What is it about Leeds?

[Bris Vegas]

1 hour ago, PistoldPete2 said:

They drew higher numbers to what ? If they don't go to the football matches then how exactly are they fans? And where do these stats come from? There are clearly loads of plastic United, Liverpool and arsenal " fans" Here in the UK , not just abroad. 

You don't have to go to football matches to be a fan... 

Like most companies HITC uses google analytics to track page viewers, and as a result they can track where the viewers are located (in terms of country) and which teams they are following.

The likes of United, Chelsea, Liverpool and Arsenal obviously had the most numbers of visitors, but a very high percentage of visitors (fans) of those clubs were based outside the UK.

Similarly, dcfcfans is run largely due to the adverts dotted around the page. These companies providing adverts will want their customers to be based in UK as that is their market. This forum wouldn't survive if the majority of its users were based outside the UK.

So what HITC did was then target those clubs who had the highest percentage of UK-based fans (visitors of the site) in order to maximise the potential number of clients for advertising companies.

So after tracking the visitors, it was concluded that Leeds, Spurs, Newcastle, Sunderland, Villa, Celtic and Rangers had the highest number of UK-based fans in relation to their overall support.

QPR, Wolves, Forest and Sheff Wed did pretty well in terms of visitors from the UK.

Derby weren't considered among the top clubs in this respect, which is actually somewhat of a surprise considering we get pretty decent attendances. It's not like Derby fans don't go on the internet, so in summary there is evidence suggesting that Forest, Sheff Wed and Wolves actually have more fans than Derby, but many simply don't go to watch matches for whatever reason.

Sky Sports will obviously track numbers of viewers, and they will have concluded that Leeds in particular generate the most. It's logical. They're on the TV most as Sky will see them all as clients (or potential clients).

As wrong as it is, it would make no sense do have the likes of Burton, Rotherham and Brentford on every other week when viewer numbers will be a lot lower.

Derby haven't been on Sky that much this season. It comes as little surprise considering Villa, Newcastle, Leeds, QPR, Forest, Sheff Wed and Wolves all draw bigger numbers.

In fact, our games on Sky or BT Sport have been against Newcastle, Villa, Leeds, Forest, Wolves and Burton. Is that at all surprising? Burton for the Clough factor then the other five are the big audience hitters.

[ilkleyram]

On 12/18/2016 at 16:02, BobbyD said:

Leeds is a big, big, city, far bigger than us or Forest , with a fanbase to match, which extends all over the West Yorkshire and North Yorkshire regions, a hugely populace area. Loads of Leeds fans live in Bradford, Huddersfield, Halifax and support them in preference to their local clubs (understandable given the history)

Like us and Forest,  they have a 60s/70s/80s tradition that lives long with their supporters.

They have been very badly run for a long time, leading to many fans understandably not attending until things change for the better

They are a huge club in theory and really should, on that basis, be able to hold their own in the Premier.

Pretty sure that there's a coach that goes to every Leeds game from the Derby/Notts area. Can we say the reverse of that ?

Don't get me wrong. I lived In Leeds for many years and would never swap them for Rams. Elland Road is a horrible place full of (largely) horrible people. 

But Big Club ? Yes, they are (unfortunately) 

 

 

Well, there's at least a car that goes the other way.  Does that count?

[ilkleyram]

17 minutes ago, Bris Vegas said:

You don't have to go to football matches to be a fan... 

Like most companies HITC uses google analytics to track page viewers, and as a result they can track where the viewers are located (in terms of country) and which teams they are following.

The likes of United, Chelsea, Liverpool and Arsenal obviously had the most numbers of visitors, but a very high percentage of visitors (fans) of those clubs were based outside the UK.

Similarly, dcfcfans is run largely due to the adverts dotted around the page. These companies providing adverts will want their customers to be based in UK as that is their market. This forum wouldn't survive if the majority of its users were based outside the UK.

So what HITC did was then target those clubs who had the highest percentage of UK-based fans (visitors of the site) in order to maximise the potential number of clients for advertising companies.

So after tracking the visitors, it was concluded that Leeds, Spurs, Newcastle, Sunderland, Villa, Celtic and Rangers had the highest number of UK-based fans in relation to their overall support.

