St Sales Pass 5,000

[jimtastic]

We aint customers and we aint consumers

We are supporters

Let me put *this* into perspective:

WE ARE A LOSS-MAKING CLUB

It's not like the board are pocketing what they take from us. Even after our "contribution", SL is making up the shortfall. Not bad for someone who treats us like "customers" and not supporters. Was it a million pounds last year (or £142 for each of the 7000 season ticket holders)? Sad truth is that without SL, we'd be shafted. And he's treated like the bad guy???

But come on, let's see where you go with this. As an exercise, let's imagine you're in SL's shoes.

So you're saying that tickets and commercial pricing should drop. So where would you make that money up? No transfer budget for GJ? No new contracts for players like Louis, who will naturally expect better wages from being in the Championship? Close the academy?

Over to you.

Again, I'd like to restate that I agree it sucks, but it's football's problem in general. In my opinion laying the blame at CS and SL's door is incredibly naive and unfair. Perhaps you could suggest a better qualified commercial/financial Bristolian to look after our books?

[megansdad]

And if we are proved right will you guys be eating humble pie?

This season will have good initial attendances, BUT it is when the novelty wears off that the high prices will bite and if we are not doing well, that could be as soon as October/ November. ST sales might be around 8-10K, BUT for a lot of the mundane games (And there are rather a lot of them!), there will be no rush for POTD at £30 a ticket. And how many will renew for 08/09 if we are mid-lower table? And do we get a price cut for lower wages and lower quality football if relegated?

Try looking beyond the Club spin!

More than capable of exercising my own judgement thank you - don't expect mundane games will be priced at 30quid a go and not sure why you feel those of us who agree with the club have somehow been duped.

We are in a higher league, we want to compete, Steve Lansdown is not Roman Abramovich and we should expect prices to rise. that may lead to some not being able to attend as many matches or watch from the same seats as they used to but the club is not a charity and if we want it to progress we need it to have a solid financial base. Increasing ST prices is the best way to achieve this -Nibor filling the ground with lower priced STs makes no economic sense when for may games POD will pay higher prices and fill the ground. If anything the occasional big game fan is being charged more for his/her football than those who buySTs at the per game prices available as detailed eloquently by RedTop.

Bristol Boy - not sure why you expect a private company to disclose information in the format you want it just because you'd like to see it - i'd like to see inside many companies books but it ain't going to happen.

For those struggling with children and attending I would let them contribute from their pocket money or perhaps have the ticket as a Xmas/birthday present - give them the choice and let them decide if they want to attend - a lesson in economic reality never hurt anyone. sorry if that sounds patronising it is not meant to rather intended as a helpful suggestion. Most kids at birthdays get scores of small presents from friends which are soon forgotten and left unused- save the parents the hassle of choosing a present and yourself the hassle of finding a place and suggest party attendees contribute to the ST fund, which has the benefit of being environmentally sound as well.

[megansdad]

Is it that a customer chooses to buy or not to buy the goods or service, whilst a supporter ensures the goods or service can continue?

Hardly its the the shareholders who have plugged the holes to keep this particular ship afloat and in so doing won us promotion, while a vocal minority of supporters criticise at every step.

[jimtastic]

Hardly its the the shareholders who have plugged the holes to keep this particular ship afloat and in so doing won us promotion, while a vocal minority of supporters criticise at every step.

Well put.

[Nibor]

Hardly its the the shareholders who have plugged the holes to keep this particular ship afloat and in so doing won us promotion, while a vocal minority of supporters criticise at every step.

The fans put more money into the club every single season than SteveL has ever. The majority shareholders are the ones who've racked up over £4m of debt despite having one of the largest revenues in the division we've been stuck in for 8 years. If you don't think that's worthy of *some* criticism then I can only say I'm glad you're not involved with the running of the club.

We've finally got promotion mainly because SteveL made a good choice for manager, one that was the also the fans number one choice too, and that's excellent. It's not a free ticket for the board to escape criticism for mistakes nor should it be and nor I believe would they expect it to be. It's not like they don't get praise for making the right decisions either - like not sharing with the Gas, opening the east end, appointing GJ, getting Puma shirts.

[megansdad]

was about to post the same re your post .

[jimtastic]

The majority shareholders are the ones who've racked up over £4m of debt despite having one of the largest revenues in the division we've been stuck in for 8 years.

