Lost generation rubbish...

[graingrover]

and when you could see no more bare terrace ( when we still had the big Rosso kop) it meant we had 20,000 .. that was late 50's.

[DonnyBazR0ver]

Since the 60s, only occasionally were Rovers the talk of the town. It had to be something exceptional to tear people away from their normal lives. The same applies today. The difference since the Keepmoat is we have a stadium that can cater for ladies and kids. At BV,  if the kids couldn't get to the front they couldn't see the action. Toilets? Say no more!

[1879Rovers]

I can only remember on a couple of occasions the Rosso end being almost full. I remember Sheff Utd, Huddersfield and Rotherham coming to BV in the 80's and almost filling the whole away end.

[DRFCSouth]

The high post war attendances were maybe a result of a lack of things to do, people getting more into the football as a result of it being taken from them during the war years and finally a purple patch for Rovers at the time. Think the attendances post 50's are more reflective of where were at. I wonder how many teams were overhauled as a result of the war. Probably the majority.

[BillyStubbsTears]

1879

Might be a coincidence, but in both the examples you quote, there was a massive recession between the two promotions.

[Donnybob]

No-one appears to be factoring in the tribal element that infiltrated football during the Seventies. Violence and hooliganism became the norm and blighted the game. Missile throwing was rife. With open terraces, little in the way of segregation, no CCTV it was no place for families or women. Normal fans were driven away. Ee lad, but it weren't a great atmosphere. Lots of singin' and rawpin'? Er no. It was awful. And if I remember rightly only 16,000 turned up for the Liverpool game which was played on a Wednesday afternoon. And didn't the highest 4th division average came in a season when home games were staged on a Friday night.

[Lifelong supporter]

TRB is exactly right with the attendances falling of a cliff ca 1970, and as others have said that is clearly two generations lost.

However the most visible stand-out buck-the-trend part of both of BST's graphs for me is 1998-9 when we were relegated down to the Conference and doubled our attendances. It shows the backlash against the Richardson era, and the sheer relief when we found our club was not about to die. IMHO 1998-9 is the most important season in our entire history, and one person who never seems to gain the credit he deserves is Ian Snodin. 

It is also interesting that the rise in attendances for the first 1.5 seasons in the Keepmoat is drowned by the increase in reaching the Championship for the first time.

I couldn't agree more Dutch.
The Snodins brought respectability and credibility back to the club after the dark days.
They started from the lowest base in the club's professional history and I still wish they had been given a little longer to show they could bring success as well.
The Endsleigh Challenge Trophy final in 1999, watched by over 7,000, was probably one of the happiest nights I've had at Belle Vue. 

[The Red Baron]

No-one appears to be factoring in the tribal element that infiltrated football during the Seventies. Violence and hooliganism became the norm and blighted the game. Missile throwing was rife. With open terraces, little in the way of segregation, no CCTV it was no place for families or women. Normal fans were driven away. Ee lad, but it weren't a great atmosphere. Lots of singin' and rawpin'? Er no. It was awful. And if I remember rightly only 16,000 turned up for the Liverpool game which was played on a Wednesday afternoon. And didn't the highest 4th division average came in a season when home games were staged on a Friday night.

Liverpool attendance was 22,499.

Although we shouldn't discount the affect of hooliganism and the generally poor public image of football (a problem that continued right through the 80s) it would have affected all clubs, not just Rovers. And although there were incidents, usually at "big games" I don't recall Rovers having a particular hooligan problem- certainly no more so than other clubs of a similar size.

One schoolfriend once told me that the reason he preferred Elland Road to Belle Vue on a Saturday was because "there's no aggro at Donny." I think he was one of those who got a vicarious thrill from seeing things "kicking off" rather than being an active participant.

[ravenrover]

No-one appears to be factoring in the tribal element that infiltrated football during the Seventies. Violence and hooliganism became the norm and blighted the game. Missile throwing was rife. With open terraces, little in the way of segregation, no CCTV it was no place for families or women. Normal fans were driven away. Ee lad, but it weren't a great atmosphere. Lots of singin' and rawpin'? Er no. It was awful. And if I remember rightly only 16,000 turned up for the Liverpool game which was played on a Wednesday afternoon. And didn't the highest 4th division average came in a season when home games were staged on a Friday night.

Liverpool attendance was 22,499.

Although we shouldn't discount the affect of hooliganism and the generally poor public image of football (a problem that continued right through the 80s) it would have affected all clubs, not just Rovers. And although there were incidents, usually at "big games" I don't recall Rovers having a particular hooligan problem- certainly no more so than other clubs of a similar size.