QPR, Wolves, Forest and Sheff Wed did pretty well in terms of visitors from the UK.

Derby weren't considered among the top clubs in this respect, which is actually somewhat of a surprise considering we get pretty decent attendances. It's not like Derby fans don't go on the internet, so in summary there is evidence suggesting that Forest, Sheff Wed and Wolves actually have more fans than Derby, but many simply don't go to watch matches for whatever reason.

Sky Sports will obviously track numbers of viewers, and they will have concluded that Leeds in particular generate the most. It's logical. They're on the TV most as Sky will see them all as clients (or potential clients).

As wrong as it is, it would make no sense do have the likes of Burton, Rotherham and Brentford on every other week when viewer numbers will be a lot lower.

Derby haven't been on Sky that much this season. It comes as little surprise considering Villa, Newcastle, Leeds, QPR, Forest, Sheff Wed and Wolves all draw bigger numbers.

In fact, our games on Sky or BT Sport have been against Newcastle, Villa, Leeds, Forest, Wolves and Burton. Is that at all surprising? Burton for the Clough factor then the other five are the big audience hitters.

All of which is probably right. Most of the so called top four/five clubs in the PL have home attendances significantly bolstered by tourists - some will be there just to watch 'any' football match, many will be there because they are genuine 'fans' of the club but can't - for whatever reason - go to many matches in a season.  Derby have them too, probably, just fewer in overall number.

TV viewers are a slightly different matter.  If you were a TV executive selling advertising space and trying to cover the cost of the TV deal, wanting your 'partners' to gain more sales revenue from more viewers, then all you want to do is maximise viewer numbers in the right spending sectors.  You don't give a stuff about travel or fans' convenience or kick off times or players' rest periods or ticket prices, you just want the most viewers you can get or fill the TV space.  But it's not only Sky - the BBC are screening Cardiff v Fulham FA Cup 3rd round at 11.30am on a Sunday.  Disgraceful.

The only thing stopping the top 5 in the PL and the well viewed in the EFL being on every week and every night of every week is the PL/EFL insistence that every club in the PL and the Championship is featured live for at least x games per season minimum.  And surprise surprise, when Burton's turn comes along it's against a well watched team with a back story to boot

[rynny]

19 hours ago, Bris Vegas said:

Leeds are one of the biggest clubs in England in terms of domestic fanbase. They may not fill out their stadium all too often, but they have a massive following for a Championship club within England.

At HITC they started to focus more on the domestic following (largely because of the on-site adverts were aimed at UK-based customers) and Leeds were one of the clubs with highest percentage of UK-based fans.

Leeds, Spurs, Newcastle, Sunderland and Villa were the top five in terms of England-based fans ratio compared to overall support while Celtic and Rangers are also up there in tems of UK..

No doubt United, Arsenal and Liverpool have bigger fanbases, but a higher percentage of theirs come from abroad.

In the Championship we found that Wolves, QPR, Sheff Wed and Forest drew higher numbers than Derby. Derby obviously get higher attendances and that's admirable, but that doesn't mean they have the most supporters.

How do you know who the viewer supports? Or is it an assumption that only fans will read stories about their own club? With the stories involving 2 clubs and how would you decide which team the person supports reading the story?

[SIWY]

Just been on the HITC Championship page and saw about 5 stories on Wolves and 3 or 4 on Leeds and Newcastle respectively, yet didn't see a single one about Derby. Is the reason for this that those 3 clubs  supposedly draw higher numbers and therefore the journalists are told to write more articles about them? Or is it just that those clubs have more going off than Derby off the field so there is more to write about them as a result? 

In terms of off the field matters the clubs like Forest, Leeds, Newcastle, Villa and to a lesser extent Wolves and Wednesday certainly have more to write about than Derby, so maybe it appears they are drawing higher numbers than Derby because there is more to write about those clubs than Derby. It would be interesting to see if Derby were drawing high numbers to the site after the Clement and Pearson sackings.

 

[PistoldPete2]

13 hours ago, Bris Vegas said:

You don't have to go to football matches to be a fan... 

