The funsters

[tHeArAb]

Hearing they've just secured a 25 year lease of the pitches at Riverside.

[ARAbCHNID]

And Stewards, and ballboy/girls, and hospitality staff, programme sellers, and even the foodbank collectors , along with the SJA... and a few guys in the Arkley Street plots, and a few hanging out of Sandeman street windeez.

L'edOL at that!

I do wonder though if they do indeed count the stewards.
I see several hundred of them in the Dode upper so taking in the rest of the ground the total must be pushing 2,000.

Seriously though 200 @ £40 a pop = £8k.

[tHeArAb]

Seriously though 200 @ £40 a pop = £8k.

Be lucky if there 40 stewards at Utd matches these days.

[DBDU]

wouldn't say I was obsessed �� but I do notice attendance figures and there's no doubt we have been getting much larger crowds than the big team for a long time.

The fact they're discussing it likely means the penny has well and truly dropped.
4700 was it for their last outing, that's poor for a sleeping giant now in the Premiership. Even when Asghargate was at its peak our crowds held up really well and our Foundation makes their equivalent look like a petty cash receipt.

United are dominant, have been for many years now, we just need to get straight back up to solidify and grow the fanbase even more.

If I'm being honest our home attendances towards the end of our last stint the Diddy-League were , as you would expect , starting to fall , there's no denying that and while our attendances have indeed been good this season I think its in a way a bit of an adventure for us as most , like myself , are confident we will be coming straight back up this season .

It would be interesting to see just how great our attendances would be had we had to endure the kind of guff that the Fun have had to put up with over the last 50 years particularly if our nearest rivals had enjoyed so many highlights in that same period .

I think I'm right in saying the last time both teams were in the SPL at same time our home gate was an average of roughly 1000 more then the Dee's, certainly not be sniffed at but in the grand scheme of thigs not mind blowing either .

I think when you take in to account we were seldom outside the top 4-5 all season and they were seldom outside the bottom 2 , plus add in to the fact we had an extra home Derby and again taking in to consideration the difference of what our respective clubs have had to consistently endure since the late 70s, there's actually very little in it .

Taking off my tangerine hat for a second , If I'm being honest I think if there's one thing you cant deny them is they've managed to maintain that for this length of time because I doubt i would still be going to watch us week-in week-out if the shoe was on the other foot .

My personal thought is if both clubs were performing at the same level and sat around the same place in the league over a consistent period of time there would be very little between the two clubs in terms of size and home attendances .

But Ultimately and as has been said previously , who really cares !

[TerryTheTerror]

Ftd 🙂

[Dreamsof83]

Have personally always thought that, for the size of the city, having two teams as well supported as they are is pretty incredible to be honest. As a "per resident" proportion, I previously calculated it (with loads of false assumptions and bad maths that would qualify me for a role as Chancellor) as the highest per head attendance of all in Scotland. That was by some distance too.

Could be even more impressive if you take into account the transient student population in the City.

The absolute numbers will fluctuate a little for both teams, depending on performances, but without a doubt it shows how important football is to the city and how much it is prioritised as an "expense"

[JamesMcClean]

Have personally always thought that, for the size of the city, having two teams as well supported as they are is pretty incredible to be honest. As a "per resident" proportion, I previously calculated it (with loads of false assumptions and bad maths that would qualify me for a role as Chancellor) as the highest per head attendance of all in Scotland. That was by some distance too.

Could be even more impressive if you take into account the transient student population in the City.

The absolute numbers will fluctuate a little for both teams, depending on performances, but without a doubt it shows how important football is to the city and how much it is prioritised as an "expense"

And once you add in East Angus and Fife, that’s a helluva supporter base available right there.

[LSArab]

If I'm being honest our home attendances towards the end of our last stint the Diddy-League were , as you would expect , starting to fall , there's no denying that and while our attendances have indeed been good this season I think its in a way a bit of an adventure for us as most , like myself , are confident we will be coming straight back up this season .

It would be interesting to see just how great our attendances would be had we had to endure the kind of guff that the Fun have had to put up with over the last 50 years particularly if our nearest rivals had enjoyed so many highlights in that same period .

I think I'm right in saying the last time both teams were in the SPL at same time our home gate was an average of roughly 1000 more then the Dee's, certainly not be sniffed at but in the grand scheme of thigs not mind blowing either .

I think when you take in to account we were seldom outside the top 4-5 all season and they were seldom outside the bottom 2 , plus add in to the fact we had an extra home Derby and again taking in to consideration the difference of what our respective clubs have had to consistently endure since the late 70s, there's actually very little in it .

