|
Post by goodshot (FGS) on Jul 28, 2015 9:53:21 GMT 1
It could have been announced better I agree, however, "TOWN INCREASE COST OF PURCHASING TICKETS" doesn't make a great headline on the official website. I'll be honest, as a supporter with a season card, that attends about 4 or five away games a season, I'm not getting wound up about it. If they are only going to put good news stories on the website, then there won't be too many match reports on there! "Goodshot Saves Club a Fortune by Printing Ticket off at Home"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2015 10:07:54 GMT 1
How are we losing half a million a month?? That seems like an obscene amount of money. £6 million a year loss over the last few years, thought that was fairly common knowledge. Old news, thought everyone knew. LINKIt is fairly common knowledge thanks, but I asked how – as in how are we still losing the same amount on average? Anyone know the accounts more in depth than the general categories the club posts the numbers under?
Surely we are well in the + on net spending regarding transfers since we came up?I just downloaded the accounts from Companies House. I know you're perfectly capable of reading them yourself, but I always think the most interesting thing is that over the last three years (so not including Clayton, Norwood or Coady) we've made over £10m net on player transfers and still managed to lose over £15m. Highlights just how clueless poster like Terrierpark are with their rants.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2015 10:21:11 GMT 1
Do away Clubs get a fee for selling tickets? Otherwise why would Clubs like Leeds who sell 2-3,000 for every game with no corresponding volume bother? 5% of the ticket cost I believe, that's to help cover the costs of selling the tickets. That's in the football League rulebook. Leeds were recently in the media because Cellino had asked the FL to increase the percentage that Leeds get because they take more fans away than others so deserve extra payment. I guess his understanding of percentages is fundamentally flawed which possibly explains his repeated appearances in court?!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2015 12:15:21 GMT 1
It is fairly common knowledge thanks, but I asked how – as in how are we still losing the same amount on average? Anyone know the accounts more in depth than the general categories the club posts the numbers under?
Surely we are well in the + on net spending regarding transfers since we came up?I just downloaded the accounts from Companies House. I know you're perfectly capable of reading them yourself, but I always think the most interesting thing is that over the last three years (so not including Clayton, Norwood or Coady) we've made over £10m net on player transfers and still managed to lose over £15m. Highlights just how clueless poster like Terrierpark are with their rants. From a quick glance at them and the summaries, it's now pretty apparent we're in a sort of catch 22 situation. Our revenue from tickets is reducing year-on-year – less home fans turning up, which you could partly attribute to us lagging around the bottom for 3 consecutive seasons and which if judging by pre season so far doesn't look to be changing for the upcoming year either. A lot of fans of the opinion that the glaring need for improvement in defence is again going unremedied. But there is less non-shareholder cash available to remedy the defence, which will mean that people will be fed up again, and more people will drop off, which will mean another decrease in non-shareholder cash, and to me it just seems like it's going to keep spiralling. It's all well and good Captainslapper et al saying to the more realistic/pessimistic that we don't know how good we've got it and we should be thankful for how it is currently, but that doesn't really translate to how it works in the world of football. It would be great if it did, but fans aren't like that, so to hope for anything else is (imo) slightly naive and wishful. Look at Sunderland, West Brom, Villa, Man City(!) etc etc. Most of there grounds will be sold out first game of the season, and come any scent of success or progress on the field (relative to the individual club) the stands will stay full. If not, and the team struggle that season, even if not going down – the stands empty and the grounds look shocking on TV come the 2nd half of the season. Villa can go from a packed fortress to an empty morgue. Regardless of the league, if your team languishes the fair weatherers disappear. The difference with those clubs and ours is that the messaging from our club is that this continuous languishing and not really doing anything but surviving is progress, and the targets set are being met. Well if we're made to believe it's progress on the field, it certainly doesn't constitute progress on the books, cos they're only going the other way... I think the tone of voice needs to change from the club, we need to set the bar higher on the football side with what is said, and expected (at least in August). If we reach mid table and sneak into top half in the early half of the year, don't be coming out with this one game at a time, we still know it's a tough league, things might change shite. We've seen clearly in the last few years where we've reached a point and everyone at the club has portrayed a 'job-done/targets met' attitude from top to bottom, and we've seen the result of what happens when that's the thought process. The business and football sides of the club need a stronger line drawn between them, I always get the feeling with us in the Championship that the mindset is