Red Faction - walking out on 30th minute

[BoroMart]

This season should have been about retaining as many of those fans as possible. History tells us that attendances are linked to performances on the pitch and this season we have regressed. With the price increase I think we will see attendances drop a reasonable amount. If they drop by more than 1.5k then the revenue has decreased irrelevant of the price increase.

maybe the hope is that by buying a couple of high value exciting forwards in the summer, so we will retain attendances

 

[ForssAwakens]

Greed?

Greed by whom? Steve Gibson ain’t profiting by owning MFC.

A football club is the easiest way to lose money not gain any.

Well another way to look at it, if Gibson charges more he’s able to invest more on players his managers don’t want, like downing and Rhodes.

 

[B_G]

maybe the hope is that by buying a couple of hi value exciting forwards in the summer, we will retain attendances

It's too late by then. They want our money by the end of March.

If you think people who aren't renewing now because they are unwilling to pay the increase are going to pay a higher cost in 4 months time then you are as deluded as the man in charge.

Success brings the fans in, not signings. Just wind back 12 months. It was the success on the pitch that encouraged the fans to come back in droves and commit to SCs. If they had seen what was going to happen in the summer transfer window, I would bet that some of them may not have bothered.

 

[free_pint]

maybe the hope is that by buying a couple of hi value exciting forwards in the summer, we will retain attendances

That only works if the early bird deadline was in the summer.. those who renew after that will be adding an extra £70 (estimate as can't be bothered looking) on top of the price rise..

 

[Norman_Conquest]

It's too late by then. They want our money by the end of March.

If you think people who aren't renewing now because they are unwilling to pay the increase are going to pay a higher cost in 4 months time then you are as deluded as the man in charge.

Success brings the fans in, not signings. Just wind back 12 months. It was the success on the pitch that encouraged the fans to come back in droves and commit to SCs. If they had seen what was going to happen in the summer transfer window, I would bet that some of them may not have bothered.

You didn't have to be a visionary to see what happened in the summer coming. The sale of Akpom was always going to happen and getting the loan players back always depended on promotion.

 

[Norman_Conquest]

That only works if the early bird deadline was in the summer.. those who renew after that will be adding an extra £70 (estimate as can't be bothered looking) on top of the price rise..

The £70 is a stumbling block for many - why would you want to pay £70 more than the man sitting next to you? The club needs to seriously look at that.

Edit: I understand an increase after the early bird deadline.

 

[BoroMart]

Mart, you know that I like you as a poster but you really are coming across as a right bellend on this thread.

someone has to be a bit more balance than this pitchfork mentality that is happening, I've never been one to run with the baying crowds to appease the hive mindset, that acheives nothing. I've never been one to simplify complex issues into black and white thinking like this. Yes the prices are high, but as long as there is a strategy to this, such as a big spending summer then so be it. We have finally shorn ourselves of teh Garry Monk financial failure, this is a huge summer for us, a huge opportunity. If the club fail to take it we will probably lose the best manager we've had in years, and a massive growth opportunity. The alternative is scrapping around at this level in a death spiral of financial failure. The club appear to have a strategy, personally I think snapping the relationship like this from a fan perspective is mackem levels of self-harm. I don't wat to see this fracture occur, and the club isn't going to set the precedent of bowing down to the demands of red faction or any other supporters group. There needs to be a realistic objective from the fans if they want gibson to show some concession in future.

Does that make someone a bellend, simply by foreseeing the disharmony this action is going to cause for no gain, no, to see the fans fail to get on board with a great promotion opportunity. There is always a price point above zero, where football is unaffordable to some people, the reality is this price rise is on the back of inflation and government economic failure, so the timing smarts more people, I get that. But those same factors that hurt the man in the street, hurt the club too and they have to maximise revenue to get the players in they need. The reality with a kids ticket is that actually every adult in the stadium is subsidising them, every adult without a kid is paying a bit towards them. People argue about the fans of tomorrow, but actually the best way to ensure the fans of tomorrow is by getting a premier league club again. If we do, the kids will come regardless. If we don't they'll follow liverpool or man city. That has always been the case and moreso in the digital age.

 

[BoroMart]

That only works if the early bird deadline was in the summer.. those who renew after that will be adding an extra £70 (estimate as can't be bothered looking) on top of the price rise..

and maybe the early bird pricing needs to be looked at?

 

[B_G]

The reality with a kids ticket is that actually every adult in the stadium is subsidising them

No they aren't. It isn't costing the club more than £19 for each child to enter the stadium. So how are adults subsidising them? The club just don't generate as much revenue off a child as what they do from an adult.

But lets not forget that most of these children are accompanied by a full paying adult.

 

[LessoftheLip]

The meeting has finished apparently and we're about to get an announcement

 

[BoroMart]

No they aren't. It isn't costing the club more than £19 for each child to enter the stadium. So how are adults subsidising them? The club just don't generate as much revenue off a child as what they do from an adult.

But lets not forget that most of these children are accompanied by a full paying adult.

Cost and budgetting are different. The club have to budget for ffp, they have a projection on income, that projection is based on so many subsidised and non-subsidised tickets. That means they have to work out the ratio of a full price ticket to a non-fullprice, so yes these are intrinsically linked. That's how budgeting works. If we ever get back to a full stadium again, the link is absolute.

