we have doubled our crowds in the last 5 years more or less, our last season at fartown was around 1700 IIRC,up until 2006 we were still struggling to pull in 4,000 regulars,we still i think should be hitting 10k average but we have done pretty well recently to get up around the 7/8k mark
a quick question for salford fans,what do you think the crowd would have been if the manc derby hadn't been played at the same time?

Salford average 4,500 - 5,000

deduct the bizzare K/O time on a sat , when Salford traditionally play Friday eve or Sunday afternoons
game was on SKY , non season ticket/ concession fans can see it at home/ pub / streamed..
last two weeks poor performances & off field ' issues' .

manc footie derby would be a fouth contributory factor but would have had an impact not just to the people who went but to the TV coverage.

I knew people who didn't go for all the above reasons. money's tight and Salfords performances are far too erratic to enable new fans to gather momentum.

I'd imagine around the 4,500 mark which if I'm honest is absolutely shocking in the 3rd year of our license. I think it's fair to say that there is a lot of work needed to be done to increase our fan base. The club have all but admitted that they have given up trying to attract fans to the Willows as its a non-starter.

I don't think its unrealistic to expect our crowds to rise in a new stadium. It's a sad fact that The Willows is in a run down part of Salford, I've lived in Weaste (and been robbed more times than i care to remember!) and it's a simple fact that the casual's are put off by it's location. The new stadium will hopefully find us picking up more of the floating fan base than our current location.

Contrary to what die hard Rugby League fans will tell you, i really do think facilites plays a big part in the causal/floating fans decision on whether to attend a game or not. Us die hards would watch our team in the local park it makes no difference to us. If your new to the sport where would you rather watch the game, in Weaste with an old run down stadium or a nice shiny new stadium near the Trafford Centre?

The club has submitted, as part of our licence aplication, a report from a leading UK marketing research company which advises that in the 1st year of the stadium we can realistically expect an average attendance of 8,500. Whilst i personally think thats overly optimistic given where were at now I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest around a 7,000 avearge in our 1st season in the stadium. That will give us something to work with and if we can have a bit of success on the field as well then I'm hoping we have a real chance to be a success in Super League.

Anyone who seriously can predict our crowds at Barton needs to show his or her sources.

Like Warrington, there has been incredible iniatives in the area but all this is long-term : for short-term increases you need a mix of a decent stadium with pre and post match facilities and entertainment on field.

This is very linked to winning ... and only half the clubs in any week can win. So we have very equivalent standards in every team so the share of wins should be shared out OR the old "Wigan dominate" model where you ignore the game against whoever dominates and the pickings from the table are spread out.

This opens up cans of worms.

Do you know that if you have a brand new stadium crowds automatically increase and stay at a very high level.

I know this this to be true as Doncaster have amply shown.

I would argue that the derby at Wembley would be the second greatest factor. The fact is that Manchester/Salford is a football-mad city where RL has a hardcore of fans and a large number again of sympathisers who will go if there's no football. Always has been so, always will be.

This being the second greatest factor because it exacerbates the biggest one: the bizarre kick-off time when all of this was known long in advance.

There are some right thick muvvers on here comparing Salford with Warrington/Hull.

Two towns with large junior set ups and thousands of families awash in the sport against a soccer dominated city with little history at junior level and a population who largely couldnt give a luvv about the game - no offence to the hardcore sailing into the hurricane.

A business grows from foundations - somebody tell the RFL that before its too late.

Quite agree Maurice to an extent.

We are not a normal business but one that's main product is paid for by an external business (Sky) whose marketing and sales decisions determine how that product will be spatially located.

So, the roots are around the (old) coalfield in Lancashire, the woollen area of West Yorkshire and Hull. Bit limited for Sky - how do you market a fourth Leeds/Wigan match followed by fourth Warrington/Saints game, away from the play-offs.
Salford is not in this area but making a fist of representing the Manchester conurbation on several levels not just RL.

As I noted above, cans of worms are opened once you get into the discussion.

I was comparing Salford with Warrington and Hull. Cheers for calling me thick. I don't know what a muvver is. You're the one who thinks that there are bigger football clubs in the city than Salford. Or did you not know that Salford and Manchester were two completely different cities? Oops.

Salford has a population of over 220K Warrington has 196K.
Salfords RL team average 5K before moving into a new stadium. Warrington averaged 6K.

Salford should get 7,000 first year, with a good team, 7,500 the year after. Max in 5 years 11,000.

Have a go at 35000 in 5 years, 15000 first year with potentially 75000 in 10 years

I would certainly agree. That's a realistic ambition, and I would question the viablity of the Franchise if they don't get 75,000 in 10 years, especially in a 12,000 stadium.

and I was highlighting how stupid that comparison was. Birmingham has a population of a lot more than that - it makes fook all difference as well if there is no interest in the game.

PS Dont tell the rfl they are two different places btw Now wash your hair and get ready for bed.

Would need a move to OT of course, although I thought it was a contest of how to pick random numbers out of thin air whilst ignoring facts or common sense