Taking off my tangerine hat for a second , If I'm being honest I think if there's one thing you cant deny them is they've managed to maintain that for this length of time because I doubt i would still be going to watch us week-in week-out if the shoe was on the other foot .

My personal thought is if both clubs were performing at the same level and sat around the same place in the league over a consistent period of time there would be very little between the two clubs in terms of size and home attendances .

But Ultimately and as has been said previously , who really cares !

Totally disagree with this.

We have been the bigger club for 50 years so have bigger support

In the 60s Dundee had had more success

But you can’t ignore the last 50 years - as it stands we are the much bigger club

Our home crowds are usually at least twice theirs irrespective of league and we have much better travelling support

I don’t think they were only 1k below us in attendances when we were both in the Prem - more like 4K more

They are the wee club and have a wee club mentality - forever in our shadow

[shedka]

The unarguable fact is, our overall second tier average this century is on par at worst with their overall top tier average this century

No point comparing their top tier average with ours or their second tier average with ours as the gaps are significant

We are without a doubt the 6th sized club in the country for both home and away crowds, they can no longer claim to be bigger than Killie, Well, St Mirren and even Dunfermline with regards to home crowds, once they can confidently claim that then they will make steps to closing the big gap up to DUFC

[pertharab]

These crowd arguments doesn't half bore the t1ts off me. What criteria makes a club 'bigger' than another? Turnover, crowds, success on the park etc. etc. Crowds on there own mean bugger all. Sunderland after years of failure still average 35/40k home attendances, Sheffield Wednesday 25/30k. Does that alone mean these two clubs are bigger than say Crystal Palace, Burnley or Fulham who average in the low 20ks or even Bournemouth who average c. 11k. Keeping on and on (Shedka you know I'm referring to you along with others) that we have bigger crowds than Dundee means nothing. We know it, they know it, so what, and there are others areas where we eclipse them but at the moment they are indisputably in a higher division, however temporarily, so they have that part of the equation over us.

As I started, it just bores me and imo it's a total irrelevance.

[Yeats 62]

These crowd arguments doesn't half bore the t1ts off me. What criteria makes a club 'bigger' than another? Turnover, crowds, success on the park etc. etc. Crowds on there own mean bugger all. Sunderland after years of failure still average 35/40k home attendances, Sheffield Wednesday 25/30k. Does that alone mean these two clubs are bigger than say Crystal Palace, Burnley or Fulham who average in the low 20ks or even Bournemouth who average c. 11k. Keeping on and on (Shedka you know I'm referring to you along with others) that we have bigger crowds than Dundee means nothing. We know it, they know it, so what, and there are others areas where we eclipse them but at the moment they are indisputably in a higher division, however temporarily, so they have that part of the equation over us.

As I started, it just bores me and imo it's a total irrelevance.

Yet..............you felt the need................... kiddin' kiddin'

[shedka]

These crowd arguments doesn't half bore the t1ts off me. What criteria makes a club 'bigger' than another? Turnover, crowds, success on the park etc. etc. Crowds on there own mean bugger all. Sunderland after years of failure still average 35/40k home attendances, Sheffield Wednesday 25/30k. Does that alone mean these two clubs are bigger than say Crystal Palace, Burnley or Fulham who average in the low 20ks or even Bournemouth who average c. 11k. Keeping on and on (Shedka you know I'm referring to you along with others) that we have bigger crowds than Dundee means nothing. We know it, they know it, so what, and there are others areas where we eclipse them but at the moment they are indisputably in a higher division, however temporarily, so they have that part of the equation over us.

As I started, it just bores me and imo it's a total irrelevance.

So bored you took the time to type that reply out insteadof ignoring it, If bored just move on

It's a topic of discussion, it's Utd related and it's relevant, and this board began in 2002 with crowd debates all the time, especially coming from mouthy funsters next door, they no longer really like to talk about crowds

[Chick A Saw]

So bored you took the time to type that reply out insteadof ignoring it, If bored just move on

It's a topic of discussion, it's Utd related and it's relevant, and this board began in 2002 with crowd debates all the time, especially coming from mouthy funsters next door, they no longer really like to talk about crowds

The title of the thread is "the funsters" though! There endeth the relationship to United, and they were never relevant!

[Yeats 62]

So bored you took the time to type that reply out insteadof ignoring it, If bored just move on

It's a topic of discussion, it's Utd related and it's relevant, and this board began in 2002 with crowd debates all the time, especially coming from mouthy funsters next door, they no longer really like to talk about crowds

They couldn't stop talking about this one....

[petermackie]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]25204[/ATTACH]

They couldn't stop talking about this one....

Ah photo from the big league....good that you haven't completely lost touch😜😜😜