Silvio Dante

But that’s in no way a compromise and is totally unworkable. I had a ST before I had kids. When I got my kids STs I got them in the area where I sat, as opposed to moving lock stock to another area and running the risk that when they outgrew the family area that my existing seats would have gone elsewhere. Most kids start going to city because their parents were/are fans and those parents will have their own areas where they have sat for years. Saying new child STs can only be in the family area in view of that is nonsensical.

Now there’s a title for a thread! Heres a couple of interesting tables showing xG. When we’re ahead we are more likely to concede “better quality” chances (either individually or volume of chances) than have those chances ourselves - and we are one of the worst teams in the division on that metric. That suggests we may have an issue “managing” games out when in the lead. We do have a better ability to create higher xG than opponents when we are behind, but interestingly it’s not markedly different from opponents - and we also have a better xG when ahead. That suggests a weakness in breaking teams down once they set up against us to protect a lead. The other things that are interesting is just look at the top sides numbers when ahead - Leicester and Leeds numbers of capitalising when ahead are huge! And Ipswich when behind - they tend to concede early when they do, but this evidences the ability to come back. Normal disclaimer: I hate xG as a measure of individual chances but as a collective data point, I do think it’s useful.

Yup. It’s often missed by people who give the answer “family area” that people have to move to that area, and that they won’t be there for ever! I’ve recounted before that I sit in the Dolman. I had a season ticket for my son when he was 6 and he went to maybe 4-5 games a season. I did that because I wanted to stay in the seats I had, and not lose them for a move to the family area on a temporary basis (and once kids get to 11 tops, they don’t want to be there). I pay a premium on top of the family area price for his ticket, and from the age of 8 he’s barely missed a game. That’s what a lot of people do, and are more likely to do so their kids can attend in an area where they will end up sitting long term in the future.

We don’t know it’s either. As far as I can see there are three issues here and the ”problem” is likely a culmination of the three: - Season ticket holders (adults) not turning up for games - as noted, I think a lot of ST holders miss c10% of games for various reasons - South Stand ticket holders moving elsewhere in the ground for a better view - Season ticket holders (children) not coming to games. As with the adults, you’d expect 10% of games to be missed but it’s probably higher due to night games etc for kids who genuinely go The club will have the data here of which STs are scanned in each game. Again, I don’t think they’ll be motivated to do anything until we have consistent sell outs but they’ll know. The likely answer is not one of the three groups is big enough in isolation. And I don’t agree with putting prices up for children in the SS - it’s the most affordable area and people don’t want to be in the family area for life so secure seats in the area they want to sit in long term. Equally, I don’t want the time and hassle of having to show my ticket every time I go up the stairs to my seat in the Dolman. I genuinely don’t think this is that major an issue overall currently and more importantly the club don’t either.

This feels like foreboding news for Harvey Wiles-Richards and potentially Bajic. Joe Duncan is very highly rated and is the next batch below Casa-Grande. I’d be thinking that there may be some engagement with the first team (even as third choice) in the next year or two for both and with that being the case, it’d seem to me that HWR would need to have a huge uptick to remain at his place in the pecking order. Bajic doesn’t seem close to displacing Max (and nor should he currently) and if he has a couple of further contenders coming up behind him he may look to move on as opposed to sitting as number two for a season before potentially being displaced.

I for one am glad that Brian has matured and no longer makes rash public statements prematurely.

Yep - it’s basic economics. If the club think we’ve reached a point where they can sell the seat for x then they’ll take action. If they don’t think that applies, then the status quo applies. The big deal here is that as long as there are significant seats available elsewhere (and at a higher price) the clubs motivation to lose the bum on seat, no matter what they’re paying, will be reduced (and that applies whether they turn up or not, and whether an adult uses a child seat or not) The decision for the club is definitely closer than it was in view of increased attendance - but I’d reiterate we’re miles away from “use it or lose it” or seat resales. Those will come if we’re at 90-95% of tickets sold on a regular basis. NB - I certainly am expecting an increase in my ST cost come what may!

