Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
How big are we?
Comments
-
The way they've been playing recently he could have Igor Tudor's seat pretty soon.CombeMartin said:DA9 said:
My other half is a spurs season ticket holder, I have been to one of their home games a few years ago and recently to Frankfurt and Milan (just for the trips with her when she had tickets for champions league games, I stayed in the hotel/local bars to watch) they have a much larger fanbase than us.SporadicAddick said:
We were on the same level on the pitch for a few seasons, but the gulf in scale was and always will be enormous, irrespective of "poor decisions and bad ownership" in the short term. We could have made the best decisions and had amazing ownership and we would still have had a "ceiling" that pales into insignificance against them and the others in their world. When we get relegated, there is no guarantee that we rebound - Spurs would (as they and Man Utd. did in the 70's).Kap10 said:
It's not that long ago Spurs and Charlton were on the same level with us consistently taking points off them and finishing above them. Sadly poor decisions and bad ownership took us in different directions.Raith_C_Chattonell said:I recall that someone on here was recently told to ignore it when other clubs say, "We should be beating teams like Charlton'.
I must admit I feel affronted too. Maybe establishment sides like Tottenham Hotspur and Manchester United can get away with it, but not new money teams like Brighton and Bournemouth.
As to whether we can say it about other teams? Absolutely we can! In fact, I've hardly recovered from Paul Went going to Fulham in 1972. Why would he leave Charlton for a team like that?
I've a friend that's a Spurs supporter, he's been on the waiting list for a season ticket for a couple of years. He goes to some games at the moment, but when he can get a ticket it costs him over £100 (and that is presumably at an OAPs reduction because he's over 65), I don't know where in the ground he gets his seat for his over £100.0 -
I'll ask him next time I see him,msomerton said:
Not certain Spurs has an OAP rate.CombeMartin said:DA9 said:
My other half is a spurs season ticket holder, I have been to one of their home games a few years ago and recently to Frankfurt and Milan (just for the trips with her when she had tickets for champions league games, I stayed in the hotel/local bars to watch) they have a much larger fanbase than us.SporadicAddick said:
We were on the same level on the pitch for a few seasons, but the gulf in scale was and always will be enormous, irrespective of "poor decisions and bad ownership" in the short term. We could have made the best decisions and had amazing ownership and we would still have had a "ceiling" that pales into insignificance against them and the others in their world. When we get relegated, there is no guarantee that we rebound - Spurs would (as they and Man Utd. did in the 70's).Kap10 said:
It's not that long ago Spurs and Charlton were on the same level with us consistently taking points off them and finishing above them. Sadly poor decisions and bad ownership took us in different directions.Raith_C_Chattonell said:I recall that someone on here was recently told to ignore it when other clubs say, "We should be beating teams like Charlton'.
I must admit I feel affronted too. Maybe establishment sides like Tottenham Hotspur and Manchester United can get away with it, but not new money teams like Brighton and Bournemouth.
As to whether we can say it about other teams? Absolutely we can! In fact, I've hardly recovered from Paul Went going to Fulham in 1972. Why would he leave Charlton for a team like that?
I've a friend that's a Spurs supporter, he's been on the waiting list for a season ticket for a couple of years. He goes to some games at the moment, but when he can get a ticket it costs him over £100 (and that is presumably at an OAPs reduction because he's over 65), I don't know where in the ground he gets his seat for his over £100.0 -
I've been a Season Ticket holder since I think they were first available (about 1970 ?) and I took the view that as I was going to come to all or nearly all games it would work out cheaper, also I wouldn't (in those early days) have to queue up to pay at the turnstile in cash, I could turn up at the last minute and walk straight in. In those days it was a standing ticket.letthegoodtimesroll said:We missed the boat this season when we didn’t capitalise on the Wembley win and the 40k euphoric fans we could have pitched to. Instead we increased prices and then made it a secret by not releasing sales numbers which suggested they were not very good and there was no need to buy one if most of our games seemed like they were going to be available to watch on tv anyway.
