| Crowds 10:48 - Feb 26 with 4210 views | cressi |
We seem to get bigger more regular crowds than when we were a great side in the 70s and 80s. More away fans in a lower league.
Population in the UK is up about 12 million 1978 to now .
Transport families often did not have a car.
And has it became more safe and family oriented when I was young had to arrive early to get a spot with a view.
It is not down to price as football has gone up quite a lot in comparison now to then in people's wages like to hear people's views. |  | | |  |
| Crowds on 11:02 - Feb 26 with 3738 views | homer_123 |
Well, at the risk of stating the bleeding obvious....
We are a joy to watch...as much as anything.
Our football, as a spectacle, under previous incumbents was not exactly easy on the eye. The football, alone, right now is worth the admission price, almost regardless of results. |  |
| |
| Crowds on 11:07 - Feb 26 with 3692 views | JakeITFC |
Football in general has obviously had a boom in the last 20/30 years, but you have to say it's a good time to be a football fan in England - the national team are good and going deep in tournaments, average attendances across the board are flying and in much nicer stadiums etc. and I think people post-Covid are enjoying getting out and doing things.
From an Ipswich perspective they must be delighted with how quickly it was able to turn - the support has always been there, but less than 10 years ago if you had a spare in the pub beforehand it was difficult to get rid of, and now we are the hottest ticket in town. This little period of success will set us up for years to come hopefully as Ipswich is now awash with team shirts and colours in a way that wasn't true of long periods of the last 20 years. |  | | |
| Crowds on 11:19 - Feb 26 with 3599 views | muhrensleftfoot |
| Crowds on 11:02 - Feb 26 by homer_123 |
Well, at the risk of stating the bleeding obvious....
We are a joy to watch...as much as anything.
Our football, as a spectacle, under previous incumbents was not exactly easy on the eye. The football, alone, right now is worth the admission price, almost regardless of results. |
Back in the 1970s and early 80's we were a joy to watch too, and of course playing at the top level, so it's not immediately obvious why crowds are better now. I can only think it's down to football in general being more popular than back then. |  | | |
| Crowds on 11:31 - Feb 26 with 3504 views | rkc123 |
I would think that it probably has a lot to do with the demographic of people attending the games? In the 70's and 80's I would have thought there was a perception at least by some people that a day out at the football was not something for women and children, perhaps not even seen as safe for them. While I am sure the crowd is still a large percentage adult male, I think the number of children and women that attend games regularly has gone up a lot, add to this the general population increase in the area and I think it probably largely explains the high attendances. [Post edited 26 Feb 11:33]
| | | |
| Crowds on 11:35 - Feb 26 with 3477 views | OldFart71 |
I seem to recall the average gate in season 80-81 when Town should have won the then First Division was about 26,000 with around four gates at the 30,000 mark. | | | |
| Crowds on 11:58 - Feb 26 with 3370 views | Steve_M |
| Crowds on 11:07 - Feb 26 by JakeITFC |
Football in general has obviously had a boom in the last 20/30 years, but you have to say it's a good time to be a football fan in England - the national team are good and going deep in tournaments, average attendances across the board are flying and in much nicer stadiums etc. and I think people post-Covid are enjoying getting out and doing things.
From an Ipswich perspective they must be delighted with how quickly it was able to turn - the support has always been there, but less than 10 years ago if you had a spare in the pub beforehand it was difficult to get rid of, and now we are the hottest ticket in town. This little period of success will set us up for years to come hopefully as Ipswich is now awash with team shirts and colours in a way that wasn't true of long periods of the last 20 years. |
Yes, and also allowing a broader demographic to feel safe at football means that there are more women and children at games in general now than there were in the early 80s when the threat of hooliganism, if not the reality, and lack of facilities would have put many off. |  |
| |
| Crowds on 12:04 - Feb 26 with 3337 views | Ewan_Oozami |
| Crowds on 11:58 - Feb 26 by Steve_M |
Yes, and also allowing a broader demographic to feel safe at football means that there are more women and children at games in general now than there were in the early 80s when the threat of hooliganism, if not the reality, and lack of facilities would have put many off. |
They're now called "vloogihans".... |  |
| |
| Crowds on 12:45 - Feb 26 with 3152 views | Bobbychase |
| Crowds on 11:19 - Feb 26 by muhrensleftfoot |
Back in the 1970s and early 80's we were a joy to watch too, and of course playing at the top level, so it's not immediately obvious why crowds are better now. I can only think it's down to football in general being more popular than back then. |
Yep. If you look at clubs like Cardiff City for example, it wasn't uncommon for them to get crowds under 6-7,000 for league games in the 1980s. The cultural impact of the 1990s on football post Italia 90, the redevelopment of stadiums etc, has seen crowds rise for everyone.
