Interesting table done by "sportingintelligence" on twitter @sportingintel please log in to view this image So, quite a few clubs held their prices, so Saints 5% is double the average.
Well, considering some were anticipating a 9000% increase and a Cortese turd in a bag as a complimentary gift, I still think our price is okay.
We are still cheaper than West Ham, so for entertainment per pound we are streets ahead of them poor eastenders
Palace +19% will have altered that data by a couple of % themselfs so excluding that we're about the norm i'd say.
errr, if Palace's rise was lower, the average would have been lower and Saints increase, proportionally higher than the norm.
Not too surprising. West Ham are the other team in their second season back in the Premier League and their rise is higher.
CBK - I am not sure if you're complaining about our increase or not? Either way, we came 14th in the league and have the 15th highest priced ticket. Seems about right. Let's hope the next increase is out of sink to this and we finish a lot higher but still have 15th highest price. It suggests to me that the prices have been pitched about right.
I was expecting a bigger than 5% rise before it was announced, so I have to admit I was pleasantly surprised. However, when you see the prices compared, then it appears that most clubs have used the HUGE increase in Sky TV money next season to keep their prices at the same levels. The London clubs always skew things a bit. Have to credit clubs like West Brom who keep their lowest ST price below £20 a game. Very good value and shows it can be done at "well run clubs".
Prices look okay....for a team still in the building phase. Look at what has been spent on infrastructure, purchase of players and their wages. Think small if you want to be small. Our income is largely ticket sales...relatively little from other sources (apart from Sky).
Well I guess thats the only comparison that puts Saints in a good light, but I'd also say that West Ham are in London, looking to finance the move to the Olympic stadium and have more ST holders than Saints & bigger crowds. So you could say it looks ok when compared to West Ham. Could also say it looks crap compared to Norwich.
So what price isn't ok to pay? Is it ok to have same prices as Arsenal or Spurs if we aim to be at their level?
I don't know this, but I'd suggest that the south coast is a more affluent part of the country than West Bromwich though, so that's probably an unfair comparison as well. Likewise Norwich. As Fran says, if we're looking to compete high up then we do need to maximise income from ticket sales, though of course there's a fine line between that and pricing people out.
Very fine line and sadly you are right that the club probably has calculated there are enough "wealthy" people in the catchment area to fill the gaps being left by those who stop going because they can't afford it. No doubt the same "wealthy" ones who were no where to be seen a few seasons ago. But hey, that's football these days. Wonder how long it would take for a noticable difference in atmosphere to have a detrimental effect on both the crowd and the team itself? I certainly noticed a worsening of the atmosphere last season compared to the 3 prior seasons. Will that trend continue as more "sterile" people are replacing the "boisterious" ones?
I see where you're coming from, but I don't necessarily think there's a correlation between being boisterous and being a 'good' fan. Wealthy people can be loud too and less affluent types quiet. Were we to be making a serious case here all round, I'd suggest the increases in Everton's prices are more detrimental and surprising than ours. We also now have a monopoly on Premier League football south of London, whereas the WBAs (and Everton) have to compete to attract fans with local rivals.
The only reason for prices to be reduced is if people stopped going. Take the case of a mobile phone, if you sold as many as you could make, why would you reduce the price so that poorer people could afford them. No football club would analyse their fan base and throw their hands up in horror at the demographic.
Exactly. This conversation reminds me of a pub I used to go to in North London. The owner was a notorious money grabber and a bit of a prick. The regulars used to complain bitterly to the barmaids about the prices. Assuming the owner wasn't around the girls (who agreed with the regulars) would reply "Well if you keep drinking here why should he lower the prices? Go somewhere else. There are plenty of other pubs in the area." and the regulars would all say "Oh no, this is our pub and will still be our pub after he sells up and leaves." I don't get up there much any more but I know the owner is still there and the regulars still complain bitterly about the prices. They still pay them though⦠and the owner has just bought himself a villa in Majorca.
I don't expect our prices to be reduced, but they could have been held at last season's, considering the Sky TV money is up almost 50% on last year. And yes, I'm a fool to myself for paying it if I don't feel 100% comfortable about it, but that's the football fan trap. To most Football Clubs (and certainly Saints) doesn't make a single difference to them if you are a Season Ticket holder for 40 seasons or 1 season. They just want your money. (and don't give me the Supermarket or shop comparison as it's not an emotional/historic attachment you have with a shop like you do a football team)