Like most companies HITC uses google analytics to track page viewers, and as a result they can track where the viewers are located (in terms of country) and which teams they are following.

The likes of United, Chelsea, Liverpool and Arsenal obviously had the most numbers of visitors, but a very high percentage of visitors (fans) of those clubs were based outside the UK.

Similarly, dcfcfans is run largely due to the adverts dotted around the page. These companies providing adverts will want their customers to be based in UK as that is their market. This forum wouldn't survive if the majority of its users were based outside the UK.

So what HITC did was then target those clubs who had the highest percentage of UK-based fans (visitors of the site) in order to maximise the potential number of clients for advertising companies.

So after tracking the visitors, it was concluded that Leeds, Spurs, Newcastle, Sunderland, Villa, Celtic and Rangers had the highest number of UK-based fans in relation to their overall support.

QPR, Wolves, Forest and Sheff Wed did pretty well in terms of visitors from the UK.

Derby weren't considered among the top clubs in this respect, which is actually somewhat of a surprise considering we get pretty decent attendances. It's not like Derby fans don't go on the internet, so in summary there is evidence suggesting that Forest, Sheff Wed and Wolves actually have more fans than Derby, but many simply don't go to watch matches for whatever reason.

Sky Sports will obviously track numbers of viewers, and they will have concluded that Leeds in particular generate the most. It's logical. They're on the TV most as Sky will see them all as clients (or potential clients).

As wrong as it is, it would make no sense do have the likes of Burton, Rotherham and Brentford on every other week when viewer numbers will be a lot lower.

Derby haven't been on Sky that much this season. It comes as little surprise considering Villa, Newcastle, Leeds, QPR, Forest, Sheff Wed and Wolves all draw bigger numbers.

In fact, our games on Sky or BT Sport have been against Newcastle, Villa, Leeds, Forest, Wolves and Burton. Is that at all surprising? Burton for the Clough factor then the other five are the big audience hitters.

Sounds like usual media generalising to me. If the media only write about QPR and Leeds, well surprise surprise there will be more viewers on QPR and Leeds stories than Derby stories.  

One of the reasons I havent seen Derby that often on Sky is because Im at the match.  

  

[Bris Vegas]

4 hours ago, rynny said:

How do you know who the viewer supports? Or is it an assumption that only fans will read stories about their own club? With the stories involving 2 clubs and how would you decide which team the person supports reading the story?

Fans generally only read about their club, and its easy to monitor with regards to HITC as not many people actually visit the site directly. Most viewers come via Newsnow which has its own page on each club.

We have done countless articles. HITC get through around 300 per day. Some will cross between two clubs, but there are strict rules not to tag clubs in the article if they aren't the main focus point.

 

3 hours ago, SIWY said:

Just been on the HITC Championship page and saw about 5 stories on Wolves and 3 or 4 on Leeds and Newcastle respectively, yet didn't see a single one about Derby. Is the reason for this that those 3 clubs  supposedly draw higher numbers and therefore the journalists are told to write more articles about them? Or is it just that those clubs have more going off than Derby off the field so there is more to write about them as a result? 

In terms of off the field matters the clubs like Forest, Leeds, Newcastle, Villa and to a lesser extent Wolves and Wednesday certainly have more to write about than Derby, so maybe it appears they are drawing higher numbers than Derby because there is more to write about those clubs than Derby. It would be interesting to see if Derby were drawing high numbers to the site after the Clement and Pearson sackings.

 

The reason is that those clubs do draw more numbers in general. Sure if there was some groundbreaking news about Derby they will write it, but general stuff like interviews, stats pieces, transfer rumours etc.. the other clubs average higher viewers per article. 

There is always stuff to write about. Obviously it helps if there are a lot of things going off at the club (Wolves and Leeds certainly have plenty going off these days) but with the sheer number of articles written on each club, it's the basic daily ones such as interviews, predictions, stat pieces which HITC really judge viewer numbers on.

And it just happens that those said clubs geneerate much higher viewers than Derby. 