If were were regulars in Europe and challenging for titles/cups now like we were under Robson, we'd need a 40,000+ stadium |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Crowds on 12:52 - Feb 26 with 3113 views | Dubtractor |
| Crowds on 11:58 - Feb 26 by Steve_M |
Yes, and also allowing a broader demographic to feel safe at football means that there are more women and children at games in general now than there were in the early 80s when the threat of hooliganism, if not the reality, and lack of facilities would have put many off. |
Yep. That broader demographic is very much part of it. Where we sit (SBR upper) there are lots of couples, mums with kids, and dads with kids. |  |
| |
| Crowds on 13:48 - Feb 26 with 2913 views | bluelagos |
Some of it will be down to the fact that tickets are so hard to get hold of.
In the 70/80s how many times were fans turned away? Hardly any. But now tickets are scarce so going becomes something we want more of.
Is like you can't pick yer games and be guaranteed a ticket (like in the 70s) and so some will now have STs who otherwise might just go to 10-15 games. And if you've paid for 23 games you'll likely go to most of them.
ST numbers back in the day were much lower and it didn't really stop you going to whichever games you wanted.
A scarce resource in demand and it becomes self fulfilling as full stadiums just increases the demand more.
That's my theory. |  |
| |
| Crowds on 15:44 - Feb 26 with 2689 views | Sawtrich |
Crowds were smaller everywhere back then. Not so family friendly to say the least, not so much disposable income. In 1981 we averaged 24K, which was 9th highest in the country. Only Man Utd averaged over 40K. Teams getting similar crowds to us were Forest, Everton, Sunderland, Wolves, Leeds and Southampton. Looking back at some of the facilities it seems remarkable we put up with it. I remember getting soaked on many an away terrace with no roof. Still happens in League One in some places! |  | | |
| Crowds on 19:19 - Feb 26 with 2468 views | Alberto_the_frog |
Yeah, everyone gets bigger crowds. I got that wrong. I assumed sky tv would just mean people would watch at home instead of going to games, but it just stoked a general interest. |  | | |
| Crowds on 04:17 - Feb 27 with 2138 views | IPS_wich |
| Crowds on 12:52 - Feb 26 by Dubtractor |
Yep. That broader demographic is very much part of it. Where we sit (SBR upper) there are lots of couples, mums with kids, and dads with kids. |
That's the main reason I would have thought.
When the Pioneer Stand opened in 1982 the block in the upper tier next to the tunnel was the 'family enclosure' and it was really the first time that mums and younger kids would have somewhere to go. Whereas Churchmans and the North Stand were all standing and whilst a lot of fun I can't think very appealing to the family market.
My Dad used to stand in Churchmans and when me and my brother started going (around age 7/8 in the late 70s) he used to plonk us right at the front behind the goal with our milk crates and told us not to move and he'd see us at half time and full time. | | | |
| Crowds on 08:22 - Feb 27 with 1908 views | Bluespeed225 |
Do t worry, if we have a lull , ie, go up, go down, become a West Brom, Brum, Hull type, we’ll settle at around 25k. We don’t need a 40k stadium,. | | | |
| Crowds on 11:43 - Feb 27 with 1762 views | monty_radio |
| Crowds on 13:48 - Feb 26 by bluelagos |
Some of it will be down to the fact that tickets are so hard to get hold of.
In the 70/80s how many times were fans turned away? Hardly any. But now tickets are scarce so going becomes something we want more of.
Is like you can't pick yer games and be guaranteed a ticket (like in the 70s) and so some will now have STs who otherwise might just go to 10-15 games. And if you've paid for 23 games you'll likely go to most of them.
