What is it about Leeds?

[LeedsCityRam]

Leeds are a big club but I purely think this is down to the size of their city & the fact they have very few local rivals. I've lived in Leeds for nearly 12 years now & the football club really do not command the levels of interest that say, Derby County do in Derby. In part, I think this is due to the cosmopolitan nature of Leeds as a city & the prominence of other sports like Rugby League & Cricket.

Leeds is also seen as the de facto capital of Yorkshire & the fact that other major population centres such as Wakefield, York, Halifax have no real team of their own, mean folk up here will see Leeds as their local club in the same way as we all see England as our national team - its an identity thing. That however doesn't necessarily translate into higher attendances as the vast majority are casual fans & this has been an historical problem for them, even Revie used to complain they didn't get the attendances their football 'deserved'. Even if Leeds were top of the Premiership & their ground permitted it, they still wouldn't get the home gates that Man Utd, Arsenal or Newcastle get - its just not part of the local culture.

[Dordogne_Ram]

"What is it about L**ds?"

Bremner, Hunter, Giles ......

All you need to know   - 'nuff said.

[Bris Vegas]

6 hours 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. 

That's interesting, though it doesn't give a particular overall figure suggesting which teams are the most watched. I highly doubt Ipswich for instance draw larger numbers than Leeds. Also excludes viewers outside the UK.

I just look at our fixtures on SKY this season and the majority have been against the big hitters. In fact, every season you can almost guarantee that our matches against Forest, Sheff Wed, Leeds and Wolves will be on the box.

6 hours ago, jagerbob said:

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!

In regards to Twitter, after doing a quick check I'd say recent stints in the Premier League and foreign owners have helped a lot in terms of generating interest in said clubs.

Wigan, Reading and Cardiff City all have over 200k followers. The latter two I imagine due to foreign owners, while with Wigan perhaps their long stay in the PL has build up plenty of casual followers over the years.

West Brom have over 500k followers on Twitter. I imagine if Derby spent a good five or six years in the top-flight then perhaps we could draw similar figures or interest.

For now (in terms of interest) we really are just a mediocre second-tier club who get impressive attendances. 

[PistoldPete2]

7 hours 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.

Use of Twitter isnt just a function of age... I mean I am old but I use the Internet a lot, but don't see the point of Twitter. There are other demographics ... Derby is an industrial city whereas Nottingham isn't... People, in office jobs will use the Internet more than people working in factories etc. it really doesn't show anything at all, only different demographics. And as I say I use the Internet but not Twitter.

if leeds are of interest its Maybe because we want them to lose cos they are dirty cheats. It doesn't mean they have more fans. 

[PistoldPete2]

21 minutes ago, Bris Vegas said:

That's interesting, though it doesn't give a particular overall figure suggesting which teams are the most watched. I highly doubt Ipswich for instance draw larger numbers than Leeds. Also excludes viewers outside the UK.

I just look at our fixtures on SKY this season and the majority have been against the big hitters. In fact, every season you can almost guarantee that our matches against Forest, Sheff Wed, Leeds and Wolves will be on the box.

In regards to Twitter, after doing a quick check I'd say recent stints in the Premier League and foreign owners have helped a lot in terms of generating interest in said clubs.

Wigan, Reading and Cardiff City all have over 200k followers. The latter two I imagine due to foreign owners, while with Wigan perhaps their long stay in the PL has build up plenty of casual followers over the years.

West Brom have over 500k followers on Twitter. I imagine if Derby spent a good five or six years in the top-flight then perhaps we could draw similar figures or interest.

For now (in terms of interest) we really are just a mediocre second-tier club who get impressive attendances. 

Wigan having 200k followers just shows you how meaningless measuring Twitter as a measure of fan base is. 

[Bris Vegas]

1 hour ago, PistoldPete2 said:

Wigan having 200k followers just shows you how meaningless measuring Twitter as a measure of fan base is. 

So why do Wigan have as many followers? Who follows them? Who is interested in knowing about Wigan Athletic FC enough to have followed them on Twitter. These people obviously follow them for a reason.

Sure, of the 200k, there might only be about 40k who are geniune fans of the club. But there are still a large number of people who take an interest in them, more so than Derby put it that way.

