Wildmoose wrote:Did we really average under 5,000 in 85-86? We were reigning champions & played in 3 out of 4 cup finals that season, including Wembley. Don't have any figures to hand but that seems very low.

Seventies red wrote:I'll edit as many times as i like thank you!!,i like to correct my mistakes wherever possible,unlike you judging by the above.

Seventies red wrote:How many times do i have to repeat myself? the size of a club is not simpy judged by monetary considerations but a whole range of things,in particular, by the amount of success on the field over a long term.
For example, during the eighties and early ninetees,Leeds always had a bigger financial turneover than all other rugby league clubs, but St Helens, Bradford and particurlarly Wigan were all considered bigger clubs because of the amount of success they had on the field.

ComeOnYouUll wrote:Last time Rovers had a bigger average attendance than Hull FC was 1977-78 (5,112 for Hull and 5,352 for Rovers). Hull were relegated that season. The following year (our 100% season) we averaged 6,853 in Division 2 whilst Rovers averaged 5,945 in winning the Division 1 Championship.

Even in their back to back Championships in the mid 80s Rovers averaged under 7,000.

[Removes anorak]

Jake the Peg wrote:Size of the club is judged by income and fan base. Are you suggesting that celtic and rangers are bigger clubs than arsenal and liverpool because they have won more trophies? You should get back into your pre fab

Big Dave T wrote:So FC have always had more fans? (other than our relegation season)

blakeysrobin wrote:Melbourne Storm are the Salford of NRL then.

UllFC wrote:Melbourne are owned by Rupert Murdoch's News group, so they are hardly strapped for cash

rover49 wrote:Reminds me of the old saying 'for every wise man there are two fools'

blakeysrobin wrote:Melbourne Storm are the Salford of NRL then.