When the big stuff happens at Derby of course HITC will cover it, but you wonit find many 'run of the mill' type articles on Derby as they don't draw many viewers unlike Leeds, Forest and Wolves etc,

2 hours ago, PistoldPete2 said:

Sounds like usual media generalising to me. If the media only write about QPR and Leeds, well surprise surprise there will be more viewers on QPR and Leeds stories than Derby stories.  

One of the reasons I havent seen Derby that often on Sky is because Im at the match.  

  

Its not a case of 'the more stories the media write about them, the more views they will get'. They take averages per article and they have extensively studied which clubs generate the most views.

The reason they don't write about Derby is they simply don't draw the numbers the likes of QPR, Leeds and Wolves do. Whilst not entiely accurate, based on the results one could suggest those clubs have more fans than Derby (or Sky would look at it as potential clients).

 

[PistoldPete2]

2 hours ago, Bris Vegas said:

Fans generally only read about their club, and its easy to monitor with regards to HITC as not many people actually visit the site directly. Most viewers come via Newsnow which has its own page on each club.

We have done countless articles. HITC get through around 300 per day. Some will cross between two clubs, but there are strict rules not to tag clubs in the article if they aren't the main focus point.

 

The reason is that those clubs do draw more numbers in general. Sure if there was some groundbreaking news about Derby they will write it, but general stuff like interviews, stats pieces, transfer rumours etc.. the other clubs average higher viewers per article. 

There is always stuff to write about. Obviously it helps if there are a lot of things going off at the club (Wolves and Leeds certainly have plenty going off these days) but with the sheer number of articles written on each club, it's the basic daily ones such as interviews, predictions, stat pieces which HITC really judge viewer numbers on.

And it just happens that those said clubs geneerate much higher viewers than Derby. 

When the big stuff happens at Derby of course HITC will cover it, but you wonit find many 'run of the mill' type articles on Derby as they don't draw many viewers unlike Leeds, Forest and Wolves etc,

Its not a case of 'the more stories the media write about them, the more views they will get'. They take averages per article and they have extensively studied which clubs generate the most views.

The reason they don't write about Derby is they simply don't draw the numbers the likes of QPR, Leeds and Wolves do. Whilst not entiely accurate, based on the results one could suggest those clubs have more fans than Derby (or Sky would look at it as potential clients).

 

There's no way that qpr have more fans than Derby. Wolves and leeds are about the same as Derby although not as loyal. Maybe Derby fans spend less time on the Internet. It's a pretty silly conclusion to reach based on click throughs etc. 

ive never been on a hitc website or viewed any of their articles but I've been to every home game this season. 

[Bris Vegas]

1 hour ago, PistoldPete2 said:

There's no way that qpr have more fans than Derby. Wolves and leeds are about the same as Derby although not as loyal. Maybe Derby fans spend less time on the Internet. It's a pretty silly conclusion to reach based on click throughs etc. 

ive never been on a hitc website or viewed any of their articles but I've been to every home game this season. 

It's not just about 'clicks' on the HITC website, it's Sky Sports figures too.

Suggesting Derby fans spend less time on the internet is a silly conclusion. Yes we have better attendances than a number of fellow Championship clubs (along with Brighton), but other clubs have larger fanbases or at least larger numbers who both read and watch football via media streams.

Leeds for instance certainly have a bigger fanbase than Derby. I'd say Forest too. Why they don't fill out their stadium is anybody's guess.

[Derby blood]

5 hours ago, Bris Vegas said:

It's not just about 'clicks' on the HITC website, it's Sky Sports figures too.

Suggesting Derby fans spend less time on the internet is a silly conclusion. Yes we have better attendances than a number of fellow Championship clubs (along with Brighton), but other clubs have larger fanbases or at least larger numbers who both read and watch football via media streams.

Leeds for instance certainly have a bigger fanbase than Derby. I'd say Forest too. Why they don't fill out their stadium is anybody's guess.

When looking at attendances, look at the last 20 years, and you will see Derby have a much higher fan base than Forest, and if both teams were in the top 6 of the premiership, we would get more fans than Forest that's a fact, Derby is , and always has been a footballing city, Notts never have been, yes i agree Leeds has got a better following than Derby. But please do not think Wolves, Notts Forest and QPR, have better followings , because facts state other wise.