that whatever is happening, we are only ever achieving all we can. The results and discussions are always based relative to our budget. I've seen us dick some of the big spenders. We've got ex PL players joining us and meeting new up and coming youngsters, meeting proven and exciting Championship players. Why should that infusion result in another plateau? All of our player sales under DH have gone to clubs who have only ever finished higher than us (I think) – so we know there's potential there – let's have them achieving and finishing higher with us first. Budget is only one part of the jigsaw, if you disagree give Wigan or Fulham (or countless others) a ring. A part of it can come from the noises, motivation and ambition set by the club, and I really feel we've lost the ambition from the football side of things. Where we are is ok, because we have x budget and Dean is losing x a year. Mediocrity will breed mediocrity, and apathy and rot will set it (as it has clearly started to do so judging by the attendances). I think the communication from the club regarding sensitive issues (this thread for example) plays too heavy on our altruism and acknowledging what Dean has done for us. The bottom line is does the extra money we are going to contribute represent any tangible increase in value of utility on the pitch this coming year? Let me check....CP quote 'We'll look to [meh]kick on[/meh] [zzz]hold our own[/zzz]. We get progress shoved down our throats each year, but actually as an individual club we've won less games each year we've been up, and if that progress continues this year we could be back where we started again. Let's redefine progress, let's give the players a reason to kick on and a target to meet. Let's stop setting x as our target because y is the budget, because if I was a player for Town I'd translate that as 'they don't think I'm as good as the other players in the division, they expect less of me than them'. If we're neither there (going anywhere upwards) and definitely not there with however many games to go next season, why not try and encourage the gaffer to put some of the academy lads whose names pop up on here in the team. It might seem like meddling but it would give the fans and the board financing the academy a bit of an update and an informed decision on future direction and expectation. Perhaps the margins have been too tight that the manager is scared to take the risk of playing young ones in case it goes tits up and reflects badly on him. Maybe that bit of risk could be subsidied as assurance from the board regarding the results. In 06/07, Davy's last full year of ownership, our headline turnover versus total football expenditure was +£1.62m, averaging 10.5k home fans (looking at the league that year I'd be surprised if more than 3 clubs brought a 1000 or more). In 12/13, our headline turnover versus total football expenditure was over -£2m. I wonder if we'll average 10.5k home fans this year, will all the progress made. We know the budgets, we know we have to sell to balance, we know Dean has done so much for us, but we know that we could also have smaller crowds this year than under Davy. Another year of doing what we've been doing and calling it progress will not reverse that. Let's expect more from a footballing side. Positivity breeds positivity.
|
|
|
Post by Frankiesleftpeg on Jul 28, 2015 12:25:41 GMT 1
I know you're perfectly capable of reading them yourself, but I always think the most interesting thing is that over the last three years (so not including Clayton, Norwood or Coady) we've made over £10m net on player transfers and still managed to lose over £15m. Highlights just how clueless poster like Terrierpark are with their rants. From a quick glance at them and the summaries, it's now pretty apparent we're in a sort of catch 22 situation. Our revenue from tickets is reducing year-on-year – less home fans turning up, which you could partly attribute to us lagging around the bottom for 3 consecutive seasons and which if judging by pre season so far doesn't look to be changing for the upcoming year either. A lot of fans of the opinion that the glaring need for improvement in defence is again going unremedied. But there is less non-shareholder cash available to remedy the defence, which will mean that people will be fed up again, and more people will drop off, which will mean another decrease in non-shareholder cash, and to me it just seems like it's going to keep spiralling. It's all well and good Captainslapper et al saying to the more realistic/pessimistic that we don't know how good we've got it and we should be thankful for how it is currently, but that doesn't really translate to how it works in the world of football. It would be great if it did, but fans aren't like that, so to hope for anything else is (imo) slightly naive and wishful. Look at Sunderland, West Brom, Villa, Man City(!) etc etc. Most of there grounds will be sold out first game of the season, and come any scent of success or progress on the field (relative to the individual club) the stands will stay full. If not, and the team struggle that season, even if not going down – the stands empty and the grounds look shocking on TV come the 2nd half of the season. Villa can go from a packed fortress to an empty morgue. Regardless of the league, if your team languishes the fair weatherers disappear. The difference with those clubs and ours is that the messaging from our club is that this continuous languishing and not really doing anything but surviving is progress, and the targets set are being met. Well if we're made to believe it's progress on the field, it certainly