And the largest outlays!

Tinnion was SL's big cost-cutting exercise... Enough said.

[Nibor]

Nibor filling the ground with lower priced STs makes no economic sense when for may games POD will pay higher prices and fill the ground.

We might fill the ground against one or two sides but most games we will not. It makes economic sense to get the most money we can over the whole season not just from a few games and by filling it or near every game with slightly cheaper tickets we would end up with more money. Work the numbers out.

And more than that it's about risk. If the worst happens the club will find they've shot themselves in the foot and we will see a much bigger drop in sales than we did last time we got relegated.

For those struggling with children and attending I would let them contribute from their pocket money or perhaps have the ticket as a Xmas/birthday present - give them the choice and let them decide if they want to attend - a lesson in economic reality never hurt anyone. sorry if that sounds patronising it is not meant to rather intended as a helpful suggestion.

It doesn't sound patronising it does however sound remarkably naive. Whose pocket does pocket money come from!?

Most kids at birthdays get scores of small presents from friends which are soon forgotten and left unused- save the parents the hassle of choosing a present and yourself the hassle of finding a place and suggest party attendees contribute to the ST fund, which has the benefit of being environmentally sound as well.

"Hi please come to my birthday party and put a fiver in my season ticket fund". Sounds just like one of ColinS's ideas.

[Nibor]

And the largest outlays!

Tinnion was SL's big cost-cutting exercise... Enough said.

Yep, one of the largest outlays... that is an outlay the board CHOSE to spend and clearly for many years they didn't get value for money. It wasn't an outlay they had to spend, as many other clubs on smaller budgets that went up whilst we trod water showed us.

Is it ironic that when we finally stopped pissing money away we got promotion? Or is it a sign that good management pervades through and affects the whole club right from the boardroom to the pitch?

[Portland Bill]

when final figures are in - this year versus last year comparison is not the final story and since the price increase is greater than the number of sales down(at this stage) we are in any event ahead in revenue figures.

Thats like saying that you charge everyone £100 per match and get crowds of 8.000. That would be much more revenue than last year but is it what we want?

Surely better to charge cheaper prices and FILL the ground :noexpression:

[megansdad]

The fans put more money into the club every single season than SteveL has ever. The majority shareholders are the ones who've racked up over £4m of debt despite having one of the largest revenues in the division we've been stuck in for 8 years. If you don't think that's worthy of *some* criticism then I can only say I'm glad you're not involved with the running of the club.

We've finally got promotion mainly because SteveL made a good choice for manager, one that was the also the fans number one choice too, and that's excellent. It's not a free ticket for the board to escape criticism for mistakes nor should it be and nor I believe would they expect it to be. It's not like they don't get praise for making the right decisions either - like not sharing with the Gas, opening the east end, appointing GJ, getting Puma shirts.

En masse you may be correct but with out SL we would be in a sorry state and if you cannot see and accept that then I am surprised and equally glad you are not involved in running the club. Just read a few of the threads on here discussing transfer targets the criticism of selling the likes of Cotts and then tell me how you expect us to progress without incurring debts, which are in any event to the main shareholders in attempting to get out of that division. Now you expect that prices should not rise so utopia can be achieved and everyone can afford to buy a season ticket - its a competitive world and if we don't pay our players they will look elsewhere. SL has bankrolled us out of League One - not saying mistakes have not been made- and you cannot say GJ was a universal choice-but without the shareholders we would not be where we are- we would still be competing with the Gas.

[Portland Bill]

You've deliberately picked the worst teams in the div - loads of people (myself included) WILL pay £30 to see us against WBA, Cardiff, Charlton etc. £30 to see us against that lot looks cheap compared with paying £20 last year to watch us against Milwall.

Well_red

Sorry mate but i think your wrong, i wont pay £30( and then pay for my kids) to watch ANY team next season. There comes a point when you just have to say... its to expensive.

[jimtastic]

Yep, one of the largest outlays... that is an outlay the board CHOSE to spend and clearly for many years they didn't get value for money. It wasn't an outlay they had to spend, as many other clubs on smaller budgets that went up whilst we trod water showed us.

Is it ironic that when we finally stopped pissing money away we got promotion? Or is it a sign that good management pervades through and affects the whole club right from the boardroom to the pitch?

