Interesting, but probably cack stats.

[webmaster]

It'd be too far for most of them to travel :icon_lol:

Distance has got nothing to do with it for most of them, they're not real football fans so they're not interested in going to matches. They just attach themselves to a successful club because they think supporting a successful team will somehow make them seem successful themselves, when really they're just dickheads.

 

[Hazzman]

Though that gives no relation to the percentage of people in the country that support a team, just because a team builds its stadium too large or sets its ticket prices too high, does not give it a low fan base.

Yes but it would resemble what would quite possibly be the fanbase overall list would be.

This kinda of stats are very false they take fans from say for example America, Desert Fox in Arizona and say well if there is one Leicester fan in Arizona, then that means there is 52 other Leicester fans from America.

The best way to work out fan base for example would be take a general football forum and see how many Man U, Arsenal, Liverpool are on there. There will quite possibly be 10 of them and a couple of City fans.

 

[Hazzman]

Distance has got nothing to do with it for most of them, they're not real football fans so they're not interested in going to matches. They just attach themselves to a successful club because they think supporting a successful team will somehow make them seem successful themselves, when really they're just dickheads.

And buy the t-shirts and say how great Best was. All the youngsters I have encounted who support Man U dont even know who Duncan Edwards is.

 

[MKFox]

He was that bald swimmer wasn't he? No wait, wales stand off?

 

[Melton Fox]

And buy the t-shirts and say how great Best was. All the youngsters I have encounted who support Man U dont even know who Duncan Edwards is.

Why should they? they are youngsters

 

[Hazzman]

Why should they? they are youngsters

I knew who Peter Shilton was by the time I was 12 and who Arthur Rowley when I was 14. If they loved the club so much, they would know they were fecking shite in the 80s and who all of the Busby Babes were.

I once made a claim at school, that 'glory-hunters' dont know the passion which goes with a derby. Most of them reckon Arsenal are their no.1 rivals. This fact was also confirmed by a Arsenal fan whose at school, who said that whenever he talks to a lad about Arsenal, they seem to think Man Ure is their 'derby' match and not Spurs.

 

[Boy Genius]

I knew who Peter Shilton was by the time I was 12 and who Arthur Rowley when I was 14. If they loved the club so much, they would know they were fecking shite in the 80s and who all of the Busby Babes were.

I once made a claim at school, that 'glory-hunters' dont know the passion which goes with a derby. Most of them reckon Arsenal are their no.1 rivals. This fact was also confirmed by a Arsenal fan at school, who said that whenever he talks to a lad about Arsenal, they seem to think Man Ure is their 'derby' match and not Spurs.

The post with the most truth in it there Hazz, I agree 100% with you there.

 

[Melton Fox]

I knew who Peter Shilton was by the time I was 12 and who Arthur Rowley when I was 14. If they loved the club so much, they would know they were fecking shite in the 80s and who all of the Busby Babes were.

I once made a claim at school, that 'glory-hunters' dont know the passion which goes with a derby. Most of them reckon Arsenal are their no.1 rivals. This fact was also confirmed by a Arsenal fan at school, who said that whenever he talks to a lad about Arsenal, they seem to think Man Ure is their 'derby' match and not Spurs.

I know who Shilton is and the history, but it aint no fookin' use to me. What the fook do I need to know it for. It's gone, it aint gonna win us any trophies next season. And I don't want to hear any bollocks about how it is the building blocks for the club we have today, if so, even more reason not to know!

I think people get too carried away with history.

 

[Hazzman]

I know who Shilton is and the history, but it aint no fookin' use to me. What the fook do I need to know it for. It's gone, it aint gonna win us any trophies next season. And I don't want to hear any bollocks about how it is the building blocks for the club we have today, if so, even more reason not to know!

I think people get too carried away with history.

Yes but putting yourself in the clubs history is part of identifying with the club. If you dont acknowledge your clubs history, then how are you supposed know whether the club is doing in keep with its history. Reading about your clubs history should be something you take pride from and if you dont you are a fan not a supporter. I take pride in the fact for a few years we had the best footballing team in 70s with Weller etc. I know now that is what the club should inspire to that same feat. If you not acknowledge this fact, then you are simply not a fan.

A fan for me is the one who can remember or has read about that for example the Leatherhead game in FA Cup or Weller's goal against Luton. However, many of these Man U 'fans' would not know who they play in their first European Cup or where the game was held.