doesn't constitute progress on the books, cos they're only going the other way... I think the tone of voice needs to change from the club, we need to set the bar higher on the football side with what is said, and expected (at least in August). If we reach mid table and sneak into top half in the early half of the year, don't be coming out with this one game at a time, we still know it's a tough league, things might change shite. We've seen clearly in the last few years where we've reached a point and everyone at the club has portrayed a 'job-done/targets met' attitude from top to bottom, and we've seen the result of what happens when that's the thought process. The business and football sides of the club need a stronger line drawn between them, I always get the feeling with us in the Championship that the mindset is that whatever is happening, we are only ever achieving all we can. The results and discussions are always based relative to our budget. I've seen us dick some of the big spenders. We've got ex PL players joining us and meeting new up and coming youngsters, meeting proven and exciting Championship players. Why should that infusion result in another plateau? All of our player sales under DH have gone to clubs who have only ever finished higher than us (I think) – so we know there's potential there – let's have them achieving and finishing higher with us first. Budget is only one part of the jigsaw, if you disagree give Wigan or Fulham (or countless others) a ring. A part of it can come from the noises, motivation and ambition set by the club, and I really feel we've lost the ambition from the football side of things. Where we are is ok, because we have x budget and Dean is losing x a year. Mediocrity will breed mediocrity, and apathy and rot will set it (as it has clearly started to do so judging by the attendances). I think the communication from the club regarding sensitive issues (this thread for example) plays too heavy on our altruism and acknowledging what Dean has done for us. The bottom line is does the extra money we are going to contribute represent any tangible increase in value of utility on the pitch this coming year? Let me check....CP quote 'We'll look to [meh]kick on[/meh] [zzz]hold our own[/zzz]. We get progress shoved down our throats each year, but actually as an individual club we've won less games each year we've been up, and if that progress continues this year we could be back where we started again. Let's redefine progress, let's give the players a reason to kick on and a target to meet. Let's stop setting x as our target because y is the budget, because if I was a player for Town I'd translate that as 'they don't think I'm as good as the other players in the division, they expect less of me than them'. If we're neither there (going anywhere upwards) and definitely not there with however many games to go next season, why not try and encourage the gaffer to put some of the academy lads whose names pop up on here in the team. It might seem like meddling but it would give the fans and the board financing the academy a bit of an update and an informed decision on future direction and expectation. Perhaps the margins have been too tight that the manager is scared to take the risk of playing young ones in case it goes tits up and reflects badly on him. Maybe that bit of risk could be subsidied as assurance from the board regarding the results. In 06/07, Davy's last full year of ownership, our headline turnover versus total football expenditure was +£1.62m, averaging 10.5k home fans (looking at the league that year I'd be surprised if more than 3 clubs brought a 1000 or more). In 12/13, our headline turnover versus total football expenditure was over -£2m. I wonder if we'll average 10.5k home fans this year, will all the progress made. We know the budgets, we know we have to sell to balance, we know Dean has done so much for us, but we know that we could also have smaller crowds this year than under Davy. Another year of doing what we've been doing and calling it progress will not reverse that. Let's expect more from a footballing side. Positivity breeds positivity. Good post but get your tin hat on. Or maybe people will take the positives from it.
|
|
|
Post by Barbieterrier on Jul 28, 2015 12:36:16 GMT 1
Clibbens manages, not for the first time, to make it sound like he finds it a real ball-ache to to have to deal with the supporters.
It's obviously a huge inconvenience to have to sell us tickets. Don't know what gives you that impression. Think he sets at the reasons for the charge pretty well, even if I don't necessarily agree with it. 'the Chairman as Owner and funder of losses and investment' It's that statement to me that makes it sound an inconvenience. The whole issue. The way I read it - Hoyle funds the losses and investment and charging fans extra booking fees is a way for him to try and recoup his losses (indicating to me that the fees don't really have anything much to do with the administration of tickets) which is understandable but harsh to pass down to fans who do invest in the club by buying tickets on a yearly basis. It's understandable that the club has losses. I'm guessing a lot of clubs have at this level - makes you wonder how Derby and Middlesborough for example justify their spending and what losses maybe incurred through that. if clubs keep out pricing fans in one way or another fans will cut back on the amount of games they can attend. That will be the result. Not more income for the clubs.
|
|
|
Post by goodshot (FGS) on Jul 28, 2015 13:06:49 GMT 1
I just had to pay £1.50 booking fee and 50p postage for my Hull ticket.