Whatever mate. Your basic flaw is assuming that if you got rid of U12 season tickets, the south stand would sell out. The club have a different view and prefer to take actual over hypothetical income (With a possibility for ancillary income which doesn’t make up the total hypothetical income from a sold out south stand). I’d probably trust them on this one as you are just guessing. And you’re missing that it isn’t just the U12 season tickets you need to make up in the SS but people who go with them. They’ve assessed the potential lost income. They’ve decided it’s not material. If you want to show your workings, approach the club to prove they’re wrong.

Yeah, it’s a commercial as opposed to a moral argument. In any industry, on a basic risk management aspect though, if the cost of controlling the risk exceeds the potential loss from the risk you accept the risk. Thats all the club are doing here so until the financials move, don’t expect change.

But…again..you’re working on an assumption which is different to the clubs assumption. You believe the south stand would sell out if the club got rid of U12 season tickets. The club don’t believe that (or don’t believe the admin costs to manage it outweigh the lost income). It’s a really simplistic argument, and I think the clubs stance (take the lost potential income but take the actual income which may be less) is the right one commercially- if not morally - here.

No, I’m really not saying that but congratulations for misreading. What I’m saying is that a very small proportion of children’s season tickets are used by adults. The club know this. As long as the ground is not sold out they accept it. Because they do get some residual income. Nobody is saying that we should all buy U12 season tickets. Because a) it’s wrong morally and b) at one point the proportion would be too high and the club would do something. In base business terms a bum on a seat, irrespective of price, is better than an empty seat. And there are two basic truths there: - You have opportunity to get some income from that person - You have no guarantee that the person would attend at full price Again, it’s not right, I don’t like it. But commercially x% of something is better than x% of nothing. Your argument is predicated on the income being available if everyone paid full price and didn’t swing the lead. From a commercial basis, it’s totally naive.

You might be more altruistic than most Dave! The issue is that it needs absolute certainty you can’t make it each time. I’d support a scheme where you gave advance notice that you can’t go and then it gets passed to a needy group who couldn’t afford to go normally. I’d certainly see that as a good thing to do that the community trust could organise.

Exactly. There’s a lot of nonsense being stated on this thread about things that the club aren’t ever going to do when we’re not selling out week in week out and a “use it or lose it” scheme isn’t happening. We’re not Man Utd with a waiting list FFS. On your point, it’s very similar to what is referred to as leakage in retail. The club know that a small number of adults will use kids season tickets and also that a small number will move to better seats. I’m not saying it’s right, but the club accept this. And the reason is that once that seat is being used, then you get to sell drinks, food etc and make more money off the person in place. It’s naive to think that the person would have shelled for an adult ST, so the club take the approach that some theoretical “loss” of income from getting a child price is acceptable against the income they do get from the ancillary sales. Again, it’s not right morally (and I speak as someone who has a ST), but from a business sense until you are selling out every week it makes total sense.

I drove down from Yate to get one for my son and there were none there - around 12. If they did take them off sale it’s really poor form as they would have known people were coming down especially as they knew it was limited stock (and there was no statement of a Saturday second drop yesterday so the inference was that we had the stock going on sale today and that’s it). It might be about trying to create demand but it’s a pretty shitty way to do it if true.

A seat “sale” system isn’t happening any time soon. If anyone wanted a ticket for Saints they were still available - less so for Leeds but if you work on this is a league game only issue, then it’s not really an issue. As long as there are spare tickets for sale, it’s not worth the admin of running a seat sale system for when ST holders can’t go - the club would rather have 100% of sale proceeds for an available seat as opposed to 50% of sale proceeds on a resale. The game changes if we have continued sell outs. Right now, that isn’t the case. On the broader ST front I think a lot of the issues have been given here. The guy I go with couldn’t attend vs Soton due to work, I couldn’t against Leeds due to illness. I’ve said before that for various reasons ST holders may well miss 10% of games each a season, but I don’t see us doing a seat buy back scheme until it’s financially worthwhile for the club to do so. Which again, only happens on a sell out. What I would say though is the exodus before HT is mental sometimes, but also understandable. If you go down bang on HT, you aren’t getting served before the second half starts. Things need to be better there.