 

[webmaster]

The best way to work out fan base for example would be take a general football forum and see how many Man U, Arsenal, Liverpool are on there. There will quite possibly be 10 of them and a couple of City fans.

That would be less accurate than taking a random survey of the population as a whole. The number of fans of a club on a particular forum could be biased, for example some clubs don't have active forums, so their supporters might be more likely to join a general football forum. There will be other clubs with a higher or lower than average number of fans with access to the internet. There are lots of other factors that would affect the number of fans from each team on a general football forum, which would make it an unreliable way of measuring the real number of supporters each team has.

 

[Hazzman]

That would be less accurate than taking a random survey of the population as a whole. The number of fans of a club on a particular forum could be biased, for example some clubs don't have active forums, so their supporters might be more likely to join a general football forum. There will be other clubs with a higher or lower than average number of fans with access to the internet. There are lots of other factors that would affect the number of fans from each team on a general football forum, which would make it an unreliable way of measuring the real number of supporters each team has.

I can take that into account as the internet is a *closed* thing is in the way of collecting text.

But what I was trying to say was you get 500 people, and ask em them who you support. That would not give an accurate reading but it would give a realistic one to who has the most support.

 

[webmaster]

I can take that into account as the internet is a *closed* thing is in the way of collecting text.

But what I was trying to say was you get 500 people, and ask em them who you support. That would not give an accurate reading but it would give a realistic one to who has the most support.

But surely the survey where 5,000 people were asked at random would be more accurate?

 

[Hazzman]

But surely the survey where 5,000 people were asked at random would be more accurate?

Yes of course, but then it would have to be a neutral venue (MK would be good) and etc.

Let's face it is near impossible to measure who has the most fan base.

 

[Fox From The Hudd]

Yes of course, but then it would have to be a neutral venue (MK would be good) and etc.

Let's face it is near impossible to measure who has the most fan base.

Shirt sales are a good approximation...

 

[OldGit]

But surely the survey where 5,000 people were asked at random would be more accurate?

6-7k is normally accepted as providing a representative random sample. However, it depends how the sample is selected, and whether or not it requires some demographic selection to be truly representative. We simplty don't know how it was done.

In the words of Vic Reeves: "94% of all statistics are wrong". :icon_bigg

 

[webmaster]

Yes of course, but then it would have to be a neutral venue (MK would be good) and etc.

You obviously have no idea how these surveys are carried out.

Usually they're the result of a computer picking phone numbers at random, and the person who answers the phone is asked the question.

Surveys are also carried out in the street or door to door, but not at just one location (unless the location isn't important to the survey), they are carried out in numerous locations, often over a long period of time. The survey that prompted this thread took over a year.

 

[webmaster]

Shirt sales are a good approximation...

Are they?

What if some clubs charge more for shirts than others?

What if a club only sells through their club shop, with no mail order or internet sales?

What if the shirt looks hideous?


There are numerous factors that can affect shirt sales, not just how popular a club is.

 

[Hazzman]

You obviously have no idea how these surveys are carried out.

Usually they're the result of a computer picking phone numbers at random, and the person who answers the phone is asked the question.

Surveys are also carried out in the street or door to door, but not at just one location (unless the location isn't important to the survey), they are carried out in numerous locations, often over a long period of time. The survey that prompted this thread took over a year.

No need for the vicious tirade, I have a tiny idea how they are chosen thanks to GCSE Maths. I know my systematic surveys and etc. Either way, I do have a slight feeling this survey is unrealistic. Leicester 12th, Hearts 19th and etc.

 

[webmaster]

No need for the vicious tirade, I have a tiny idea how they are chosen thanks to GCSE Maths. I know my systematic surveys and etc. Either way, I do have a slight feeling this survey is unrealistic. Leicester 12th, Hearts 19th and etc.

It looks unrealistic, but not hugely so, and is probably the result of the sample size being too small. I'm sure it's a more realistic survey than your suggestion. And I don't think I was being vicious.

 

[Leesoh]

No need for the vicious tirade, I have a tiny idea how they are chosen thanks to GCSE Maths. I know my systematic surveys and etc. Either way, I do have a slight feeling this survey is unrealistic. Leicester 12th, Hearts 19th and etc.

Edinburgh isn't much bigger than Leicester, but there is more than one football team there.

To be honest, I think it's a stupid survey. What does it matter if x number of people claim to be fans of one team and y another? It's the bums on seats that count at the end of the day.