Because I watched both games, and the ground was substantially more full for the game with the attendance of 3,000 than it was for the one with the attendance of 1,500.

Apart from the stand underneath the cameras, which is where the vast majority of home supporters sit. The fact that you are trying to use Wrexham FC fans to back you up pretty much nullifies your argument. Obviously it is possible to estimate a crowd from TV images. However, to then continue to assert that the announced crowd is wrong with no basis other than that estimate is just stupidity.

So loyal that about 1000 of this figure could be bothered to turn out last weekend when we visited? I have never been to a ground with so few home fans in it since we last visited Rochdale back in 2006.

You have never visited the Stoop have you

Bigger gobes than you have failed to come up with proof so I'm not surprised.
Unless you have that proof then jog on.

There is also motive for not doing it since if they announce a higher official attendance HMRC will start getting interested as to why their tax take is lower than it should be.

Having done a bit of research, your assertion is indeed correct. Must have been my memory playing tricks.
The actual story, however, was much more unsavoury than any backhanded financial bail-out from the RFL.

[urlhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2005/mar/05/rugbyleague.superleaguex[/url

Yes, like any club which goes into administration they didnt pay back certain debts, which is kind of the reason for going into administration.

How many other RL clubs have made the calculated and, quite frankly, despicable decision to liquidate themselves and leave businesses £3million out of pocket?

Do they not do this in Australia as well? After all there is definite proof that the Melbourne Storm used to fudge the figures.

Even for you this is hypocritical.

First of all you make out that it is easier to tell the difference between bigger number than smaller numbers (debatable anyway) and then you try to make out like my margin of error which was in your words 1000 out in a crowd of 8500 (actually only 500 from my top estimate anyway) is the same as being 1000 out in a crowd of 3000. In reality being 1000 out in a crowd of 8500 is a 12% error when 1000 out in a crowd of 3000 is a 33% error.

The camera showed every single angle at different times. I actually presumed that the popular side was below the camera but then the camera showed what was on the other side. You would usually argue black was white but are you really suggesting that Sky don't show the whole crowd at different times?

True, but I have no idea what Australia's tax laws are but even if they're the same as here then Melbourne, with their rich owners, were either prepared to pay the extra tax or take the risk of it not being spotted.

accepted.