Twitter is a good way to gauge general interest in a club. It's not a coincidence that the most popular clubs have the most followers. Derby having less than Wigan, Reading and Cardiff is IMO somewhat concerning.

Have we simply been out of the top-flight picture that much that a number of neutral football fans have such little interest in us?

The likes of Wolves, Forest and Sheff Wed have also been out of the top-flight for a while, but they have a good 20k more followers. I'd put that down to having a larger fanbase.

While not 100% accurate, via media streams there is an indication that those three clubs above have more casual fans that follow them.

[PistoldPete2]

58 minutes ago, Bris Vegas said:

So why do Wigan have as many followers? Who follows them? Who is interested in knowing about Wigan Athletic FC enough to have followed them on Twitter. These people obviously follow them for a reason.

Sure, of the 200k, there might only be about 40k who are geniune fans of the club. But there are still a large number of people who take an interest in them, more so than Derby put it that way.

Twitter is a good way to gauge general interest in a club. It's not a coincidence that the most popular clubs have the most followers. Derby having less than Wigan, Reading and Cardiff is IMO somewhat concerning.

Have we simply been out of the top-flight picture that much that a number of neutral football fans have such little interest in us?

The likes of Wolves, Forest and Sheff Wed have also been out of the top-flight for a while, but they have a good 20k more followers. I'd put that down to having a larger fanbase.

While not 100% accurate, via media streams there is an indication that those three clubs above have more casual fans that follow them.

I have no idea why 200k people might be following Wigan on Twitter... I spose Wigan did win the fa cup relatively recently which might have caused a spike of interest at that time. Maybe something to do with the racism storm over mAckay and whelan. 

As for other teams, I dont  think you can say small differences in Internet usage shows anything much other than how much certain populations use certain Internet media. 

 

[DerbyMark]

Always winds me up this...Leeds a huge club etc etc 

They might have been years ago but look at their average attendance's compared to ours for a long time now.. it's only very recently that this 'massive fan base' of theirs has tipped up again now that Gary Monk has finally got them moving in the right direction.

I know most fans are fickle and want success but the dirties certainly ain't been a huge club for ages..

They're away support has remained solid though, I'll give 'em that!

[Bris Vegas]

1 hour ago, DerbyMark said:

Always winds me up this...Leeds a huge club etc etc 

They might have been years ago but look at their average attendance's compared to ours for a long time now.. it's only very recently that this 'massive fan base' of theirs has tipped up again now that Gary Monk has finally got them moving in the right direction.

I know most fans are fickle and want success but the dirties certainly ain't been a huge club for ages..

They're away support has remained solid though, I'll give 'em that!

Attendances don't represent how big a club is though. It doesn't even properly represent the size of said club's fanbase. Newcastle aren't a bigger than Liverpoool, for instance.

Leeds will always be a big club while they have a huge number of followers. And they evidently do.

 

[eddie]

"Followers" in themselves contribute absolutely nothing to a football club. Giving them credence for contributing to the 'size' of the club is as meaningless as 'liking' a Facebook post that says "Let's stop poverty now" without actually moving out of your bubble and making a contribution.

[Duracell]

Hate to engage in this penis size comparison with other clubs that we drag into, but we do have a smaller fan base than many of our rivals. Including Forest. Sorry, but that's true. More people throughout the country follow Forest than Derby.

Exactly why some fans want to paint the picture that there's hundreds of thousands of dormant Derby fans across the UK, I don't know. To me, that's more embarrassing. The fact we have fewer "fans" in pure numbers than some of these clubs and yet pull bigger attendances home and away is far more impressive than having an army of supporters who can never be arsed to go.

There are plenty of sleeping giants in our league. There's nothing special about being one of the best teams in the country a few decades ago and having loads of half-fans dotted around twiddling their thumbs waiting to come back, because it's not uncommon. There is something special about having a passionate and engage fan base that support their team through thick and thin. The worst team in history completely sold out its stadium in 12 of its 19 games at home.

Stop with the "we're as big as Leeds!!!! Honest!!" stuff. No need. We're not like Leeds. And I'm really bloody glad that we're not.