So I stake my claim as a funder of losses and investment. A customer by any other name.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2015 13:49:26 GMT 1
I know you're perfectly capable of reading them yourself, but I always think the most interesting thing is that over the last three years (so not including Clayton, Norwood or Coady) we've made over £10m net on player transfers and still managed to lose over £15m. Highlights just how clueless poster like Terrierpark are with their rants. From a quick glance at them and the summaries, it's now pretty apparent we're in a sort of catch 22 situation. Our revenue from tickets is reducing year-on-year – less home fans turning up, which you could partly attribute to us lagging around the bottom for 3 consecutive seasons and which if judging by pre season so far doesn't look to be changing for the upcoming year either. A lot of fans of the opinion that the glaring need for improvement in defence is again going unremedied. But there is less non-shareholder cash available to remedy the defence, which will mean that people will be fed up again, and more people will drop off, which will mean another decrease in non-shareholder cash, and to me it just seems like it's going to keep spiralling. It's all well and good Captainslapper et al saying to the more realistic/pessimistic that we don't know how good we've got it and we should be thankful for how it is currently, but that doesn't really translate to how it works in the world of football. It would be great if it did, but fans aren't like that, so to hope for anything else is (imo) slightly naive and wishful. Look at Sunderland, West Brom, Villa, Man City(!) etc etc. Most of there grounds will be sold out first game of the season, and come any scent of success or progress on the field (relative to the individual club) the stands will stay full. If not, and the team struggle that season, even if not going down – the stands empty and the grounds look shocking on TV come the 2nd half of the season. Villa can go from a packed fortress to an empty morgue. Regardless of the league, if your team languishes the fair weatherers disappear. The difference with those clubs and ours is that the messaging from our club is that this continuous languishing and not really doing anything but surviving is progress, and the targets set are being met. Well if we're made to believe it's progress on the field, it certainly doesn't constitute progress on the books, cos they're only going the other way... I think the tone of voice needs to change from the club, we need to set the bar higher on the football side with what is said, and expected (at least in August). If we reach mid table and sneak into top half in the early half of the year, don't be coming out with this one game at a time, we still know it's a tough league, things might change shite. We've seen clearly in the last few years where we've reached a point and everyone at the club has portrayed a 'job-done/targets met' attitude from top to bottom, and we've seen the result of what happens when that's the thought process. The business and football sides of the club need a stronger line drawn between them, I always get the feeling with us in the Championship that the mindset is that whatever is happening, we are only ever achieving all we can. The results and discussions are always based relative to our budget. I've seen us dick some of the big spenders. We've got ex PL players joining us and meeting new up and coming youngsters, meeting proven and exciting Championship players. Why should that infusion result in another plateau? All of our player sales under DH have gone to clubs who have only ever finished higher than us (I think) – so we know there's potential there – let's have them achieving and finishing higher with us first. Budget is only one part of the jigsaw, if you disagree give Wigan or Fulham (or countless others) a ring. A part of it can come from the noises, motivation and ambition set by the club, and I really feel we've lost the ambition from the football side of things. Where we are is ok, because we have x budget and Dean is losing x a year. Mediocrity will breed mediocrity, and apathy and rot will set it (as it has clearly started to do so judging by the attendances). I think the communication from the club regarding sensitive issues (this thread for example) plays too heavy on our altruism and acknowledging what Dean has done for us. The bottom line is does the extra money we are going to contribute represent any tangible increase in value of utility on the pitch this coming year? Let me check....CP quote 'We'll look to [meh]kick on[/meh] [zzz]hold our own[/zzz]. We get progress shoved down our throats each year, but actually as an individual club we've won less games each year we've been up, and if that progress continues this year we could be back where we started again. Let's redefine progress, let's give the players a reason to kick on and a target to meet. Let's stop setting x as our target because y is the