When the new East stand opened I went and tried out seats where I fancied and picked mine and have had it ever since. Even now it only works out (for this season) at about £21.50 per game, that is at the concessionary (retired persons) rate, and it is in the middle (block D), almost on the half way line and about half way up the height. So, with others, it's the most expensive seat in the ground, but still only £21.50
One advantage that I think some overlook, is that it's always mine and I don't have to mess around booking a ticket for every game, I just turn up. Also, the people I sit with/near, my row and the row in front are always the same (to talk to).
There are plenty of cheaper seats, in the East there's Blocks A-C and F-H, you don't have to have the most expensive one to get the season ticket "advantage".
OK, Charlton on TV wasn't available in the past, but even now I think that watching the game live is "streets ahead" of watching it on the box. If you'r lucky you might even get a "comedian" near you, in the old days of the East terrace there were quite a few around.5 -
I’ve no idea when they first started issuing them but my first season ticket was for the 1968/69 season - 30 bob (£1.50), the first match that season being Millwall at home…which we lost 😡CombeMartin said:
I've been a Season Ticket holder since I think they were first available (about 1970 ?) and I took the view that as I was going to come to all or nearly all games it would work out cheaper, also I wouldn't (in those early days) have to queue up to pay at the turnstile in cash, I could turn up at the last minute and walk straight in. In those days it was a standing ticket.letthegoodtimesroll said:We missed the boat this season when we didn’t capitalise on the Wembley win and the 40k euphoric fans we could have pitched to. Instead we increased prices and then made it a secret by not releasing sales numbers which suggested they were not very good and there was no need to buy one if most of our games seemed like they were going to be available to watch on tv anyway.
When the new East stand opened I went and tried out seats where I fancied and picked mine and have had it ever since. Even now it only works out (for this season) at about £21.50 per game, that is at the concessionary (retired persons) rate, and it is in the middle (block D), almost on the half way line and about half way up the height. So, with others, it's the most expensive seat in the ground, but still only £21.50
One advantage that I think some overlook, is that it's always mine and I don't have to mess around booking a ticket for every game, I just turn up. Also, the people I sit with/near, my row and the row in front are always the same (to talk to).
There are plenty of cheaper seats, in the East there's Blocks A-C and F-H, you don't have to have the most expensive one to get the season ticket "advantage".
OK, Charlton on TV wasn't available in the past, but even now I think that watching the game live is "streets ahead" of watching it on the box. If you'r lucky you might even get a "comedian" near you, in the old days of the East terrace there were quite a few around.1 -
A good read.CombeMartin said:
I've been a Season Ticket holder since I think they were first available (about 1970 ?) and I took the view that as I was going to come to all or nearly all games it would work out cheaper, also I wouldn't (in those early days) have to queue up to pay at the turnstile in cash, I could turn up at the last minute and walk straight in. In those days it was a standing ticket.letthegoodtimesroll said:We missed the boat this season when we didn’t capitalise on the Wembley win and the 40k euphoric fans we could have pitched to. Instead we increased prices and then made it a secret by not releasing sales numbers which suggested they were not very good and there was no need to buy one if most of our games seemed like they were going to be available to watch on tv anyway.
When the new East stand opened I went and tried out seats where I fancied and picked mine and have had it ever since. Even now it only works out (for this season) at about £21.50 per game, that is at the concessionary (retired persons) rate, and it is in the middle (block D), almost on the half way line and about half way up the height. So, with others, it's the most expensive seat in the ground, but still only £21.50
One advantage that I think some overlook, is that it's always mine and I don't have to mess around booking a ticket for every game, I just turn up. Also, the people I sit with/near, my row and the row in front are always the same (to talk to).
There are plenty of cheaper seats, in the East there's Blocks A-C and F-H, you don't have to have the most expensive one to get the season ticket "advantage".
OK, Charlton on TV wasn't available in the past, but even now I think that watching the game live is "streets ahead" of watching it on the box. If you'r lucky you might even get a "comedian" near you, in the old days of the East terrace there were quite a few around.
My dad got my first S/T for me about then as well.
I've also had a S/T ever since.
I used to stand on the front railings of the east terrace when I was about 7.