[PistoldPete2]

10 minutes ago, Bris Vegas said:

It's not just about 'clicks' on the HITC website, it's Sky Sports figures too.

Suggesting Derby fans spend less time on the internet is a silly conclusion. Yes we have better attendances than a number of fellow Championship clubs (along with Brighton), but other clubs have larger fanbases or at least larger numbers who both read and watch football via media streams.

Leeds for instance certainly have a bigger fanbase than Derby. I'd say Forest too. Why they don't fill out their stadium is anybody's guess.

It isn't a matter of guesswork why teams don't fill their stadiums. It's a function of the size of catchment area, how well the team is doing or has done in recent years, etc. 

if if you take Derby Leeds and Forest they've all been in the doldrums for years. So it's mainly down to the catchment area. Leeds And Nottingham are bigger cities than Derby although Nottingham isn't that much bigger and there's also notts county.

derby has a catchment area of around 1 million, the population of derbyshire . Take away all the people not interested in football, plastic Man U fans etc, people in the north of the county plus assorted fans of other teams and you get a hard core of about 70,000 ... Of which less than half attend regularly. 

I dont think theres  much difference if you do similar analysis of Nottingham or leeds. Leeds has a bigger city , but doesn't have as big a share of support from other places in Yorkshire, due to competing teams like the sheffield teams plus hull, Bradford etc. 

[Bris Vegas]

6 hours ago, Derby blood said:

When looking at attendances, look at the last 20 years, and you will see Derby have a much higher fan base than Forest, and if both teams were in the top 6 of the premiership, we would get more fans than Forest that's a fact, Derby is , and always has been a footballing city, Notts never have been, yes i agree Leeds has got a better following than Derby. But please do not think Wolves, Notts Forest and QPR, have better followings , because facts state other wise.

Attendances don't give you a clear indication of fan base. Newcastle don't have more fans than Liverpool do they? Likewise, Sunderland and West Ham don't have more fans than Juventus, Inter Milan or AC Milan.

Derby should be admired for their attendances considering the size of the city. But that doesn't suggest they have more fans than another club. Sky Sports will have the figures of how many people tune in to watch thier matches.

In terms of social media, here are some interesting figures in terms of Twitter followers:

Newcastle 969k

Aston Villa 862k

QPR 337k

Leeds United 239k

Forest 201k

Wolves 183k

Sheff Wed 178k

Birmingham City 172k

Derby 158k

Brighton 106k

Is there a reason or explanation as to why Derby have less followers than the others? With the majority following such clubs because they are fans of said clubs, it's another indication of Derby having a smaller overall fanbase despite their impressive attendances.

And going back to attendances. Sunderland get over 40k and have 623k followers on Twitter, while Juventus average just under 40k yet have 4.13m followers on Twitter.

[PistoldPete2]

27 minutes ago, Bris Vegas said:

Attendances don't give you a clear indication of fan base. Newcastle don't have more fans than Liverpool do they? Likewise, Sunderland and West Ham don't have more fans than Juventus, Inter Milan or AC Milan.

Derby should be admired for their attendances considering the size of the city. But that doesn't suggest they have more fans than another club. Sky Sports will have the figures of how many people tune in to watch thier matches.

In terms of social media, here are some interesting figures in terms of Twitter followers:

Newcastle 969k

Aston Villa 862k

QPR 337k

Leeds United 239k

Forest 201k

Wolves 183k

Sheff Wed 178k

Birmingham City 172k

Derby 158k

Brighton 106k

Is there a reason or explanation as to why Derby have less followers than the others? With the majority following such clubs because they are fans of said clubs, it's another indication of Derby having a smaller overall fanbase despite their impressive attendances.

And going back to attendances. Sunderland get over 40k and have 623k followers on Twitter, while Juventus average just under 40k yet have 4.13m followers on Twitter.

I don't Follow Derby on Twitter, so what does that show? i would certainly accept newcastle have more fans than Derby but the Twitter figures showing leeds or Forest have 20% or so more followers than Derby doesnt mean a thing and certainly doesn't justify the disproprtionate coverage given to leeds by sky ,hitc or whoever. 

