote:
The SCG if 23m wider than Subi. That's 11.5m on each wing.
Got you so far . At the widest point, people at the SCG are 11.5m further away from the action than people on the Wings at Subiaco .
Jeffles wrote:
There is only 11.5m of seating at Subi's wings closer to the pitch than the SCG at it's widest point.
By your own reasoning the wings at subiaco are 11.5 m closer to the action .So generally a large number of fans are better off than the SCG .
The exact number of fans that are better off than the SCG is hard to compute .Using that rationale however, the number of people that are no worse off by viewing at Subiaco vs the SCG is very large .
And that my friend was the point of the remark .With 15k crowds at Subiaco for the Force there are plenty of good seats left to watch the game and blaming Subiaco ceases to be an excuse .
Some seats at Subi are closer than at the SCG but most are further away. Once the few close seats are snapped up, the comparison falls away. The other thiong to bear in mind is economic demand. A cheap seat may be further away at one place than another and so that bends the demand curve.
All of that said, I reiterate my earlier remarks that this year's drop off has little/nothing to do with dimensions. Dimensions may inhibit future growth however.
Jeffles wrote:Some seats at Subi are closer than at the SCG but most are further away.
And some seats are the same distance .
Since the wings at Subiaco are 11.5m closer in , the stands on the wing are closer in . That means the fence seats are closer and the stadium seats are relatively closer than those of the SCG .
If the capacity of Subi is 48k , then you'd have to reasonably say that 24k of those seats are reasonablely positioned .
Jeffles wrote: All of that said, I reiterate my earlier remarks that this year's drop off has little/nothing to do with dimensions. Dimensions may inhibit future growth however.
It would be interesting to know that future direction .
timmers wrote:Egan, do you have a reason why the Wildcats have suffered their drop in support.
As far as i'm aware they have never played a match at subi
Force have surveyed members on why they have lost their membership and most of the reasons are because of Subiaco Oval. But I guess its a great venue for Rugby according to some on this forum and everybody is hypnotised to suggest that the venue has no negative connotations. After enduring the venue for finals for Glory, the venue became much maligned. Many Glory fans have vowed never to attend a soccer match at Subiaco Oval again...
Wildcats actually sell out at Challenge Stadium now, so they can't really fit any more people in it. Will use the new Indoor stadium in a few years...