One schoolfriend once told me that the reason he preferred Elland Road to Belle Vue on a Saturday was because "there's no aggro at Donny." I think he was one of those who got a vicarious thrill from seeing things "kicking off" rather than being an active participant.

And it was played on a Wednesday because of the winter of Discontent, a lot of people were either on strike or on short time.

[The Red Baron]

Strictly speaking, the "winter of discontent" was 1978-79. But in early 1974 there was a lengthy dispute between the Coal Board and the NUM which led to the "three day week" and eventually to Ted Heath calling a General Election- which he lost.

There were a lot of people either on strike or for whom Wednesday was a non-working day. Also the game could not be played in the evening as floodlights could not be used. Sadly as a schoolboy at the time we did not get the "benefit" of the three day week and our headmaster made it clear that he'd be watching very carefully for those who were absent that afternoon. So I missed the game, although my dad (who worked shifts) was able to go.

[DonnyNoel]

I'm 33. Whilst theres no set age at which someone starts following a club or attending games I'd say the teenage years are a good bracket to focus on meaning 1993-1999 is the age that me and my friends started choosing clubs and attending games. During that time I progressed through 3 schools and I'd say during that time I encountered barely 10 die hard Rovers fans and another 20-30 who would attend casually. Based on that and the apathy of the rest of my classmates I'll always have the gut feeling that we lost a generation of fans. There was even a handful who found the actions of Richardson quite funny and that the club were a joke.

It would be very interesting to see our season ticket base broke down by age bracket <20, 20-30, 30-40 etc to see if theres a dip in certain brackets.

[idler]

No-one appears to be factoring in the tribal element that infiltrated football during the Seventies. Violence and hooliganism became the norm and blighted the game. Missile throwing was rife. With open terraces, little in the way of segregation, no CCTV it was no place for families or women. Normal fans were driven away. Ee lad, but it weren't a great atmosphere. Lots of singin' and rawpin'? Er no. It was awful. And if I remember rightly only 16,000 turned up for the Liverpool game which was played on a Wednesday afternoon. And didn't the highest 4th division average came in a season when home games were staged on a Friday night.

Liverpool attendance was 22,499.

Although we shouldn't discount the affect of hooliganism and the generally poor public image of football (a problem that continued right through the 80s) it would have affected all clubs, not just Rovers. And although there were incidents, usually at "big games" I don't recall Rovers having a particular hooligan problem- certainly no more so than other clubs of a similar size.

One schoolfriend once told me that the reason he preferred Elland Road to Belle Vue on a Saturday was because "there's no aggro at Donny." I think he was one of those who got a vicarious thrill from seeing things "kicking off" rather than being an active participant.

And it was played on a Wednesday because of the winter of Discontent, a lot of people were either on strike or on short time.

I was on the night shift at Rockware at the time and we went to Liverpool on the Saturday and then the home game on the Wednesday.
If you believe that there were only 22,499 then you are mistaken. There were certainly more than that there. 

[Filo]

No-one appears to be factoring in the tribal element that infiltrated football during the Seventies. Violence and hooliganism became the norm and blighted the game. Missile throwing was rife. With open terraces, little in the way of segregation, no CCTV it was no place for families or women. Normal fans were driven away. Ee lad, but it weren't a great atmosphere. Lots of singin' and rawpin'? Er no. It was awful. And if I remember rightly only 16,000 turned up for the Liverpool game which was played on a Wednesday afternoon. And didn't the highest 4th division average came in a season when home games were staged on a Friday night.

Liverpool attendance was 22,499.

Although we shouldn't discount the affect of hooliganism and the generally poor public image of football (a problem that continued right through the 80s) it would have affected all clubs, not just Rovers. And although there were incidents, usually at "big games" I don't recall Rovers having a particular hooligan problem- certainly no more so than other clubs of a similar size.

One schoolfriend once told me that the reason he preferred Elland Road to Belle Vue on a Saturday was because "there's no aggro at Donny." I think he was one of those who got a vicarious thrill from seeing things "kicking off" rather than being an active participant.

And it was played on a Wednesday because of the winter of Discontent, a lot of people were either on strike or on short time.

I was on the night shift at Rockware at the time and we went to Liverpool on the Saturday and then the home game on the Wednesday.
If you believe that there were only 22,499 then you are mistaken. There were certainly more than that there. 

My father in law ended up being a supervisor at Rockware, and my Uncle worked there for many years as well

[The Red Baron]

If you believe that there were only 22,499 then you are mistaken. There were certainly more than that there.

That's possibly true but I am only quoting the official attendance. Gates were often understated in those days. Nowadays when clubs seem to work on the basis of "tickets sold" it seems more common for attendances to be overstated.