[LeedsCityRam]

1 hour ago, Duracell said:

Hate to engage in this penis size comparison with other clubs that we drag into, but we do have a smaller fan base than many of our rivals. Including Forest. Sorry, but that's true. More people throughout the country follow Forest than Derby.

Exactly why some fans want to paint the picture that there's hundreds of thousands of dormant Derby fans across the UK, I don't know. To me, that's more embarrassing. The fact we have fewer "fans" in pure numbers than some of these clubs and yet pull bigger attendances home and away is far more impressive than having an army of supporters who can never be arsed to go.

There are plenty of sleeping giants in our league. There's nothing special about being one of the best teams in the country a few decades ago and having loads of half-fans dotted around twiddling their thumbs waiting to come back, because it's not uncommon. There is something special about having a passionate and engage fan base that support their team through thick and thin. The worst team in history completely sold out its stadium in 12 of its 19 games at home.

Stop with the "we're as big as Leeds!!!! Honest!!" stuff. No need. We're not like Leeds. And I'm really bloody glad that we're not.

Spot on. Derby get respect from being a particularly well supported club in light of the size of the city & relative lack of success. Even the media & knowledgeable fans of the very biggest clubs acknowledge this.

Whilst our overall potential isn't as large as clubs based in larger population centres, Id rather have that core fanbase that stays with the club no matter what. Potential = more gloryhunters really. Forest got 15,500 the other day, Leeds regularly got sub 20,000 crowds before this season. We've not dipped below 20k in the 20 years since leaving BBG. This is what makes us special.

[DerbyMark]

Followers in themselves contribute absolutely nothing to a football club? Gotta disagree with that! The game is nothing without fans, and the biggest clubs are generally the best supported clubs are they not?

I take the point that attendance's don't necessarily represent a club's actual size, in the case of say Liverpool anyway who have a huge world wide following, but then so do Man United who also get the biggest attendance's...!

You could argue it either way,  I suppose each individual club has it's own demographic, and that's as deep as I'm getting on Xmas eve! Cheers...

[PistoldPete2]

2 hours ago, LeedsCityRam said:

Spot on. Derby get respect from being a particularly well supported club in light of the size of the city & relative lack of success. Even the media & knowledgeable fans of the very biggest clubs acknowledge this.

Whilst our overall potential isn't as large as clubs based in larger population centres, Id rather have that core fanbase that stays with the club no matter what. Potential = more gloryhunters really. Forest got 15,500 the other day, Leeds regularly got sub 20,000 crowds before this season. We've not dipped below 20k in the 20 years since leaving BBG. This is what makes us special.

Sorry but unfortunately I don't think this is true. rams fans are just as fickle as others, and the only reason we have such big support is that we have a big catchment area without any real rivals in the whole of derbyshire. 

[LeedsCityRam]

1 hour ago, PistoldPete2 said:

Sorry but unfortunately I don't think this is true. rams fans are just as fickle as others, and the only reason we have such big support is that we have a big catchment area without any real rivals in the whole of derbyshire. 

Im not sure that bears up to scrutiny. If you look at our attendances over the past 10/15 years, the fluctuations (good times v bad times) aren't as marked as some other clubs. Our gates have started at 20k & peaked at 33k (obviously) & our average gate is remarkably consistent. Compare with any of our peers in this division..Forest - anything from 12/13k to 30k, Wolves - mid teens to 30k, both Leeds & Sheff Weds - as low as 15/16k up to 40k. Id say Derby have the least fickle home support in this division..with the possible exception of Norwich.

There's also plenty of local rivals - within a 30 mile radius you have Forest, Leics, the Sheffield pair & Stoke - 2 Prem clubs & 2 others at our level. Compare with Leeds for example, who have no Prem club nearby & lower league/unfashionable clubs like Bradford, Halifax, York & Huddersfield as nearest clubs. 

[PistoldPete2]

1 hour ago, LeedsCityRam said:

Im not sure that bears up to scrutiny. If you look at our attendances over the past 10/15 years, the fluctuations (good times v bad times) aren't as marked as some other clubs. Our gates have started at 20k & peaked at 33k (obviously) & our average gate is remarkably consistent. Compare with any of our peers in this division..Forest - anything from 12/13k to 30k, Wolves - mid teens to 30k, both Leeds & Sheff Weds - as low as 15/16k up to 40k. Id say Derby have the least fickle home support in this division..with the possible exception of Norwich.