We're still pissing money away, only on wages, not transfer fees (and that's largely down to the nature of the transfer market post-Bosman)! Wasn't our wage bill second only to Forest last season?

If SL trimmed our wage bill and transfer kitty by £1m a year (which has been the shortfall over the last year or two, unless I'm mistaken?) then we'd have to take six or seven £3,000 a week players off of the playing squad. Imagine the calls for SL's head then....

[megansdad]

We might fill the ground against one or two sides but most games we will not. It makes economic sense to get the most money we can over the whole season not just from a few games and by filling it or near every game with slightly cheaper tickets we would end up with more money. Work the numbers out.

And more than that it's about risk. If the worst happens the club will find they've shot themselves in the foot and we will see a much bigger drop in sales than we did last time we got relegated.

It doesn't sound patronising it does however sound remarkably naive. Whose pocket does pocket money come from!?

Naive would be tp assume they don't get pocket money which presently is deployed elsewhere

"Hi please come to my birthday party and put a fiver in my season ticket fund". Sounds just like one of ColinS's ideas.

do you have children? have you spent time wondering what to but a 10 year old for a tenner? where do you expect that item ends up- if i knew that child was saving for a bigger present would far rather help him/herget what he wanted - wouldn't you?

[Nibor]

En masse you may be correct but with out SL we would be in a sorry state and if you cannot see and accept that then I am surprised and equally glad you are not involved in running the club. Just read a few of the threads on here discussing transfer targets the criticism of selling the likes of Cotts and then tell me how you expect us to progress without incurring debts, which are in any event to the main shareholders in attempting to get out of that division. Now you expect that prices should not rise so utopia can be achieved and everyone can afford to buy a season ticket - its a competitive world and if we don't pay our players they will look elsewhere. SL has bankrolled us out of League One - not saying mistakes have not been made- and you cannot say GJ was a universal choice-but without the shareholders we would not be where we are- we would still be competing with the Gas.

You're very misinformed and inaccurate in what you say.

SL hasn't bankrolled anything, he has run up debts that the club has paid interest to banks on, and then paid them off with loans from himself which if not repaid will convert to stock thus increasing his shareholding. That means he will get the money back when he sells up. Now I believe Steve is a city fan with good intentions and does his best and I praise what I think are good decisions but this idea that he's some sort of benevolent charitable type who pours cash into our coffers out of love is codswallop.

I suggest you download the accounts from companies house and have a gander. Bear in mind that at the start of SteveL's tenure we were pretty much debt free. How would we be in a sorry state without him exactly? Another chairman, like those at the smaller clubs who passed us by, probably wouldn't have let Danny Wilson empty his wallet and overspend in such a gratuitous fashion. Why is it that clubs who generate HALF the money we do have sailed past us without debts?

And for the umpteenth time, I've never ever said that I expect prices not to rise. I've said VERY CLEARLY that I expected them to and that they should. It's just that 30-40% in one hike is obscene and stupid.

[Nibor]

We're still pissing money away, only on wages, not transfer fees (and that's largely down to the nature of the transfer market post-Bosman)! Wasn't our wage bill second only to Forest last season?

It was but it was also nearly £1m smaller than it was in the last year under Danny Wilson. We're pissing away significantly less money on both than SL allowed us to do previously.

If SL trimmed our wage bill and transfer kitty by £1m a year (which has been the shortfall over the last year or two, unless I'm mistaken?) then we'd have to take six or seven £3,000 a week players off of the playing squad. Imagine the calls for SL's head then....

I think I must not be being clear. In the 05/06 season we stemmed our spending. Our wage bill was far more realistic in that it was about £400k less than what we made from football revenue rather than more than £1m over like it had been in the past. That's a good thing.

The bad thing was that SL ever allowed us to overspend so stupidly in the first place to run up those debts. I think when you saw DW part company with us that was SteveL admitting that buying our way out of league one had failed. So my view is that he made mistakes in how he managed the club early on, and he's since rectified them. What I'm pointing out is that the debt stems from those mistakes not from some strange law that states that football clubs must make a loss and get bailed out.

[jimtastic]

It was but it was also nearly £1m smaller than it was in the last year under Danny Wilson. We're pissing away significantly less money on both than SL allowed us to do previously.