budget, because if I was a player for Town I'd translate that as 'they don't think I'm as good as the other players in the division, they expect less of me than them'. If we're neither there (going anywhere upwards) and definitely not there with however many games to go next season, why not try and encourage the gaffer to put some of the academy lads whose names pop up on here in the team. It might seem like meddling but it would give the fans and the board financing the academy a bit of an update and an informed decision on future direction and expectation. Perhaps the margins have been too tight that the manager is scared to take the risk of playing young ones in case it goes tits up and reflects badly on him. Maybe that bit of risk could be subsidied as assurance from the board regarding the results. In 06/07, Davy's last full year of ownership, our headline turnover versus total football expenditure was +£1.62m, averaging 10.5k home fans (looking at the league that year I'd be surprised if more than 3 clubs brought a 1000 or more). In 12/13, our headline turnover versus total football expenditure was over -£2m. I wonder if we'll average 10.5k home fans this year, will all the progress made. We know the budgets, we know we have to sell to balance, we know Dean has done so much for us, but we know that we could also have smaller crowds this year than under Davy. Another year of doing what we've been doing and calling it progress will not reverse that. Let's expect more from a footballing side. Positivity breeds positivity. Positivity does breed positivity; it is a shame you did not also put an onus on some fans to bring themselves to a positive outlook for the beginning of a season. Negativity breeds negativity with a hell of lot more veracity and a lot of town fans seam to revel in that experience. Sad but true.
|
|
|
Post by Polish Hippy on Jul 29, 2015 3:26:00 GMT 1
You'd think that someone running a football club would realise there'd be costs incurred selling tickets. In days gone by this would be covered in general running costs. When David Taylor ran the club, he's a chartered accountant, he seemed to manage to sell tickets to the fans without any problem without having to add on FURTHER costs to the fans.
OK, things are a bit different these days, we have an all seater stadium so we can't just rock up and stand with our mates in our usual spot like we used to so therefore if we want to sit with our mates we have to pay in advance to ensure we get a seat next to them or in the near vicinity therefore this will add extra workload to the ticket office staff BUT surely after being in this stadium for twenty years now this should have been accounted for and adjustments made in general running costs. However as is the wont of modern practice in running football clubs every trick to squeeze every extra penny from the loyal football supporter is being employed and spurious excuses are being made to justify these extra charges over and above the already punitive cost of purchasing the match day ticket.
Not content with adding these "administration" charges on fans, which is on top of the despicable categorisation policy they introduced when Dean Hoyle took the club over, there is also the £3 matchday surcharge for supporters who don't buy a ticket in advance. How the fuck can this be justified? It is not going to do anything to encourage casual fans to attend on a regular basis. If someone doesn't know until the day of the game if they can attend or not then that £3 could be the deciding factor between them attending or not. As per usual it seems that this club's board knows the cost of everything but the value of nothing.
I know a number of people who, like me, used to be season ticket holders and only go to the occasional game these days. We've got out of the habit of going and not one of us is inclined to return back to our old frequency of match attendance. Reading some of the comments on this thread I can see a few more people becoming likewise inclined.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2015 3:43:42 GMT 1
I can't believe how many people don't understand basic economics.
Here are your 4 choices
1. Increase ticket prices to cover these costs, some would say treat them as part of the normal running costs. It would solve the booking fee problem but everyone would moan at higher prices and whether you ordered online, bought in person, or any other method you would be contributing to the higher cost ticketing methods.
2. Add a per transaction fee of 5 quid every time someone calls to order a ticket. Problem is people who order 10 tickets at a time would be better off, and those that call to order 1 ticket would be subsidizing those buying multiples. Erroneous would still moan.
3. Do as the club did and add a per ticket fee. Seems high to those that order multiples but it is probably a fairer method than 2.
4. Leave ticket costs where they are, scrap the booking fees and ask Hoyle to cover another cost of doing business, perhaps by buying one less player.