Graduated to The Covered End when I was about 12.0 -
I first started going regularly about Sept 1963 and as far as I remember it was 2 Bob (shillings) for us kids and 4 Bob for Dad, so 10p and 20p now. So for you in 1968 that was 21 games for the price of 15 or about 7p per game for kids, and 14p per game for adults. So a good saving back then, and you could arrive late and walk straight in.letthegoodtimesroll said:
I’ve no idea when they first started issuing them but my first season ticket was for the 1968/69 season - 30 bob (£1.50), the first match that season being Millwall at home…which we lost 😡CombeMartin said:
I've been a Season Ticket holder since I think they were first available (about 1970 ?) and I took the view that as I was going to come to all or nearly all games it would work out cheaper, also I wouldn't (in those early days) have to queue up to pay at the turnstile in cash, I could turn up at the last minute and walk straight in. In those days it was a standing ticket.letthegoodtimesroll said:We missed the boat this season when we didn’t capitalise on the Wembley win and the 40k euphoric fans we could have pitched to. Instead we increased prices and then made it a secret by not releasing sales numbers which suggested they were not very good and there was no need to buy one if most of our games seemed like they were going to be available to watch on tv anyway.
When the new East stand opened I went and tried out seats where I fancied and picked mine and have had it ever since. Even now it only works out (for this season) at about £21.50 per game, that is at the concessionary (retired persons) rate, and it is in the middle (block D), almost on the half way line and about half way up the height. So, with others, it's the most expensive seat in the ground, but still only £21.50
One advantage that I think some overlook, is that it's always mine and I don't have to mess around booking a ticket for every game, I just turn up. Also, the people I sit with/near, my row and the row in front are always the same (to talk to).
There are plenty of cheaper seats, in the East there's Blocks A-C and F-H, you don't have to have the most expensive one to get the season ticket "advantage".
OK, Charlton on TV wasn't available in the past, but even now I think that watching the game live is "streets ahead" of watching it on the box. If you'r lucky you might even get a "comedian" near you, in the old days of the East terrace there were quite a few around.0 -
We're a small club. But not as small as many believe these days.0
-
Dazzler21 said:We're a small club. But not as small as many believe these days.We're a club with a Women's team in the top 60 (in the world). We have a bigger fanbase for the men side, the less successful of the two main teams, and that is why we feel that way.We're not a small club in terms of England. We still have potential to be bigger, however that is why I always had a problem with the word potential, since it simply means we could be better but aren't atm.0
-
How is the men's team "less successful" than Charlton Women?JustFloydRoad said:Dazzler21 said:We're a small club. But not as small as many believe these days.We're a club with a Women's team in the top 60 (in the world). We have a bigger fanbase for the men side, the less successful of the two main teams, and that is why we feel that way.We're not a small club in terms of England. We still have potential to be bigger, however that is why I always had a problem with the word potential, since it simply means we could be better but aren't atm.
Trying to compare the two is nonsense.
(Table topping attendance today of 595).2 -
SporadicAddick said:
How is the men's team "less successful"* than Charlton Women?JustFloydRoad said:Dazzler21 said:We're a small club. But not as small as many believe these days.We're a club with a Women's team in the top 60 (in the world). We have a bigger fanbase for the men side, the less successful of the two main teams, and that is why we feel that way.We're not a small club in terms of England. We still have potential to be bigger, however that is why I always had a problem with the word potential, since it simply means we could be better but aren't atm.
Trying to compare the two is nonsense.
(Table topping attendance today of 595).In it's (Charlton Women's) current incarnation, point conceded.In it's previous incarnation the Women won two Community Shields 2000*, and 2004, a FA Cup 2004 (and if we are counting the Premier League Cup as the Women's League Cup then they won that 2004 and 2006) Male's team just the FA Cup.The men's team is only more successful if you count the non major trophies (not the Top Tier champions, FA Cup winners, League Cup winners and/or a European cup).* shared with ArsenalAgain my point did mention the Men's team get bigger attendances, but I am not counting attendance as success. (You can win the league with 500 in the crowd and get relegated from another with 20,000)
0 -
Sponsored links:
-
All of your stats are correct, but I still think pointless. There is no comparison. The teams share a name and a ground, but there the comparison ends. Same sport but fundamentally different in every sporting aspect. It is much more appropriate to compare with other women's teams.JustFloydRoad said:SporadicAddick said:
How is the men's team "less successful"* than Charlton Women?JustFloydRoad said:Dazzler21 said:We're a small club. But not as small as many believe these days.We're a club with a Women's team in the top 60 (in the world). We have a bigger fanbase for the men side, the less successful of the two main teams, and that is why we feel that way.We're not a small club in terms of England. We still have potential to be bigger, however that is why I always had a problem with the word potential, since it simply means we could be better but aren't atm.
