Makes the assumption that people would attend more at a lower price. Probably would if we were doing well, but the team need to perform on the pitch as well. I wouldn't pay £20 to suffer, whereas I'd pay £40 to have a good time.
So reliant on TV monies it is then, an interesting way to consider 'loss recovery' Particularly, as the recent 'new packages' agreed with Sky /BT/ Prem, are a 'reduction' on the current deal; so your 'loss making' balance sheet will need some further stimulus, me thinks.
Whilst I understand what MP is saying, the context is a little different in that we have not got five games to fix the current slide. Other teams have found a way to win more often and we haven’t. I really like the guy and want him to succeed, he’s honest and committed. I’m in the minority I know but the majority are not always right.
Yep, 'proof of pudding' Fran, cheap prices for cup games = low attendance (fact); struggling in Championship = low average crowds (& fewer away fans!); struggling in Div. 1 = even worse crowd figs than previous season in the Championship. Wembley final = 'fans' (the fair weather variety!) clamouring for tickets; trips to Europe, blooy fantastic...... so careful what you wish for! Relegation ain't a 'cure-all' by any means.
It also builds up a bigger core of support by getting them in the habit of being able to afford to go.
I'd say there's a lot of people who would attend more if they were half the price. I know I certainly don't base my decision to attend on how we're doing. If it was £20 a pop I'd have bought a st, despite not being able to attend every game.
At the risk of repeating myself, fact, reduce ticket prices patently failed to increase 'footfall' and increased attendances for (i) Saints cup ties (ii) Saints playing championship football matches (iii) Saints having Div 1 matches. Success, strangely, gets 'bums on seats (e.g. Wembley finals! 'big team' Prem. matches) and at full prices too! Just look at the cost of a ticket for Wembley. Top division equates to 'top dollar'
I did the math on it some time ago and ended up with pretty similar numbers, perhaps a little lower if memory serves. Per our accounts, the entirety of our matchday income for the 2015-16 season (the most recent available) was £18.9m, which had barely increased in the two preceding seasons, and our revenues jumped by £50m or more in 2016-17 according to Deloitte; we could have held every match in an empty stadium and it would have been only a moderate inconvenience financially. Further, if one buys the theory that the fans are a huge element of our sudden decline (I don't), then dropping prices to get a full house of lusty cheerers is a significant net profit. Merit payments based on league position have increased alongside the overall TV revenues, such that each position is worth about £2m. Thus, finishing the few points that separate, say, 14th instead of 17th more than makes up for the difference in ticket revenue. (This also means that our penny-pinching management has likely ushered in a decline in our revenues of £15m or more owing to our lost merit payments and facility fees. Tack on what will probably be a hit in matchday and commercial revenues and, again, being cheap can be very expensive).
Well said Schad. There’s enough on here always moaning about the “support”, I’m surprised there’s any debate. Still; fickle (high & mighty) fans.
C'mon, the 'penny pinching' statement is beneath you! Correct me if I'm wrong but have the club not broken their transfer record for THREE OUT OF THEIR LAST FOUR SIGNINGS...... penny pinching indeed . Have they not undertaken the task of 'significantly increasing their wage bill' of late - long term contracts being agreed & funded for the 'core squad members'..... as many fans had wanted their club to do as well.
Today at the "Hawthorns".......... And, with luck, the 'cup run' will continue, in front of our fantastic away support; who, by the way, took their full allocation of tickets!
Of course we have broken our transfer record. Almost every team in the Premier League has, as the result of skyrocketing revenues that have left us as one of the wealthiest teams in the world. Those transfers have decreased as a portion of our income, though. In July of 2001, we signed Rory Delap for £4m; that was coming off a season where our turnover was estimated around £17m by Deloitte, meaning that Rory cost us 23.5% of our total turnover. So in era-adjusted funds, he's still our transfer record: he cost us almost 2.5 times what Carrillo did relative to income. An equivalent to the Delap transfer, based on our income last year, would be a transfer fee in the £42-45m range. Yeah, we aren't approaching that. Since you mention our wage bill, the estimate for 2016-17 involved it barely rising; won't know until the books are released, but it was a jump of about 4% expected versus revenues that rose by about 40%. Note that our sales record has also increased substantially, indeed at a rate greatly outstripping our purchases. In three years, our record sale went from about £30m to £37m to £75m; our record purchase went from £14m to £17m to £19m in the same span. There is something of a difference in amplitude. So, yes, it's absolutely penny pinching if we are selling-to-buy (with a generous leftover) at a time when revenues see most of our competitors spending far more freely. And more effectively, of late. Also, what is with the random application of apostrophes?
Think your cover is blown. You simply must be employed by the club. I’m fairly optimistic in general and am still to call for the managers head but stuff you have been saying literally comes straight out the Saints PR machine.
Can't see us losing today, but a replay seems quite likely. Prefer to put it to bed, but want to be in the hat come five o 'clock.
I work on the assumption that most people are wrong, most of the time Still doesn't mean I'm right, unfortunately.
