Its great to see the attendance levels raising in Scandinavia, in Sweden we dropped this season with a few hundred persons in average per game, but its still on a healthy rate of 9768 compared to last years average of 10 208. I thought it might be interesting to compare the attendance levels in each country (for Bruiser and Ceres, I am NOT comparing league standards, only attendance levels) The danish figures is of course picked from the last full season. Sweden: 9768 Norway: 8012 Denmark: 6312 The team with the highest attendance level in each country had the following: Sweden: Malmo FF 20061 Norway: Rosenborg 17383 Denmark: FC Kobenhavn 15623 (http://www.onside.dk/main/index.phtml?ac_olderSeasons_03_04=1&display=ac_results) Just to let you guys know, this information has been picked from the official pages of each national countries football statistics sites. Ceres, if I am correct, you must be way of since you always claimed that FC Kobenhavn has been the team with the highest attendance levels in Scandinavia?
The Tippeligaen has had an attendance explosion the last two-three years, setting two new records the last two seasons. Next year, we'll set another new record, with Sogndal(town) and Stabæk(town) out, and Aalesund(city) and Start(city) in.
Bruiser, I reckon it will continue to go down in Sweden, one of the big "clubs" in sweden went down to Superettan (AIK), which means big derby games (between them and DIF and Hammarby) of 30000+ will be lost in the average attendance. On the other hand we are looking at a new record in the attendance levels in our second highest division thou Its great to see many people joining up to watch the games, I am as a marketer very pleased to see the development of Norwegian football, with the new stadium infrastructure continously being developed. I reckon the Swedish clubs need to realise that they need to do similar things in order for any future success in Europe such as Rosenborg.
Yes of course, In fact the top 9 of each country has the following: 1 Oslo 801 000 2 Bergen 212 600 3 Stavanger 171 300 4 Trondheim 145 700 5 Fredrikstad-Sarpsborg 96 600 6 Drammen 90 000 7 Porsgrunn-Skien 84 900 8 Kristiansand 63 400 9 Tromsø 52 100 1 Stockholm 1 250 400 2 Göteborg 510 300 3 Malmö 258 600 4 Uppsala 127 400 5 Västerås 105 700 6 Örebro 97 700 7 Linköping 96 100 8 Helsingborg 90 400 9 Jönköping 83 100 But you also have to realise that in Sweden we have a quite big fan group of other sports such as Icehockey, Handball, Floorball, Bandy etc. I know from my Norwegian friends over here, that Norway is purely on football when it comes to teamsport, sure you might have some sort of interest in handball, but the two sports are not really competing with eachother. In fact I bet you if you showed me the other teamsports attendance levels in Norway, I reckon that would tell you why football is attracting so much people compared to the population. We should be able to have much more attendance levels, but it also depends on which teams from which places play in the highest division, next year we will have teams such as Hacken (third or forth popular team in Gothenburg) who nobody supports instead of the likes of AIK, with a huge fan base. I think Lyn is experiencing the same thing in norway right, low attendance levels as the second team of Oslo? The attendance levels would of course be higher if a lot of the top teams actually had the similar opportunity such as Rosenborg, Brann and Malmo FF (one big city, one big team), We have for instance no big football culture in big cities such as Uppsala, Linkoping, Vasteras, Jonkoping etc. In these towns other sports are far more popular, such as Icehockey, Bandy, Floorball, Handball etc.
No, it sure doesn't do the league any good to loose derbyes like that, so in that sense it was unfortunate that AIK lost to relegation. I'm very happy with the way the Tippeligaen is heading. The goal is obviously to get to the Allsvenskans attendance level. To get there the Norwegian clubs need to build new and larger stadiums, wich many already have done, and are doing, and will be doing soon What's your view on the artificial turf question? Do you think it will be preferable to use that instead of real grass here in these harsh weather conditions? It is the question if it is real enough. It's important that the ball bounce is the same and that it doesnt cause injuries.