Umm…as it was the last game of the season and we got the win we had to in order to win promotion (and iirc late on), I’d suggest it was dramatic as a game and as an end to the season…

On a broader note, I think I mentioned before that my son has decided he wants to go to every league ground. Which means plenty of club shops. Today I had to drive to Colchester, Ipswich, Norwich, Cambridge, Stevenage, Luton, MK Dons and Northampton. Retro shirts were a staple in the first three, as they have been in practically every ground we’ve visited. Shops weren’t open at the others but a quick look online shows Stevenage have a retro range, as do Luton (I didn’t check Dons, obviously!). The gas even have one. And the Lions have been selling bootleg retro kits which sell out quickly. This is a limited edition. But it is also an example of where we’ve missed a marketing opportunity generally which other clubs seem to take.

I think the answer is in his post, we clinched promotion. After the fall of the prior years to start the climb back had to have been emotional as hell (I’d started watching that season but can’t really claim to have been as invested at that point as those who saw the club nearly die then TC take the team forward with kids, students, part timers and rejects)

To be fair, that **** Francis has still got the same haircut.

As expected, following the announcement that said nothing but placated idiots, they’ve launched their STs for next season. Worth comparing the price of their South Stand with ours, and also note that they charge more to watch from the sides than a Dolman wings ticket costs….

See, I wasn’t. If you listened to Martin post match about how they’d react he said that things wouldn’t change, he’d do exactly the same thing for the next game. Martin (a lot like Manning) believes in process. If he continues the behaviours, then they’ll win (and they’ve got better players than most of the division so do often). Emotion is a bad thing as it detracts from the behaviours. So reacting emotionally to being behind was never going to happen.

You’d think so wouldn’t you? The more I think on tonight and how it was a shape we were comfortable with and therefore it’s one you refine to get the best chance of success, it says to me that the (again, without getting hung up on formations) 4-2-1-3 as played is our way forward. Every good side needs two players per position. If we renew James and Williams, and even disregarding Naismith/assuming no academy come through then you’d have the following for the “2” TGH/James/Williams/Bird I think that looks decent at this level. The “1” is then covered by Knight - possibly Stokes depending on development as backup. I keep coming back to - would we sign James or Williams if they didn’t play for us. I would, and I think they fit in the formation we play best.

Well. I said I’d take 4 with a consistent improvement in performance. We got 7 with the following: - 1 x very poor (Leeds) - 1 x Curates egg that I saw (Cov) and 1 x Curates egg that I didn’t (Boro) - 1 x superb (Southampton) Avoiding recency bias (not getting too high etc) then it’s a very good haul from a mixed bag of performances. So points have exceeded expectations but performance (on a consistent basis) probably hasn’t. However, of the last 180 minutes I think the consensus would be that we’ve been very good for 135 so the trajectory is definitely the right way…!

On the theme, it was interesting to listen to Radio Bristol post match where LM opined that we’d been up to the standard in 45 minutes or 60 minutes in games (other than Leeds) but that was indeed a first time where we’d done it the whole game. He did reference James in the post match as well in terms of speaking to the side and saying similar - I wonder if he’s viewing James as more integral dressing room wise and thinking it may be a very good idea to retain him.

It’s a good point. Without getting hung up on formations(!) that was a 4-2-1-3 (or 4-2-1-2-1) at base and the main strength was in the double pivot of Williams and James at the 2 in midfield . It’s how we’ve played best for a fair while now, and if LM is in the position where he refines as opposed to redesigns, then I think we’re in a far better place. If that means Twine (when back) is forced wider then probably so be it as I think Knight is so integral to an aggressive press.