There's also plenty of local rivals - within a 30 mile radius you have Forest, Leics, the Sheffield pair & Stoke - 2 Prem clubs & 2 others at our level. Compare with Leeds for example, who have no Prem club nearby & lower league/unfashionable clubs like Bradford, Halifax, York & Huddersfield as nearest clubs. 

So sheffield are local rivals to Derby but not to leeds? There's quite a lot of clubs in Yorkshire .. The sheffield clubs, hull , Rotherham as well as the clubs you mention. There's only Derby and Chesterfield in derbyshire.

clubs like wolves , the wendies leeds and forest have all had spells in the third division in recent years... We haven't in the last 30 years. 

[LeedsCityRam]

29 minutes ago, PistoldPete2 said:

So sheffield are local rivals to Derby but not to leeds? There's quite a lot of clubs in Yorkshire .. The sheffield clubs, hull , Rotherham as well as the clubs you mention. There's only Derby and Chesterfield in derbyshire.

clubs like wolves , the wendies leeds and forest have all had spells in the third division in recent years... We haven't in the last 30 years. 

I didnt say the Sheffield pair weren't rivals to Leeds but Leeds have a far higher closer population that will gravitate to them rather than Wendies/Blades and lower profile local clubs - Bradford & Huddersfield cant compete for support like Forest & Leics can. Hull also isn't that local to Leeds. Derby really only has Burton as a decent sized other town within our catchment area - Chesterfield is as much Wendies/Blades as Ram territory. Also Derbyshire is a long thin county so limiting potential support to county borders isn't realistic bearing in mind how close Derby are to decent sides nearby.

Irrespective of us not playing at the 3rd tier since 1985, we've had a largely dismal time in the 15 year period I'm quoting crowd sizes for. One terrible season in the Prem & many turgid seasons at the wrong end of the second tier. At least those who did drop into the third tier won more than they lost & got promoted/won the divisional title (eventually)...Leeds & Wendies got some very impressive crowds upon leaving League One for example.

[PistoldPete2]

26 minutes ago, LeedsCityRam said:

I didnt say the Sheffield pair weren't rivals to Leeds but Leeds have a far higher closer population that will gravitate to them rather than Wendies/Blades and lower profile local clubs - Bradford & Huddersfield cant compete for support like Forest & Leics can. Hull also isn't that local to Leeds. Derby really only has Burton as a decent sized other town within our catchment area - Chesterfield is as much Wendies/Blades as Ram territory. Also Derbyshire is a long thin county so limiting potential support to county borders isn't realistic bearing in mind how close Derby are to decent sides nearby.

Irrespective of us not playing at the 3rd tier since 1985, we've had a largely dismal time in the 15 year period I'm quoting crowd sizes for. One terrible season in the Prem & many turgid seasons at the wrong end of the second tier. At least those who did drop into the third tier won more than they lost & got promoted/won the divisional title (eventually)...Leeds & Wendies got some very impressive crowds upon leaving League One for example.

Limiting potential support to county borders is pretty sensible if you are called Derby county. Anyway ... I'm glad to be a ram and not a dirty leeds fan and that's all that matters. 

[WystonRam]

This link is a few months old now, but does show that the general them on this thread that other teams are more "popular" is not necessarily true with the wider uk population. (Apologies if this is already posted in the thread)

http://newsyac.com/2016/03/01/which-championship-club-is-most-popular-with-viewers-on-sky-sports/

[ipad1977]

As a Boro fan living in Leeds, it's gone completely mayhem in the last day or so as you might imagine with that Billionaire bloke buying half the shares in the club.

They were all proclaiming that Monk is taking them places anyway, one of them even bet me evens that Leeds would be playing in a higher league than Boro next season. I accepted the bet then told him to get his ar$e to the bookies as he'd get odds upwards of 30/1.

Since Mr Big Bucks unprecedented arrival on the scene in the last 24 hours though, they're all walking round grinning like cheshire cats and actually greeting each other with the word "Billionaires!" One has even stated they'll be holding the Prem trophy in their mitts within 5 years.

Truly the biggest team in the universe.