I think I must not be being clear. In the 05/06 season we stemmed our spending. Our wage bill was far more realistic in that it was about £400k less than what we made from football revenue rather than more than £1m over like it had been in the past. That's a good thing.

The bad thing was that SL ever allowed us to overspend so stupidly in the first place to run up those debts. I think when you saw DW part company with us that was SteveL admitting that buying our way out of league one had failed. So my view is that he made mistakes in how he managed the club early on, and he's since rectified them. What I'm pointing out is that the debt stems from those mistakes not from some strange law that states that football clubs must make a loss and get bailed out.

I was under the impression that the club was already quite heavily in debt when SL took over - a hangover from Scott Davidson's spending in the late 90s?

Regardless, that's a good post

[Chappers]

What I find sad in this whole debate is that the word "money" dominates. City need it to compete. We all have to make sacrifices, just so that we can watch football. We have to pay players (and Agents) vast amounts of it just so that they will play for us. How about a few new words-

"Value" - Is it really worth the outlay just to watch a match?

"Entertainment" - What football is supposedly about.

"Enjoyment" - Are we all going because we enjoy it, or is it just a habit?

As many posters have pointed out, Football is reaching the point where it is not good value, and just existing to make money so that players can be even more over-paid. And as the rich get richer and it becomes uncompetitive (the Championship is slowly becoming as predictable as the Premiership), more fans will just give up. All of these money saving tips are fine, but in truth, giving up football is like giving up smoking, you soon don't miss it and realise just how much it was costing. Most people I know who have given up don't regret it. They have found other ways to fill the time and spend the money.

I am not knocking SL, and appreciate all he has done, but if Football loves to class itself as a Business, but surely the key to any successful business is balancing the books? One day football Clubs will find that fans are not willing to pay more, and then, maybe they will realise that they need to cut the cloth accordingly and only pay out what they can afford.

[megansdad]

you may or may not be right in saying had we spent less we could have performed as well- but SL has bankrolled the expenditure that has been made and has achieved promotion. Yours is the pink elephant in the room argument. mine is astatement of fact. Can't seem to recall us ever being debt free in the past ten years but I may be mistaken - I think there were loans from SD prior to SL?

We might have been promoted with no need for loans - SL would own the same % of the club he does now and have no loans this is a hypothsesis which cannot be proved -others achieved it we did not.

We have been promoted with SL and others funding losses through injections of there own cash. all that has changed is they are owed money by the club- in what way is that not bankrolling the promotion? it is simply a statement of fact.

Not saying this is down to charity but do think SL has ambitions for the club based upon his heart rather than his head and he has been prepared to provide the cash to support those ambitions.

You accept prices should rise so we are talking about degree - I happen to feel the club which, after all knows the price of promotion through improved contracts, is probably in a better position to judge what is required than you or I and given their information advantage I am prepared to back their judgement. To back the team that has delivered promotion rather than think I know better armed with less information but that's just the way I see it.

[megansdad]

What I find sad in this whole debate is that the word "money" dominates. City need it to compete. We all have to make sacrifices, just so that we can watch football. We have to pay players (and Agents) vast amounts of it just so that they will play for us. How about a few new words-

"Value" - Is it really worth the outlay just to watch a match?

"Entertainment" - What football is supposedly about.

"Enjoyment" - Are we all going because we enjoy it, or is it just a habit?

As many posters have pointed out, Football is reaching the point where it is not good value, and just existing to make money so that players can be even more over-paid. And as the rich get richer and it becomes uncompetitive (the Championship is slowly becoming as predictable as the Premiership), more fans will just give up. All of these money saving tips are fine, but in truth, giving up football is like giving up smoking, you soon don't miss it and realise just how much it was costing. Most people I know who have given up don't regret it. They have found other ways to fill the time and spend the money.

I am not knocking SL, and appreciate all he has done, but if Football loves to class itself as a Business, but surely the key to any successful business is balancing the books? One day football Clubs will find that fans are not willing to pay more, and then, maybe they will realise that they need to cut the cloth accordingly and only pay out what they can afford.

Chappers agreewith you and think the advent of Sky and the Premiership, as I have posted before started this- I agree with RedTop though that it is still value and yes I do still enjoy it - the most exhileration I have felt in a while was at Carlisle and home to Rotherham - sheer delight.