Trying to compare the two is nonsense.
(Table topping attendance today of 595).In it's (Charlton Women's) current incarnation, point conceded.In it's previous incarnation the Women won two Community Shields 2000*, and 2004, a FA Cup 2004 (and if we are counting the Premier League Cup as the Women's League Cup then they won that 2004 and 2006) Male's team just the FA Cup.The men's team is only more successful if you count the non major trophies (not the Top Tier champions, FA Cup winners, League Cup winners and/or a European cup).* shared with ArsenalAgain my point did mention the Men's team get bigger attendances, but I am not counting attendance as success. (You can win the league with 500 in the crowd and get relegated from another with 20,000)
Personally, I also wouldn't claim any affiliated success of the early 2000's. That was entirely the product of Croydon, who were stitched up by Charlton and the FA in an MK Dons style franchise abomination. The pace at which that team was ditched after relegation was in some ways justice. At least the current Charlton women's team have built up in the right way.1 -
SporadicAddick said:JustFloydRoad said:SporadicAddick said:
How is the men's team "less successful"* than Charlton Women?JustFloydRoad said:Dazzler21 said:We're a small club. But not as small as many believe these days.We're a club with a Women's team in the top 60 (in the world). We have a bigger fanbase for the men side, the less successful of the two main teams, and that is why we feel that way.We're not a small club in terms of England. We still have potential to be bigger, however that is why I always had a problem with the word potential, since it simply means we could be better but aren't atm.
Trying to compare the two is nonsense.
(Table topping attendance today of 595).In it's (Charlton Women's) current incarnation, point conceded.In it's previous incarnation the Women won two Community Shields 2000*, and 2004, a FA Cup 2004 (and if we are counting the Premier League Cup as the Women's League Cup then they won that 2004 and 2006) Male's team just the FA Cup.The men's team is only more successful if you count the non major trophies (not the Top Tier champions, FA Cup winners, League Cup winners and/or a European cup).* shared with ArsenalAgain my point did mention the Men's team get bigger attendances, but I am not counting attendance as success. (You can win the league with 500 in the crowd and get relegated from another with 20,000)
Personally, I also wouldn't claim any affiliated success of the early 2000's. That was entirely the product of Croydon, who were stitched up by Charlton and the FA in an MK Dons style franchise abomination. The pace at which that team was ditched after relegation was in some ways justice. At least the current Charlton women's team have built up in the right way.I find it interesting you compare it to MK Dons, but Women's football (especially in the 90s) is a lot different.Suggesting it was like the MK Dons is suggesting Charlton deprived them of culture. Though in the article about it (from Croydon to Charlton) Gill Wylie said they were 'already benefiting from being connected with Charlton. We have good facilities, excellent coaches and have also got a reserve team. Most women's clubs now want to be connected with bigger men's clubs'.Not like rerouting a club to a different place in England in a rush and without a stadium. It's is basically within the section of South East London.Also should be noted that this was a 'team' that broke away from Millwall Lionesses in 91, so I could argue Croydon itself was an early London City. Interesting both teams relocated to Bromley having been Bromley Borough in it's early incarnation.Charlton provided top quality facilities to the Women's football industry when supporting such a thing was unfashionable (or depending on your opinion it's still unfashionable and our club is still doing it's best to support it).Dazzler21 said:We're a small club. But not as small as many believe these days.Coming back to the original comment: we are not a small club, some clubs (teams) would love the facilities we have and that is my ultimate c&p.
0