ST numbers back in the day were much lower and it didn't really stop you going to whichever games you wanted.
A scarce resource in demand and it becomes self fulfilling as full stadiums just increases the demand more.
That's my theory. |
Could be something in that.
Some have spoken of increased numbers of children and families in evidence, but I think that's a misconception, especially with the ludicrous rule that now operates that no under - 13s are to attend unaccompanied. Loads of late primary and early teens once attended in groups, but without the family areas, so they were sprinkled around. I realise that society has become desperately risk-averse, but the current rule will not bring in a whole slew of kids that might attend, but could find no adult to accompany. Or is that too fanciful? Are we all hopelessly in hock to the notion that kids are not let off the leash till suddenly, at 18+ many move away to Uni and must find the freedom rather daunting. Rant over! | |
| |
| Crowds on 11:56 - Feb 27 with 1726 views | NthQldITFC |
The matchday service  and customer experience are much-improved as are the revenue streams .
(as opposed to     )
(somewhat in jest) |  |
| # WE ARE STEALING THE FUTURE FROM OUR CHILDREN --- WE MUST CHANGE COURSE # | | Poll: | It's driving me nuts |
| |
| Crowds on 12:27 - Feb 27 with 1648 views | ElephantintheRoom |
Glory seekers. You had to have a season ticket to get a seat when Town went up under Lyall and it was more or less the same under Burley. The demand has always been there
It does seem odd that Town couldn’t sell out for Real Madrid….. but as the crowds showed for the Leeds and Liverpool cup ties in 1975 - a big game could attract a massive crowd in an era when you didn’t have to plan something akin to a military operation to get a ticket to go in. | |
| |
| Crowds on 12:34 - Feb 27 with 1630 views | SomethingBlue |
| Crowds on 12:27 - Feb 27 by ElephantintheRoom |
Glory seekers. You had to have a season ticket to get a seat when Town went up under Lyall and it was more or less the same under Burley. The demand has always been there
It does seem odd that Town couldn’t sell out for Real Madrid….. but as the crowds showed for the Leeds and Liverpool cup ties in 1975 - a big game could attract a massive crowd in an era when you didn’t have to plan something akin to a military operation to get a ticket to go in. |
Not sure about that under Lyall – I remember 13k for a home game with Wimbledon in 92/93 and unless I'm really mistaken we didn't get a lot more than 16k for the PL opener with Villa. Average ended up being 18k, according to results of a quick search. Correct re Burley promotion tho. [Post edited 27 Feb 12:35]
| |
| |
| Crowds on 12:35 - Feb 27 with 1623 views | gainsboroughblue |
| Crowds on 12:27 - Feb 27 by ElephantintheRoom |
Glory seekers. You had to have a season ticket to get a seat when Town went up under Lyall and it was more or less the same under Burley. The demand has always been there
It does seem odd that Town couldn’t sell out for Real Madrid….. but as the crowds showed for the Leeds and Liverpool cup ties in 1975 - a big game could attract a massive crowd in an era when you didn’t have to plan something akin to a military operation to get a ticket to go in. |
Incorrect. I have never had a season ticket in my life and managed to see every game in 1991-92 season. Our gates were often below 10,000 save for games against Cambridge and the Charlton/Blackburn Xmas games.
The only gates over 20,000 in the 2nd half of that campaign were Liverpool (cup) Newcastle, Grimsby and Brighton towards the end of the season. |  |
| |
| Crowds on 12:41 - Feb 27 with 1575 views | Crawfordsboot |
When I was younger I did not get to see many games I was always playing. Perhaps there are fewer kids playing football on a Saturday afternoon and more free to attend matches.
It also occurs to me that with the changing population shifting from a young post war bulge to a now ageing pensioner dominated population we have a greater percentage of the population with the time and money available to watch football. |  | | |
| Crowds on 12:51 - Feb 27 with 1543 views | gainsboroughblue |
| Crowds on 12:34 - Feb 27 by SomethingBlue |
Not sure about that under Lyall – I remember 13k for a home game with Wimbledon in 92/93 and unless I'm really mistaken we didn't get a lot more than 16k for the PL opener with Villa. Average ended up being 18k, according to results of a quick search. Correct re Burley promotion tho. [Post edited 27 Feb 12:35]
|
Attendances were still quite poor comparatively then across the country. Not quite at mid 80's levels but still not great.