[Bris Vegas]

2 minutes ago, PistoldPete2 said:

I don't Follow Derby on Twitter, so what does that show? i would certainly accept newcastle have more fans than Derby but the Twitter figures showing leeds or Forest have 20% or so more followers than Derby doesnt mean a thing and certainly doesn't justify the disproprtionate coverage given to leeds by sky ,hitc or whoever. 

You may not use Twitter, but I'd imagine a huge majority of the younger fans in clubs' fanbases do.

The figures show how many more people are interested in Leeds, Forest and QPR news in comparison to Derby. QPR I imagine have a huge number of Malaysian followers. Are they 'fans'? That's debatable.

But it does go some way in explaining why QPR are on TV more than Derby. They generate more interest, be it by having a larger number of fans willing to watch them on SKY or more 'neutral' viewers in general tuning in to watch them.

Sky's decision to put Leeds and QPR on TV more times than most clubs may not sit well with fans of other Championship clubs, but from a business point of view it makes sense.

[Cam the Ram]

28 minutes ago, Bris Vegas said:

You may not use Twitter, but I'd imagine a huge majority of the younger fans in clubs' fanbases do.

The figures show how many more people are interested in Leeds, Forest and QPR news in comparison to Derby. QPR I imagine have a huge number of Malaysian followers. Are they 'fans'? That's debatable.

But it does go some way in explaining why QPR are on TV more than Derby. They generate more interest, be it by having a larger number of fans willing to watch them on SKY or more 'neutral' viewers in general tuning in to watch them.

Sky's decision to put Leeds and QPR on TV more times than most clubs may not sit well with fans of other Championship clubs, but from a business point of view it makes sense.

But surely Sky would base their picks on previous viewing figures for each club rather than how many followers a team has generated on Social Media? And just earlier this year Sky put out a report that Derby were the most watched Championship team in 82 of 119 regions across the UK (http://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/derby-county-rams-popular-sky-sports-viewers/story-28844924-detail/story.html). I imagine that's probably changed now Newcastle and Villa have come down, but there's not much to suggest we still wouldn't have higher neutral viewers than most of the other clubs.

I reckon the lack of Derby games probably does have something to do with Mel's attempts to find out more about the TV deal his contact with the other Football League clubs. 

[Animal is a Ram]

2 hours ago, PistoldPete2 said:

It isn't a matter of guesswork why teams don't fill their stadiums. It's a function of the size of catchment area, how well the team is doing or has done in recent years, etc. 

if if you take Derby Leeds and Forest they've all been in the doldrums for years. So it's mainly down to the catchment area. Leeds And Nottingham are bigger cities than Derby although Nottingham isn't that much bigger and there's also notts county.

derby has a catchment area of around 1 million, the population of derbyshire . Take away all the people not interested in football, plastic Man U fans etc, people in the north of the county plus assorted fans of other teams and you get a hard core of about 70,000 ... Of which less than half attend regularly. 

I dont think theres  much difference if you do similar analysis of Nottingham or leeds. Leeds has a bigger city , but doesn't have as big a share of support from other places in Yorkshire, due to competing teams like the sheffield teams plus hull, Bradford etc. 

Don't forget the number of egg chasers up there, some big rugby league teams up in Yorkshire.

[ilkleyram]

20 minutes ago, Cam the Ram said:

But surely Sky would base their picks on previous viewing figures for each club rather than how many followers a team has generated on Social Media? And just earlier this year Sky put out a report that Derby were the most watched Championship team in 82 of 119 regions across the UK (http://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/derby-county-rams-popular-sky-sports-viewers/story-28844924-detail/story.html). I imagine that's probably changed now Newcastle and Villa have come down, but there's not much to suggest we still wouldn't have higher neutral viewers than most of the other clubs.

I reckon the lack of Derby games probably does have something to do with Mel's attempts to find out more about the TV deal his contact with the other Football League clubs. 

Too much conspiracy theory Cam.  It's not how companies work.