Football is entertainment but you and I both know its more than that. the balamce has to be struck and I don't think SL or CS would argue any differently. I think ST sales will show fans will pay but would love to see a return to days before agents the Premiership and Sky when it wasn't just about money. Until then I want the club to compete and to prgress and that will mean spending more.

[Nibor]

I was under the impression that the club was already quite heavily in debt when SL took over - a hangover from Scott Davidson's spending in the late 90s?

Regardless, that's a good post

I think most of Davidson's spending was repaid by the sale of Akinbiyi and Brennan and by Scott Davidson writing off some personal debt when he left following our relegation.

Laycock became chairman and we appointed Pulis (both SL and JL voted for Pulis as manager- IIRC that was the cause of the split with Davidson?). Control of the club wasn't a one man show then as it was now.

Pulis recruited players who turned out to be either crocks, crap, or wasters like Jones, Mercer, Beadle and Holland - all on stupid money and costing us over £1m in transfer fees alone.

It's fair to say that Lansdown inherited a rather high wage bill when he took over from Laycock but as a member of the board who appointed Pulis he played his part in creating it.

I can't remember exactly when JL and SL swapped roles, but the problem was that as soon as we got rid of Pulis's rubbish instead of tightening our belts we spent £600k and 4 grand a week on Peacock and then followed that up with another £600k or so on Miller and Wilkshire both having similar wage packets.

I think even SL would look back at that and say with hindsight the level of spending was a mistake and to be fair to him he's done a lot to rectify it since. I'm not anti-Lansdown but I think it's folly to look at him as a benefactor and I think he'd agree with that even if he wasn't particularly keen on receiving criticism.

[Bristol Boy]

Nibor filling the ground with lower priced STs makes no economic sense when for may games POD will pay higher prices and fill the ground. If anything the occasional big game fan is being charged more for his/her football than those who buySTs at the per game prices available as detailed eloquently by RedTop.

The problem in that statement is the word "occassional".In a fantasy world it would be better if everyone was POD and the ground was full every week-That won't happen and whilst this excercise may or may not result in more ST's, it won't result in more ST's & more POD's than if the reasonable increases and methods I outlined were in place.

Bristol Boy - not sure why you expect a private company to disclose information in the format you want it just because you'd like to see it - i'd like to see inside many companies books but it ain't going to happen.

Sorry, I was just thinking that it would be in the clubs best interest to communicate with it's supporters in a clear concise manner, so that information could be read and understood in order that valid opinions could be formed instead of those based on rumour and assumption.Thinking like a supporter again, sorry.

Hardly its the the shareholders who have plugged the holes to keep this particular ship afloat and in so doing won us promotion, while a vocal minority of supporters criticise at every step.

I think the ST Holders, in particular, have more than played their part in keeping the club afloat.Add to that POD's and various Foundations, City 2000, Sponsors etc.

Well put.

Just incorrect

You're very misinformed and inaccurate in what you say.

SL hasn't bankrolled anything, he has run up debts that the club has paid interest to banks on, and then paid them off with loans from himself which if not repaid will convert to stock thus increasing his shareholding. That means he will get the money back when he sells up. Now I believe Steve is a city fan with good intentions and does his best and I praise what I think are good decisions but this idea that he's some sort of benevolent charitable type who pours cash into our coffers out of love is codswallop.

Agreed and that has been proved by the sale of younger players such as Cotterill & Lita when a benefactor may have underwritten the losses and acheived promotion earlier

I suggest you download the accounts from companies house and have a gander. Bear in mind that at the start of SteveL's tenure we were pretty much debt free. How would we be in a sorry state without him exactly? Another chairman, like those at the smaller clubs who passed us by, probably wouldn't have let Danny Wilson empty his wallet and overspend in such a gratuitous fashion. Why is it that clubs who generate HALF the money we do have sailed past us without debts?

There was no doubt that the Millenium and moreover DW's reaction was a watershed in the clubs history.SL was clearly agitated enough to fire DW because he wouldn't except cuts to his backroom staff & budgets-install BT who himself now concedes he was the cheap option-fail again partially due to underfunding, BT's naivety and losing LL-then get GJ who could perform and, moreover on a budget.

And for the umpteenth time, I've never ever said that I expect prices not to rise. I've said VERY CLEARLY that I expected them to and that they should. It's just that 30-40% in one hike is obscene and stupid.

