b) I agree with but a) was similar to our situation. I thnk everyone had an idea, which funnily enough was wrong because we played more reserves than Spurs, that Spurs would play a team of kids and reserves especially as they had just got to 4th in the table. Just like the Ajax friendly this year. I don't know the ticket price for that game, but it was a bloody good attendance for a pre-season friendly maybe because of the opposition.
Let me first of all come clean. Although I have argued all along on this thread, and others before, that £30 was reasonable I argued that as a business case - you charge as much as you can get away with to try and maximise your profit. This is particularly relevent when the away club are being paid a share of the gate and must have a say in the pricing policy. As a City fan and season ticket holder I felt the price charged to be too high. With respect you cannot argue both ways. There was an arguement raised that the prices kept casual supporters away and an opportunity was lost to get non regulars interested in going to Carrow Road. You now say that ' hardly any regulars/season ticket holders turned up ' which means that those who did turn up were casual supporters!! Supers is concentrating on comparing fanbases but that is not what I am saying. I used Wigan as an example because they charged the very low admission price of £10 and only got a gate of 11k. Would that have been halved if they had charged £20 - no. Would that have been doubled if they had charged £5 - no. It is a business case not a Club v Supporters case so Wigan might as well have charged £20 and maximised their profit. Price is a factor in everything but is not the only factor. If you halve the price of milk you will sell more but not double your sales. The price of rail travel has probably doubled but have passenger numbers halved? As a business case I think the Club got the price right but as a supporter - that is a different matter. I again have to stress that the away team have to be consulted as they are only interested in how much they can make out of it ( the business case ) rather than fairness to the loyal home fans ( the supporters case ). One final example. During the International break Crawley did all sorts of promotions - including issuing ' kids go free ' vouchers to local schools - to encourage fans who normally go to London to watch the bigger Clubs to give their local Club a try. Did that produce an above average gate? You don't need me to answer that. Football is a business whether we like it or not and they will charge what thet can get away with - ask Arsenal supporters!!
1950, but it see,s you're arguing on a basis of whether it will be halved or doubled and whether there is a decrease or increase of something like 10 or 15% is a different matter. There's no fixed correlation between price and number of fans.
If you really believe that half the people turned up because they were saving a tenner then the discussion may as well end.
not because they would have saved a tenner. you are approaching this whole debate the wrong way. people would have shunned the match because £20 to watch wigan play a fourth division team is TOO MUCH MONEY. it really is as simple as that. £30 to watch norwich vs spurs fringe teams was TOO MUCH MONEY, hence the low gate. its £5 more than a season ticket equates to per match. it was overpriced. end of story.
Can't see the business case scenario worked if it alienated it's core customers, that's bad business practice. Any business needs to know it's core customers requirements and values, NCFC failed on this one big time! I see you keep bringing up Wigan and their pricing, well what about Reading/Arsenal, they were priced way below our game, and as I understand both those teams are in the premiership!
I have already conceded that from a supporters point of view it was overpriced but from a business point of view I don't think it was. Before the game you argued that they would get about 10k through the gate - they got a lot more than that. If they had charged £15 they might, I repeat might, have got a full house but even if they did they would still have taken less than they did. Would they have got a large enough increase in the crowd to have made more money by charging £20 or £25? Who knows. I don't think they would and on that basis I would argue that the business case is made. Your arguement on Wigan I find difficult to understand. Apparently, according to your arguement, they would have got 5k if they had charged £20, 11k by charging £10 but didn't get the extra people because they were saving a tenner - must admit Supers that you have lost me there.
I accept what you say ILD especially from a supporters point of view but Spurs, who shared the receipts, couldn't care less who we alienated - all they were interested in was how much they took home with them and on that basis the pricing policy stands up to close scrutiny. Although I was using examples I was trying to dispel the commonly held myth that if you decrease your prices you will make more overall profit from increased sales. As a generality it is not true. From a supporters point of view I think Wigan went too low, we went too high and Reading got it right but I wonder looking back, from a business point of view, Wigan wished they had charged £20 and Reading wished they had charged £30. We will never know but an interesting debate.
One simple question. How many of you will pay £30 to see the next round? Consider 1) It will probably be on TV. 2) What sort of teams will both teams put out. I for one will be going
The best ever advertising slogan IMO was used to promote a certain lager not so long ago, it was simply "reassuringly expensive". Basically that says, yes the product is expensive but you're buying the best. Perhaps Mr McNally should adopt this slogan to promote NCFC's ticket sales ? Well perhaps not when a reserve side is to be played in a cup tie
I would say it will be a near enough full house. And it will be not because its £10, £20 or £30. For one its the last 8 of a major cup competition (it must be big as ITFC have never won it) so if people don't turn up they want their bumps felt. And Lambert will be returning. Good ingredients there. So in my and 1950's opinion it isn't just the cover price although that might be the biggest factor that makes people go or not to matches. And as Gump would say, thats all I have to say about that.
I've got a dilemma about this one, I'm so pissed off with Lambert, that I said on a different thread that I wouldn't attend any home games where he brought his new team. Now I find myself in a position where I desperately want to go to this game. If I do decide to backtrack then price WILL be a factor, if it's more than £30 then no I defiantly won't be going!
You see I would argue that from a business point of view it was a mistake: 1.) There was an awful lots of kids attending that match so I am still dubious as to whether profits were indeed maximised. The £30 appllied to mostly Spurs fans and then a percentage of the NCFC support 2.) Many more families were put off from attending because parents could not afford to take their children at those prices thus the long term fan base dependent on any clubs future survival was limited. 3.) If you bite the hand that feeds you ultimately will alienate supporters - including many hard-up regulars. 4.) Even at £25 I would have considered going, as I would argue so would many other fans. 5.) The atmosphere stank and many times the commentator made remarks along the lines of how the cup meant little to Norwich fans, not knowing the real reasons for the large numbers who boycotted the match. If you think it is good business sense to portray your club as a tin pot outfit akin to those blue and white twerps down the A140 then fine! If that makes good business sense then I am completely and utterly way off the mark!
You say "large numbers boycotted the match" Chris; how many of the "missing" 10,000 do you know stayed away for that reason? There will have been many different reasons why people didn't go, just as there would have been for the earlier rounds when only roughly the same number turned up. I don't think anyone can justifiably say that a lower ticket price would have made a huge difference. Yes, probably some difference, but how much difference is pure speculation.
You are absolutely right Robbie but I can only speculate just as those who argue against my position. All I know is that I would have went to the game had it not been over £25 and I think many others on these boards and other forums and twitter and Facebook shared my opinion. £30 was taking the piss. However, it was a 4th round match (something of a treat for us baring in mind the last 18 years of cup competitions) against a top premiership side with a place in the last eight at stake. I want to support my team by cheering them on, not listening to them on the radio or watching them on a stream. Also, I love night matches. They are my favourite. There is something special about a high octane atmosphere of a night match that cannot be replicated on a Saturday afternoon at 3 o'clock. I want to give everything to help my team across the line and I would like to hope that many others felt the same way but I deliberately did not go to that match. I know of a dozen of my mates that did likewise, and that does not include all those who did the same on these boards. If they had similar numbers of friends who they knew that did not go to the game then it doesn't take long to mount up a sizeable total of people who stayed away.
Chris. Answer is we don't really know, and never will. I know at least five people who didn't go, but not one of them stayed away because of the pricing. They had other engagements, or were away, etc. etc.
