Quote: SmokeyTA "Other than periods of dominance, even the best clubs will be mostly mid-table.
It would be like arguing that Wigan were a struggling club between 2004 and 209. They didnt win anything, and were a step behind the leaders. It would be wrong the argue they were a small club or struggling during that time.'"
I never said they were small or struggling, I said they were no great shakes, they weren't great at that time. You said I had been misleading to say they were not contending at the top end during that period. They were not competing at the top end with the exception of one season. They were then as Wigan were between 2004 and 2009 a middling team in the top flight. We tended to make a late run each year at that time to make our season look better than it really was. During those years our crowds were suffering but actually went up when we were fighting the drop in 2006 and have tended to increase since then (success helps). We were in a period much like the Bulls are now where we had been and still were trying to spend money we didn't really have to buy back former success. We will probably never know whether we were in quite as bad a state financially as the Bulls are now (we had certainly been in a bad state when we sold CP a few years previously). Under new ownership (Lenegan) we stabilised and have so far prospered. Hopefully the Bulls will be able to do the same.
Quote: SmokeyTA "It’s a huge assumption that a large proportion of BRadfords fans would have simply switched allegiances to Halifax of Huddersfield, especially considering that even now, when Hudds are the minor premiers, Bradford have spend the best part of a decade as a middling SL side, have had some horror seasons, been in admin twice and are struggling to get out of it now, even under this set of circumstances, Bradfords attendances are still roughly the same as Hudds, and neither are close to bullmania levels.'"
But Huddersfield's attendances are going up and Bradford's are going down. As I said in a reply to another poster it is not an overnight phenomenon and to have a lasting and major effect on Bradford's crowds they would probably have to suffer a long period of decline probably outside the top flight with other local clubs enjoying much more success when compared with the Bulls. Leeds have probably had more of an effect than Huddersfield to date. It is not the hardcore that defect but those potential or future fans who would have chosen a successful Bulls when looking at who to support but would not select a moribund one over a local rival that is performing better at that time. It is their choices that shape on-going support levels.
Quote: SmokeyTA "The reason that most fans in Leeds go support the Rhinos and not hunslet isn’t simply because Leeds are more successful than Hunslet, its that three-quarters of a million people live in Leeds and would identify themselves as people who live in Leeds and the team which represents them is the one which bears the name of the city they live in. Most people, even those who live in Hunslet, would say they live in Leeds.
Even if we swapped the last twenty years of Hunslet and Leeds, hunslet would not be attracting 5 figure crowds, it is a small area in a much much bigger urban area and is no more likely to be able to support a pro RL club than Middleton or Rothwell.'"
But how many people live in Arsenal? That is a club that has a massive following yet no-one if asked is likely to say they live in Arsenal. So why do they identify with the club, why do they follow it? Do all Man Utd fans live in Manchester? No, many like a lot of sports fans follow success and that is what initially attracts.
Swapping the histories of Hunslet and Leeds and whether that would reverse their crowds is always going to be the sort of thing people will debate over and there is no way to categorically prove or disprove it. Whether or not 17000 would be turning up at Hunslet games you may dispute but I doubt you will be able to convince many that 17000 would be turning up at Headingley for the visit of The All Golds or the Skolars in Championship 1.
Quote: SmokeyTA "Being a city club doesnt mean that you will win trophies. The reason for that is that we have few trophies and many cities. However big clubs are City sides. Barring London which is a collection of cities in a large area , all our big sporting sides are city sides, in pretty much all our sports. The only exception, which isn’t a great one, is Aston Villa who are based pretty much smack bang in the centre of Birmingham.'"
In the global behemoth that is soccer that may be true but Wigan and St Helens aren't cities, the two most successful clubs in our sport are both town teams. There may be a tendency to think that to grow big you need to be in a city but that doesn't always ring true particularly not in our sport. There is no need for any team gaining promotion to SL to be in a city. A city club can just as easily be a basket case as a success, we seem to have two of those at present.
is the best way to describe it