 

[Steve Bee]

Why should a fan group have any say in the prices? Pay it or don’t, this is yet another example of this groups self importance.

Eh?

 

[free_pint]

and maybe the early bird pricing needs to be looked at?

Yes. The whole pricing needs looking at.

 

[BoroMart]

That only works if the early bird deadline was in the summer.. those who renew after that will be adding an extra £70 (estimate as can't be bothered looking) on top of the price rise..

I agree early bird should be up to summer, seems mad to have early bird stop part way through the previous years

 

[FishofContemplation]

No Rob he doesn’t pay £50k per day in. The books are indeed there to see.
He has paid a lot, I’ve been loud in saying so, but you just lap up anything he throws your way.
He puts money in because he has to, otherwise the club would be insolvent.
He makes every key decision at the club. He is accountable.
His decisions and their consequences are down to him.
Question would be why have smaller or at best similar clubs like Brighton, Bournemouth, Brentford, Burnley, Wolves, Fulham, Palace, Southampton, Leicester, West Brom, Norwich, Watford, Sheff U been able to work the same system?
Why have we been left behind despite his funding? And despite his Walk up prices being so obscenely high.

With the arguable exceptions of Bournemouth (which I still consider to be Hampshire) and Norwich (who aren’t doing that much better than us anyway ) every single one of the clubs on your list is either based in London and the Southeast and so benefits from the huge financial disparity that the country now has or has one at least one championship and so is our superior historically at least on the field. I am all for aspiration, but it has to be tempered with realism. I think you need at least to consider whether your definition of the same or smaller reflects either 21st century reality or history. I also think you could have a comparable list of clubs below us.

There has been a massive rebalancing between south and north in football that reflects the economic reality. In the days of the two third divisions they used to move Grimsby town about between North and South to keep it balanced. These days in the National League, they move Bishop’s Stortford. Brighton, Bournemouth, Palace, Fulham, Brentford, Watford must have benefited from this. You need no explanation other than the economic abandonment of the north by successive governments to explain why they have progressed past us. it is meaningless to call them small clubs based on what they were 50 years ago.

All of which is not to defend prices, but it is to accept they must be put in the context of the 21st century reality of the distorted English economy.

 

[Geoff_B]

With the arguable exceptions of Bournemouth (which I still consider to be Hampshire) and Norwich (who aren’t doing that much better than us anyway ) every single one of the clubs on your list is either based in London and the Southeast and so benefits from the huge financial disparity that the country now has or has one at least one championship and so is our superior historically at least on the field. I am all for aspiration, but it has to be tempered with realism. I think you need at least to consider whether your definition of the same or smaller reflects either 21st century reality or history. I also think you could have a comparable list of clubs below us.

There has been a massive rebalancing between south and north in football that reflects the economic reality. In the days of the two third divisions they used to move Grimsby town about between North and South to keep it balanced. These days in the National League, they move Bishop’s Stortford. Brighton, Bournemouth, Palace, Fulham, Brentford, Watford must have benefited from this. You need no explanation other than the economic abandonment of the north by successive governments to explain why they have progressed past us. it is meaningless to call them small clubs based on what they were 50 years ago.

All of which is not to defend prices, but it is to accept they must be put in the context of the 21st century reality of the distorted English economy.

Since when were Burnley, Wolves, Leicester, West Brom, Sheff U in the South East or London

 

[uncle_rico]

maybe the hope is that by buying a couple of high value exciting forwards in the summer, so we will retain attendances

You could have posted exactly the same thing at the end of last season.

 

[B_G]

Cost and budgetting are different. The club have to budget for ffp, they have a projection on income, that projection is based on so many subsidised and non-subsidised tickets. That means they have to work out the ratio of a full price ticket to a non-fullprice, so yes these are intrinsically linked. That's how budgeting works. If we ever get back to a full stadium again, the link is absolute.

Total waffle and irrelevant to what I posted but I'll respond anyway.

Budgeting ticket sales is very fluid. Performance dependent. It's a forecast. If the team say finish 12th of instead of in a play off place, this will hit the ticket sales figure far more than dropping childs walk up prices from £19 to £10.

I'm sure they have people who can amend the calculation for say a £10 child ticket price instead of a £19 price.

They may well find that volume would increase generating additional revenue. Again I'm sure they've got people capable of modelling this.

But paying adults are not subsidising children paying child's ticket prices. That is totally the wrong phrase. That implies that we are generating less ticketing revenue by having more children in the ground which is simply not true.
We would not be using revenue generated from adult tickets to fund children going to the matches.

 

[Humpty]

The £70 is a stumbling block for many - why would you want to pay £70 more than the man sitting next to you? The club needs to seriously look at that.

Edit: I understand an increase after the early bird deadline.

This is something that really irks me.

 

[BoroMart]

Total waffle and irrelevant to what I posted but I'll respond anyway.

afraid it isn't, they have to budget, every organisation has to budget, that drives prices, that's the basics of financial management. As for relevance, it's very relevant as they know the ratio of full price payers to reduced price payers, and will be utilising that in their price calculations.