In 92-93 Man U averaged 35k, Arsenal 24k, Chelsea 18k (a few hundred above us), Norwich 16k, Southampton 15k and Wimbledon 8k.
I think one or two of those figures may be explained by capacity reductions post Hillsborough. I certainly remember the North Bank at Highbury being unused around then.
Edit. The Dell was probably at capacity at the time. [Post edited 27 Feb 13:03]
| |
| |
| Crowds on 13:08 - Feb 27 with 1497 views | Buhrer |
| Crowds on 11:43 - Feb 27 by monty_radio |
Could be something in that.
Some have spoken of increased numbers of children and families in evidence, but I think that's a misconception, especially with the ludicrous rule that now operates that no under - 13s are to attend unaccompanied. Loads of late primary and early teens once attended in groups, but without the family areas, so they were sprinkled around. I realise that society has become desperately risk-averse, but the current rule will not bring in a whole slew of kids that might attend, but could find no adult to accompany. Or is that too fanciful? Are we all hopelessly in hock to the notion that kids are not let off the leash till suddenly, at 18+ many move away to Uni and must find the freedom rather daunting. Rant over! |
It does seem ludicrous that kids today are only given 5 years of being able to attend a football game alone, before being expected to cope at Uni....
There's clearly loads more ladies, families and kids at the footy. I'm sure there's some legal/insurance sense to the age cutoff. I also can't believe theres much demand for unaccompanied children, and at the ticket prices for kids the club would effectively be paying to be a baby sitter. Accompanying younger children is actually part of preparing them for going alone and adult life. |  | | |
| Crowds on 14:40 - Feb 27 with 1420 views | monty_radio |
| Crowds on 13:08 - Feb 27 by Buhrer |
It does seem ludicrous that kids today are only given 5 years of being able to attend a football game alone, before being expected to cope at Uni....
There's clearly loads more ladies, families and kids at the footy. I'm sure there's some legal/insurance sense to the age cutoff. I also can't believe theres much demand for unaccompanied children, and at the ticket prices for kids the club would effectively be paying to be a baby sitter. Accompanying younger children is actually part of preparing them for going alone and adult life. |
"Accompanying younger children is actually part of preparing them for going alone and adult life".
But unaccompanying, if safe to do so, prepares them better. Sad to see how many kids at our nearby secondary school arrive in cars. [Post edited 28 Feb 13:23]
| |
| |
| Crowds on 14:55 - Feb 27 with 1400 views | Buhrer |
| Crowds on 14:40 - Feb 27 by monty_radio |
"Accompanying younger children is actually part of preparing them for going alone and adult life".
But unaccompanying, if safe to do so, prepares them better. Sad to see how many kids at our nearby secondary school arrive in cars. [Post edited 28 Feb 13:23]
|
You have to draw a line somewhere, and it's the clubs decision. 12/13 unaccompanied seems reasonable to me. I've taken mine and others kids and there's a world of difference between a 10 year olds and a 14 year olds ability to navigate Portman Road and all that can involve, on game day. The place is heaving for one. | | | |
| Crowds on 15:10 - Feb 27 with 1368 views | Alberto_the_frog |
| Crowds on 12:51 - Feb 27 by gainsboroughblue |
Attendances were still quite poor comparatively then across the country. Not quite at mid 80's levels but still not great.
In 92-93 Man U averaged 35k, Arsenal 24k, Chelsea 18k (a few hundred above us), Norwich 16k, Southampton 15k and Wimbledon 8k.
I think one or two of those figures may be explained by capacity reductions post Hillsborough. I certainly remember the North Bank at Highbury being unused around then.
Edit. The Dell was probably at capacity at the time. [Post edited 27 Feb 13:03]
|
My memories of the 70s, without double checking, are Old Trafford usually full at 50k, Anfield at 40, most big clubs getting around 30, and Ipswich usually in the mid 20s. Smaller sides like Norwich would get about 20 | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