Take your pick.
|
|
|
Post by Doc Halladay 32 on Jul 29, 2015 4:14:24 GMT 1
I can't believe how many people don't understand basic economics. Here are your 4 choices 1. Increase ticket prices to cover these costs, some would say treat them as part of the normal running costs. It would solve the booking fee problem but everyone would moan at higher prices and whether you ordered online, bought in person, or any other method you would be contributing to the higher cost ticketing methods. 2. Add a per transaction fee of 5 quid every time someone calls to order a ticket. Problem is people who order 10 tickets at a time would be better off, and those that call to order 1 ticket would be subsidizing those buying multiples. Erroneous would still moan. 3. Do as the club did and add a per ticket fee. Seems high to those that order multiples but it is probably a fairer method than 2. 4. Leave ticket costs where they are, scrap the booking fees and ask Hoyle to cover another cost of doing business, perhaps by buying one less player. Take your pick. And miss the chance to have a bloody moan at the club, this time for ripping off the fans. Anyone would think the club is run at a profit and the booking fees are being pocketed by someone. Prices too high, hidden costs, losing friendlies at Lower league outfits, terrible sponsor logos, buying wrong players, selling wrong players, worst defence in the history of the game..... the list is endless. And one wonders why DH occasionally gets ticked off with the 'vocal minority'.
|
|
|
Post by Polish Hippy on Jul 29, 2015 4:41:51 GMT 1
I can't believe how many people don't understand basic economics. Like I said, some people know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. Sometimes a bit of goodwill nets you a higher return in the long run instead of costing everything down to the nth degree and charging accordingly.
|
|
|
Post by Frankiesleftpeg on Jul 29, 2015 9:46:51 GMT 1
I can't believe how many people don't understand basic economics. Here are your 4 choices 1. Increase ticket prices to cover these costs, some would say treat them as part of the normal running costs. It would solve the booking fee problem but everyone would moan at higher prices and whether you ordered online, bought in person, or any other method you would be contributing to the higher cost ticketing methods. 2. Add a per transaction fee of 5 quid every time someone calls to order a ticket. Problem is people who order 10 tickets at a time would be better off, and those that call to order 1 ticket would be subsidizing those buying multiples. Erroneous would still moan. 3. Do as the club did and add a per ticket fee. Seems high to those that order multiples but it is probably a fairer method than 2. 4. Leave ticket costs where they are, scrap the booking fees and ask Hoyle to cover another cost of doing business, perhaps by buying one less player. Take your pick. They have done, in addition to the booking fee.
|
|
|
Post by Frankiesleftpeg on Jul 29, 2015 9:57:59 GMT 1
I can't believe how many people don't understand basic economics. Here are your 4 choices 1. Increase ticket prices to cover these costs, some would say treat them as part of the normal running costs. It would solve the booking fee problem but everyone would moan at higher prices and whether you ordered online, bought in person, or any other method you would be contributing to the higher cost ticketing methods. 2. Add a per transaction fee of 5 quid every time someone calls to order a ticket. Problem is people who order 10 tickets at a time would be better off, and those that call to order 1 ticket would be subsidizing those buying multiples. Erroneous would still moan. 3. Do as the club did and add a per ticket fee. Seems high to those that order multiples but it is probably a fairer method than 2. 4. Leave ticket costs where they are, scrap the booking fees and ask Hoyle to cover another cost of doing business, perhaps by buying one less player. Take your pick. And miss the chance to have a bloody moan at the club, this time for ripping off the fans. Anyone would think the club is run at a profit and the booking fees are being pocketed by someone. Prices too high, hidden costs, losing friendlies at Lower league outfits, terrible sponsor logos, buying wrong players, selling wrong players, worst defence in the history of the game..... the list is endless. And one wonders why DH occasionally gets ticked off with the 'vocal minority'. I bet he's even more pissed off with the ever increasing numbers who keep their views to themselves but don't bother turning up. I've had a lot to say on this thread, not because these booking fees affect me but because at a time of falling attendances the club seem to be doing little to reverse the trend. Sure the club has costs way above the income, but I would have thought the best way to address this would be trying to encourage more fans to buy tickets/attend matches, which they are not going to do by adding further costs to the purchasing of tickets or adding a ridiculous £3 surcharge if you pay on the gate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2015 12:47:02 GMT 1
I can't believe how many people don't understand basic economics. Like I said, some people know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. Sometimes a bit of goodwill nets you a higher return in the long run instead of costing everything down to the nth degree and charging accordingly. If the club ran at a profit I would agree but it doesn't.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2015 12:47:51 GMT 1