Mel's attempt to get more information about the TV contract will probably fail but in any case it's an argument with the EFL at this stage not with Sky, who will have a passing interest but not much more than that.  If, and it's a big if, the EFL and other clubs get to the stage where they want to make more of the details more widely known then Sky might get interested, but not before to any great degree.  

And it certainly won't impact on their choice of games, which are relatively short term picks, made a few months in advance by another part of the Sky organisation than that which negotiates the contracts.  The matches are chosen on the basis of how much they benefit Sky and its advertisers, by maximising viewer numbers, and how much they go to meeting the demands of the contract including the number of times they show each club (and how much they can make life awkward for fans, but that's another argument) 

[jagerbob]

1 hour ago, Bris Vegas said:

Attendances don't give you a clear indication of fan base. Newcastle don't have more fans than Liverpool do they? Likewise, Sunderland and West Ham don't have more fans than Juventus, Inter Milan or AC Milan.

Derby should be admired for their attendances considering the size of the city. But that doesn't suggest they have more fans than another club. Sky Sports will have the figures of how many people tune in to watch thier matches.

In terms of social media, here are some interesting figures in terms of Twitter followers:

Newcastle 969k

Aston Villa 862k

QPR 337k

Leeds United 239k

Forest 201k

Wolves 183k

Sheff Wed 178k

Birmingham City 172k

Derby 158k

Brighton 106k

Is there a reason or explanation as to why Derby have less followers than the others? With the majority following such clubs because they are fans of said clubs, it's another indication of Derby having a smaller overall fanbase despite their impressive attendances.

And going back to attendances. Sunderland get over 40k and have 623k followers on Twitter, while Juventus average just under 40k yet have 4.13m followers on Twitter.

Whilst I dont "folllow" derby as such. This is a pretty decent argument.

Just like you can tell how many fans / half fans a club has by how in demand wembley tickets are, how many they sell, how quickly they go etc.

Birmingham and QPR are good examples of this, they may not get the attendances every game. But they have so many fans who are interested in the team, look out for the results, watch them when they are on TV etc etc.

You also have to wonder how many international fans a team has, particularly in Asia if a team has been owned by a Thai or Signaporian business man for any length of time.

Im pretty sure a hefty percentage of Juventus fans arent even Italian!

[Cam the Ram]

1 hour ago, ilkleyram said:

Too much conspiracy theory Cam.  It's not how companies work.

Mel's attempt to get more information about the TV contract will probably fail but in any case it's an argument with the EFL at this stage not with Sky, who will have a passing interest but not much more than that.  If, and it's a big if, the EFL and other clubs get to the stage where they want to make more of the details more widely known then Sky might get interested, but not before to any great degree.  

And it certainly won't impact on their choice of games, which are relatively short term picks, made a few months in advance by another part of the Sky organisation than that which negotiates the contracts.  The matches are chosen on the basis of how much they benefit Sky and its advertisers, by maximising viewer numbers, and how much they go to meeting the demands of the contract including the number of times they show each club (and how much they can make life awkward for fans, but that's another argument) 

Yeah you're probably right. Just seemed a little strange to me that after the news came out about Mel digging for details, Sky's next TV games announcement for the upcoming months didn't include any games involving their most watched Championship team from last season. And there's a fair few games during that period that would probably attract a large number of viewers, Newcastle and Villa being the main ones. 

[Duracell]

Really surprised by this thread, are people really calling into question the size of Leeds as a club? Like em or loathe them, they're still a massive club.

I grew up an hour from Birmingham and there wasn't a single Villa fan in my school. I was three hours from Leeds but in my close circle of mates alone there were three dirties. In fact Leicester was about 30 miles away but there probably as many Leeds fans as there were Leicester fans at my school.

We as Derby fans want to measure the size of a club by attendances because it suits us, but it's not the only way to quantify the size of a fanbase. We get more home fans than Leeds but it wouldn't surprise me if they made two or three times what we make on merchandise.

We're quite lucky, for whatever reason Derby fans make much more of a habit of actually going to support their team than most fans - for home games at least. I've met plenty of self-described Forest, Leeds and Wednesday fans who haven't been to a match in years but I've rarely met a Rams fan who hadn't caught at least one match that season.