[raggytash]

Thing is, it's not just us, every team in Donny gets terrible gates, for a town of it's size there's a problem but how do you change it?? I don't know

[andy didcott]

The majority of people in donny cannot afford it. No other reason.

[River Don]

The majority of people in donny cannot afford it. No other reason.

I don't think that's entirely true, there are clubs  in depressed areas of a similar size that have maintained higher average attendances than Rovers. Blackburn and Burnley for instance.

Geography and history have a part to play, other factors too.

[Savvy]

difference being that they are ambitious, whereas we are where the board want us to be!

[silent majority]

difference being that they are ambitious, whereas we are where the board want us to be!

What complete and utter tosh!!

[BillyStubbsTears]

Difference being that they have a 50-100 year heritage that cements the local football team into every sinew of kids as they are growing up.,

Whereas we had a handful of decent years in the 50s and 60s, bookended by utter dogshite for a century.

Comparing us to Burnley or Blackburn is f**king daft.

If Doncaster Rovers had been a top flight club for most of the period 1890-1980, then got back to the top flight a few years  ago (like Burnley)...

Or if we'd  been in the top 2 levels for most of our existence, winning the PL 20 years ago (like Blackburn)...

...I suspect that we'd have a bit better than 6-7k home fans at the KMS.

But we didn't. So comparisons like that are daft. f**king daft.

[River Don]

The point I was trying to make was if Rovers had won the FA Cup a couple of times back in the nineteenth century, the club would have cemented a bedrock of support for generations to come and things might have been different.

It is the clubs relative failure over it's entire history that makes it so much harder to sell the club to the town now in what is a golden era.

[The Red Baron]

I understood the point you were making, RD. But in the case of Burnley and Blackburn they have both enjoyed a lot more success since the second world war than we have.

If you're looking for a team that won things in the dim and distant past, try Bury who won the FA Cup twice in the 1900s. Without looking it up I can guarantee that their crowds will be smaller than ours.

Truth is, there are all sorts of reasons as to why we don't seem to attract the level of support that we should (or think we should). I still believe that long period from 1958 until 2003 when we won nothing of note and a successful period was a few seasons in the Third Tier did immense damage to our support base.

[GazLaz]

The lost generation exists, I know, I'm one of them.

My grandad attended between 1948 up until he died a couple of years ago but did stop going in the 70s when he said "all the trouble started" so it must have been pretty bad. 

[Savvy]

Difference being that they have a 50-100 year heritage that cements the local football team into every sinew of kids as they are growing up.,

Whereas we had a handful of decent years in the 50s and 60s, bookended by utter dogshite for a century.

Comparing us to Burnley or Blackburn is f***ing daft.

If Doncaster Rovers had been a top flight club for most of the period 1890-1980, then got back to the top flight a few years  ago (like Burnley)...

Or if we'd  been in the top 2 levels for most of our existence, winning the PL 20 years ago (like Blackburn)...

...I suspect that we'd have a bit better than 6-7k home fans at the KMS.

But we didn't. So comparisons like that are daft. f***ing daft.

Just as a matter of interest Billy, who would you compare us to?

[graingrover]

What we have not mentioned but which is a big factor in OUR decline is the TV media. When there were regular crowds of 20,000 at Belle Vue there was very little Tv exposure as witnessed by the fact that you can only see Alick Jeffrey on TV clips ONCE against Bristol Rovers and for 30 seconds. The annual cup final was the only certain game on TV  . To see the top stars you bought Charles Buchan's Football monthly .

   Since the 70's ;football has taken wall to wall  presence in every home. If your club is in the Premiership it benefits from the exposure .. if not ...

[BillyStubbsTears]

Savvy

Difficult to say. There are never perfect comparisons. You'll not find another club from a small-ish town, within a much larger but far-flung borough, with several bigger rivals close by and an almost century-long record of near-unbroken underachievement.

How about Walsall? Similar size town and borough. Similar big local rivals. Similar League record (we were a bit better 60 years ago - they were a bit better 30 years ago, we've been similar on average for the last 15 years).

[Savvy]

Similiar size town as in geographical distance or number of inhabitants? I seem to remember JR comparing us with Middlesboro and Blackburn a while ago.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Savvy

I seem to remember Ryan saying several things that don't bear up to even cursory scrutiny.

Similar size as in number of inhabitants.

We ARE a similar size town to Blacburn and a Middlesborough. Of course, both of them have a far better historical record than us which kind of makes any direct comparison a bit pointless.

[Savvy]

Oh right, I see, we have to use somewhere with a similiar size as us, but the same amount of ambition to get a more realistic comparison of where we fit into the grand scheme of things. makes perfect sense!!!

[BillyStubbsTears]

Savvy

No. That's not remotely what I said. I never mentioned ambition.