I can't believe how many people don't understand basic economics. Here are your 4 choices 1. Increase ticket prices to cover these costs, some would say treat them as part of the normal running costs. It would solve the booking fee problem but everyone would moan at higher prices and whether you ordered online, bought in person, or any other method you would be contributing to the higher cost ticketing methods. 2. Add a per transaction fee of 5 quid every time someone calls to order a ticket. Problem is people who order 10 tickets at a time would be better off, and those that call to order 1 ticket would be subsidizing those buying multiples. Erroneous would still moan. 3. Do as the club did and add a per ticket fee. Seems high to those that order multiples but it is probably a fairer method than 2. 4. Leave ticket costs where they are, scrap the booking fees and ask Hoyle to cover another cost of doing business, perhaps by buying one less player. Take your pick. They have done, in addition to the booking fee. And the club will still lose 5 or 6 million quid this year. So what's the answer? The ticket prices and booking fees end up in the same bucket of money that just goes towards covering some of the losses the club makes every year. Dean Hoyle has always said his goal is to make the club self sustaining at Championship level. I do not know how he will ever do that because we lose 6 million per year and there is no good answer. He cant increase prices without alienating people and yet despite promotion to a much better standard of football, no more people are coming through the gate every week. Like I said ticket prices are a balancing act, Bradford have tried something bold, but you have to wonder if Town did the same thing would crowds increase? Im not sure they would, at least not enough to make up for the cheaper cost per ticket.
|
|
|
Post by goodshot (FGS) on Jul 29, 2015 13:59:02 GMT 1
I can't believe how many people don't understand basic economics. Here are your 4 choices 1. Increase ticket prices to cover these costs, some would say treat them as part of the normal running costs. It would solve the booking fee problem but everyone would moan at higher prices and whether you ordered online, bought in person, or any other method you would be contributing to the higher cost ticketing methods. 2. Add a per transaction fee of 5 quid every time someone calls to order a ticket. Problem is people who order 10 tickets at a time would be better off, and those that call to order 1 ticket would be subsidizing those buying multiples. Erroneous would still moan. 3. Do as the club did and add a per ticket fee. Seems high to those that order multiples but it is probably a fairer method than 2. 4. Leave ticket costs where they are, scrap the booking fees and ask Hoyle to cover another cost of doing business, perhaps by buying one less player. Take your pick. Basic economics in football don't work.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2015 15:14:43 GMT 1
I can't believe how many people don't understand basic economics. Here are your 4 choices 1. Increase ticket prices to cover these costs, some would say treat them as part of the normal running costs. It would solve the booking fee problem but everyone would moan at higher prices and whether you ordered online, bought in person, or any other method you would be contributing to the higher cost ticketing methods. 2. Add a per transaction fee of 5 quid every time someone calls to order a ticket. Problem is people who order 10 tickets at a time would be better off, and those that call to order 1 ticket would be subsidizing those buying multiples. Erroneous would still moan. 3. Do as the club did and add a per ticket fee. Seems high to those that order multiples but it is probably a fairer method than 2. 4. Leave ticket costs where they are, scrap the booking fees and ask Hoyle to cover another cost of doing business, perhaps by buying one less player. Take your pick. Basic economics in football don't work. Only because no one wants to accept reality. Town could lower prices and Hoyle would still throw the same amount of money in which would mean less money to spend on the playing side. I can understand people getting pissed off with prices going up and additional fees, but pretending the club can just stop charging the fees and there will be no impact anywhere else in the budget is simply not realistic. They have to raise the money somehow and I already laid out the other options. Pick your poison.
|
|
|
Post by goodshot (FGS) on Jul 29, 2015 15:59:02 GMT 1
Basic economics in football don't work. Only because no one wants to accept reality. Town could lower prices and Hoyle would still throw the same amount of money in which would mean less money to spend on the playing side. I can understand people getting pissed off with prices going up and additional fees, but pretending the club can just stop charging the fees and there will be no impact anywhere else in the budget is simply not realistic. They have to raise the money somehow and I already laid out the other options. Pick your poison. Basic economics Income + DH = Expenses = Income =/ Expenses =
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2015 16:30:03 GMT 1
Would it actually make any difference to Hoyle if we weren't making a loss, this could be total rubbish but I remember being told that when Town make a loss it will actually save him money overall on his tax as it would be taken into account with the profit from card factory??