I dont know where you get your info, but non of the Danish figures are correct and neither is the Norwegian average for that matter (at least no according to VG) .... The Danish average last season (2003/04) was 7,980 http://www.netsuperligaen.dk/VisTilskuerRunder.php?SeasonID=2004 In 2002/03 it was 7,312 so surely a good progress... http://www.netsuperligaen.dk/VisTilskuerRunder.php?SeasonID=2003 However, if you look at this season it seem to get even better since the Danish league always get a slow start... after only 15 games played last season the average attendance was 6,815... this season it's 8,247 which means that the all-season figure will most likely end somwhere between 8,500 and 9,500, since the average is always much higher in the last 13 games of the season.. As for FC Copenhagen, then the home average so far this season says 21,663 with the highest being 40,079 and the lowest being 15,025. Last season it was a 20,449 average with the highest being 41,005 and the lowest being 12,579 so your Danish figures are surely way off ... So better luck next time ... atleas now you got the links to get the real Danish figures ... http://www.netsuperligaen.dk/VisTilskuerStatistik.php?SeasonID=2004 ---- According to VG then the Norwegian average was 7,968 this season and not 8012 ... according to european-football-statistics it was 7,966 but they never seem to get the Danish figures quite right, so I doubt how trust worthy they are... http://fotball.vg.no/bors/tilskuer_runde.php?sesong_id=24 http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/attn/current/avenor.htm .
Hi Ceres the link I went to says something else: http://www.onside.dk/main/index.phtml?ac_olderSeasons_03_04=1&display=ac_results, I don't know which figure to believe to be honest. Finally the Norwegian fact came from: (http://www.fotball.no/t2.aspx?p=44420) which is the official norwegian webpage, so I guess they should have things under control. Maybe it might actually be you who are at fault, or maybe me, but one things for certain, I did not get the facts out of the blue
I don't know about the astroturfs, According to the UEFA they are of very good quality, since they have now been confirmed to be used in european competitions, but almost every player in Sweden has complained about it, Elfsborg is building a new football stadium, but they are using astroturf instead of real grass, all their players are very much against it. Same thing with Örebro SK, they had astroturf this season, the carpet was soo bad that a lot of their players got injured when continously playing on it. At the moment I am for sure against it, the players play on it everyday, if they don't like it, there are for sure something fault in the whole concept. Just to follow up on the different sports, I did some researching on teamsports in norway and sweden and this is what the conclusion on average last season was: Mens Icehockey Sweden: 5,746 Norway: 1,275 Mens Handball Sweden: 908 Norway: 402 Mens Floorball: Sweden: 1025 Norway: 118 Could not find anything about Bandy, but in sweden the games are often played in front of 5000-6000 people. So you see, we have other sports that attract quite a lot of support, which in some cases of course takes away the possibilities of people attending football
Well, getting your figures from onside, you could just as well get them from out of the blue, since they dont do any calculation themself and usually make huge mistakes when writing their stuff... Netsuperligaen on the other hand, is the most respected football website in Denmark also giving you all the stats from each round... The Official FA website dont give away the season figures but only ½ season figures at http://www.dbu.dk/page.aspx?id=701 .
Astroturfs are the new set of artificial turfs? Aalesund are going to use artificial turf in their new stadium. In one way it's positive, cos you don't have to keep maintaining it, and it won't be ruined by weather or being played on. But if it provokes injuries on the players, I'm fiercely against it.
I have just send a complaint to onside.dk and expect them to get their facts straight in a few days....
Astroturf is more or less what ze english over here in Britian calls them, don't know if its the "correct" name. Well if the turf is good then it will save you the money, but Örebro has been forced to relay their turf after just one season because the quality did not match what the manifacturers promised (and this was one of the turfs that UEFA cerftified), Uefa was quoted to say that their pitch was one of the worst of all top league football clubs in Europe. I just don't think the quality of these turfs are as good, (especially in our colder climates) as the producers and UEFA are saying, if Örebro's players got injured, and many of the allsvenskan players complained about the turfs in Örebro and Sundsvall, then there are surely some sort of problems with these "artificial" turfs.
AstroTurf is the father of artificial turf. Turf that you would find at the AstroDome in Houston. Now some teams like the Buffalo Bills use a turf called Gameday Turf. It's very realistic and beneficial to the Nordic teams. There was an article in UEFA Magazine talking about this issue. Generally speaking, Finland's all-around attendance and TV ratings have really grown. A lot of people game out to see Tampere United in what could be considered to be their strongest team ever. Also, fans came out to see FC Inter Turku. FC Inter's summer derby against TPS brought 7 000+ fans. Average per game: 2 615 Most watched: FC Lahti - TP-47 (12 850 in attendance) Least watched: FC Hämeenlinna - TP -47 (532) It is safe to say that the growth will carry into next season. FC Haka, AC Allianssi, Tampere United and MyPa both play in Europe next year. The TV ratings are also going up due to the digital TV station, Urheilukanava.
