Leeds 49%
Pools 51%

Anyone who was there, do you really believe we only had 51% ?

Personally I think they've just plucked two numbers out of the air.

If only the points were handed out for possession

And if the stats had shown what the poster wanted to see they'd have been gospel truth .

I'd be interested to see which team won and who got the three points.....

I'll be happy with seeing the positions at the end of May, when you'll still be 15 + points behind us

Something like 20-11 to us according to sources

I know it's all pretty irrelevant after the final whistle, and we lost, but I thought I could trust what the BBC pumps out, and I genuinely believe they've made up the possession statistics today. It's a matter of principal. First the Blue Peter phone scam, now this. We pay good money for the BBC and it just kicks us, the little man, in the balls.

The bit you all seem reluctant to see is that we were the best team for most of the first half - get the stats broken down is my advice.

Any of you Leeds fellas know why the crowd didn't get up to the expected 30k, maybe due to the England game, the cat A price tag or the fact that we are seen as a small team that Leeds would just brush aside?.

Take away our following and it leaves 24k home fans, thats a couple of thousand down on your game against Luton.

you keep saying that you were the best team for the first 30 mins. You scored once but I can't remember any other chances or should I have taken my rose tinted spectables off!

Seriously, I cannot remember you troubling us at all during the game (apart from the goals of course) which makes the result so frustrating.

I was talking before the game in The Drysalters and said that I would rather us lose 6 nil then get beat by one or two and come away from the game saying 'didn't we do well'. Seen it too many times before.

Ultimateley, I believe we lost the game because we gave you far too much respect in the first half. You weren't troubling us but then we gave away the soft goal and the rest, as they say, is history.

About 600 seats cordoned off in the South Stand (looked horrible from the other end) to start with. Each of those seats (and the ones you took) were the 'cheaper' seats, and the only remaining one with concessions.

While your boys and girls were paying £12 ours had to cough up £30. Strange pricing policy, but there you go.

In other words your greater numbers actually cost us in terms of the attendance.

As a matter of principle we should only give away fans the SE corner. 1700 seats is a better allocation than we're going to get at most grounds this year.

£25 is too much to pay for Division One football regardless of the opposition. £30 is just barmy.

Ken, I understand that you are trying to reduce your debts but I must say, plesae remember these loyal fans when/if you get back to the premiership ie. when the prawn sandwich brigade wen to come back dont price out the loyal fans from going. Huh, fat chance.

Bear in mind our effective capacity is 31,500. As explained on another thread the East Stand Upper is mothballed for various reasons. The segregation limited that capacity to under 31,000.

So at £25 & £30 the club attracted 27,000 spectators. We might have squeezed another 2,000 people in at lower prices, but in terms of revenue that doesn't make sense.

We also have 11,000 season ticket holders (last time I heard, may be more now) who have been promised that they will be looked after. I paid £375 for my ticket, just £16.30 a game.

Finally we are unable to take credit or debit cards so we can't sell on line or over the phone - that makes a big difference to people and destroys the chances of impulse purchases.

It's a sobering thought that revenue from Saturday's game could well have touched half a million quid.

Anyway if it's any consolation at all my namesake reckons you're a bigger club than Swansea. Back to Category B, apparently