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2015 17:15:03 GMT 1
Would it actually make any difference to Hoyle if we weren't making a loss, this could be total rubbish but I remember being told that when Town make a loss it will actually save him money overall on his tax as it would be taken into account with the profit from card factory?? I am no expert on the British Tax system having lived abroad for 16 years but it is probably similar to the US. In which case he may be able to write off the losses to reduce his income and tax liability. I know in the US if you have a small business you can usually write that loss off against your income. That means as an example, if your income was $100,000 this year and the business lost $10,000, your income would be reduced to $90,000 for tax purposes which would result in a lower tax bill. Probably a similar thing on a much larger scale applies in Dean's case. I am sure Dean would rather the club could break even at this level so that his money could be used to push us further up the table.
|
|
|
Post by goodshot (FGS) on Jul 29, 2015 17:29:11 GMT 1
Does he have any income from card factory? Depends how his businesses/investments are structured but yes it would be surprising if he doesn't take advantage of any opportunities to offset losses. I assume he has made loans to the club so any losses might not be realised.
|
|
|
Post by Polish Hippy on Jul 30, 2015 4:19:56 GMT 1
f the club ran at a profit I would agree but it doesn't. Maybe all the more reason to stop alienating supporters then. The less people who come to games the less they are likely to return on a regular basis therefore the less they are likely to buy merchandise etc etc etc
|
|
jimmymac
Steve Kindon Terrier
Posts: 1,642
|
Post by jimmymac on Jul 30, 2015 10:35:15 GMT 1
£2 if you phone up and get your ticket posted...£1.50 booking fee then 50p for posting.......ah well never mind UTT......ordered mine 9am bang on the dot.....
|
|
|
Post by Doc Halladay 32 on Jul 30, 2015 11:48:55 GMT 1
f the club ran at a profit I would agree but it doesn't. Maybe all the more reason to stop alienating supporters then. The less people who come to games the less they are likely to return on a regular basis therefore the less they are likely to buy merchandise etc etc etc Why would less people come to home games when they can print their tickets at home for FREE thus avoiding the booking fee, the club has attained year on year league position continual improvement for the best part of a decade, how is that alienating the fans? It would be great to advocate a Bradford type model of cheap tickets but unfortunately it would mean a football budget to match. Fans on here whinge that DH is not putting enough in already when the £40m personal loss barrier will be smashed by DH this season, and those that wish to buy the new home shirt labelled as gullible There is no pleasing some sections of Town supporters, they would even complain if we won the title.
|
|
|
Post by brighousebandbred on Jul 30, 2015 13:26:05 GMT 1
40 million loss, wow I suppose the interest in his bank accounts will probably cover his losses, just shows how rich the top end earners are in this world . Most people dream of winning a million on the lottery. If you've managed to amass such riches that you can play at being a football club owner life's dealt you a pretty good hand. Fair play for getting himself in this position.
|
|
|
Post by goodshot (FGS) on Jul 30, 2015 13:28:32 GMT 1
40 million loss, wow I suppose the interest in his bank accounts will probably cover his losses, just shows how rich the top end earners are in this world . Most people dream of winning a million on the lottery. If you've managed to amass such riches that you can play at being a football club owner life's dealt you a pretty good hand. Fair play for getting himself in this position. Would take 40 years at current interest rates.
|
|
|
Post by brighousebandbred on Jul 30, 2015 13:37:22 GMT 1
Not if you've got 150million. even at 4% that's 6 million a year.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2015 15:43:20 GMT 1
f the club ran at a profit I would agree but it doesn't. Maybe all the more reason to stop alienating supporters then. The less people who come to games the less they are likely to return on a regular basis therefore the less they are likely to buy merchandise etc etc etc Maybe some fans could stop winding themselves, and other gullible fans, into a negative frenzy about some (quite sensible if you think about the fundermentals of running a loss making business) charges. You do have choices that include zero charge, why not focus on those? Try applauding the FREE home print of home tickets and the charge FREE away ticket option.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2015 15:46:58 GMT 1
Not if you've got 150million. even at 4% that's 6 million a year. Not with today's low interest rates, which currently mean you are looking money in comparison with inflation; in Europe you have pay banks to keep your money, i.e. you pay the interest to the bank!
|
|