Perhaps the kind Örebro used was the oldest type of art. turf then? In any case, AalesundFK have decided to use art. turf in their new arena, and for their sake, I sure hope the quality is acceptable. urtel: Finland actually has 4 teams in Europe next year? Congrats In wich competitions? btw: FC Inter Turku : Very cool name
Örebro actually used one of the new kind of turfs, they were involved in one of the "test" project from UEFA, to see if the turf was sufficient enough. Maybe Örebro just got bad luck with the turf, who knows, but its a bit worrying since soo many players complained on the turf, as well as the big amount of players getting injured when playing on it.
Finnish teams in Europe 1. FC Haka (Finnish Champions) Champions' League qualifying 2. MyPa (Finnish Cup Winners) UEFA Cup 3. AC Allianssi (2nd Place) UEFA Cup 4. Tampere United -- Not quite sure, but I think they qualified for Intertoto.
The average attendance in the swedish Allsvenska (top division) will surely drop in 2005. Not really because of a lack of interest but since some big clubs have taken the drop in recent years. In the superetta (first division) we have AIK who would have averaged around 15 000 in the Allsvenska and IFK Norrköping and GAIS who'd probably average around 10 000. Not that I'm that bothered, every single day with AIK in the lower division is a very good day indeed!
FCK - AaB 4-0 (2-0) Søndag 21. november PARKEN, kl. 15.00 Tilskuere: 15.598 --------- FCK - Viborg FF 0-0 Søndag 24. oktober PARKEN, kl. 17.30 Tilskuere: 19.037 --------- FCK - Herfølge 2-0 (1-0) Lørdag 2. oktober PARKEN, kl. 17.00 Tilskuere: 16.970 --------- FCK - AGF 2-1 (2-0) Onsdag 22. september PARKEN, kl. 19.00 Tilskuere: 19.341 --------- FCK - AaB 3-2 (3-2) Søndag 29. august PARKEN, kl. 15.00 Tilskuere: 15.025 ----------- FCK - OB 1-1 (0-0) Søndag 15. august PARKEN, kl. 17.30 Tilskuere: 18.419 ----------- That's 6 out of 9 home matches with less than 20.000 spectators.
My fault. But their average number of spectators is above 20.000 and Don Ø calculates with 30.000 in the near future.
Must be their one match against Brøndby with over 40.000 spectators that brings up their average. 30.000 in average? That's highly unlikely. Just how do you figure FCK would draw over 30.000 people to each match an entire season?
A lot of "business seats" is my best guess - but who knows what ideas that man (Don Østergaard) has.. But then again, we've also had an explosion of attendances in the latest years, so he might not be all wrong alltho I think it'll be another 5-10 years before they'll get that kind of attendance over an entire season..
FWIW, the new sorts of artificial fields are called by a number of proprietory titles - FieldTurf, NextField, RealGrass, ProGrass, OmniGrass and so on. Hypothetically, they can be as "real" as the real grass but obviously they have to be installed properly. A few years ago, Philadelphia Eagles of the NFL had such a crappy field that a pre-season game had to be called off. On the other hand, the more of these fields are installed, the more competent the installers seem to be. Here in the States, many American football teams from pros to college have began to use them. While they may not make sense in places like California which has no problems with the cold weather and snow, a number of the NFL's Midwest and Northern teams (Cincinnati, Buffalo, New York, Baltimore, Seattle) as well as the indoor teams (New Orleans, Atlanta, Detroit, Minnesota) have switched to the new style pitches to much acclaim from the players. NFL prefers to have slightly harder surfaces than grass for greater speed but, with a thicker underneath padding, the surface can be even softer than the real dirt-and-grass turf. On the other hand, the fake turf does need continuous maintenance. From what I understand, it costs about $40,000 per pitch to do this for the entire year. It involves scrubbing and washing the "grass blades" (done by a machine) as well as refilling the field with shredded rubber and polished sand granules, which serve as fake dirt. Also, the quality of these fields is improving as the newer and better technology is introduced.