I can't understand why people think it's 30-40% or nothing? I haven't heard or read anyone say there should have been no rise

[PhatWill]

Let me put this into perspective ;

We aint customers and we aint consumers

We are supporters

Your perspective is all muddled up I'm afraid. We are most definitely customers and consumers, as all football 'supporters' are in this country, and have been for some time.

[jimtastic]

Sorry for the daft formatting, but the quote button won't work

===============

QUOTE(jimtastic @ Jun 6 2007, 10:55 AM) *

Well put.

Just incorrect

===============

If we're losing £1m a year, explain to me how we are not bankrupt? I'm not saying us supporters don't play a huge part in the cashflow, but in our current state we'd go belly up without the shareholder backing.

===============

I can't understand why people think it's 30-40% or nothing? I haven't heard or read anyone say there should have been no rise

===============

Because 30-40% won't cover the increase in operating costs that we'll accrue by going up to the Championship, nor will it make us cash positive.

In my opinion, it's another example of the "I want to pay less, but am totally blind to the implications" attitude we see on here all too often.

City are merely trying to be competitive in what is rapidly becoming a crappy sport for spectators.

[Blagdon red]

Here are a few numbers to add to this summer debate on what is or is not the 'right' price to pay to watch City / football in general (hope you've got good eyes!):

This shows the attendances for 100 home games from Jan 03 to March 07 (roughly coinciding with SL's time as chairman). It shows that attendances during that time were remarkably stable at around the 12,000 mark (average = 11,929).

The bottom set of numbers then looks at what potential revenue went untaken by the club. It's arguable what the sellable capacity of the ground was during this period, so figures are shown here for an assumed capacity of 16,000, 17,000, 18,000 and 19,000.

Based on those capacity levels, between 400,000 and 700,000 seats went unsold during that period.

The last few rows of figures then look at what revenue might have been generated had those seats been sold at anything from just £2.50 to £15.

On an assumed capacity of 19,000, the 700,000 unsold seats during that period would have generated an additional £10m if sold at £15 each or nearly £2m if sold at just £2.50.

On an assumed capacity of 16,000, the 400,000 unsold seats would have generated £6m in extra revenue if sold at £15 and £1m at £2.50.

I'll leave it for others to discuss whether or not City operated the 'right' pricing policies during that period - hopefully the figures above will provide added material for the debate.

[Nibor]

If we're losing £1m a year, explain to me how we are not bankrupt? I'm not saying us supporters don't play a huge part in the cashflow, but in our current state we'd go belly up without the shareholder backing.

Running at a loss and bankrupt are two entirely different things.

How does authorizing so much spending that despite a £6-7m revenue the club runs at a substantial loss which is financed by loans from Barclays Bank at 1.5% above the base rate and a large cash overdraft constitute "bankrolling" us?

Yes SL later took on the debt but that debt gets repaid in a few years either in cashed in loan stock or hard cash.

Because 30-40% won't cover the increase in operating costs that we'll accrue by going up to the Championship, nor will it make us cash positive.

In my opinion, it's another example of the "I want to pay less, but am totally blind to the implications" attitude we see on here all too often.

City are merely trying to be competitive in what is rapidly becoming a crappy sport for spectators.

You're making the assumption that a 30-40% rise brings in more money in total than a 20% one. Why is that the case given that higher prices could (and appear to) be causing us to sell less tickets than we might otherwise?

Don't you think there's a fair chance that we might have an average attendance 500 or so higher if we'd had slightly lower prices?

[jimtastic]

Running at a loss and bankrupt are two entirely different things.

How does authorizing so much spending that despite a £6-7m revenue the club runs at a substantial loss which is financed by loans from Barclays Bank at 1.5% above the base rate and a large cash overdraft constitute "bankrolling" us?

Yes SL later took on the debt but that debt gets repaid in a few years either in cashed in loan stock or hard cash.

But if SL hadn't taken on that debt?

You're making the assumption that a 30-40% rise brings in more money in total than a 20% one. Why is that the case given that higher prices could (and appear to) be causing us to sell less tickets than we might otherwise?

Do I believe that 500 people are not going to bother for the sake of an additional 30-£40 spread over a season in which we'll be playing Championship football? Well, no. But let's see when the final ticket sales come out

Right - that's it from me on this thread for the time-being. I'm way behind with my work

Much as I don't agree with your views Nibor and BristolBoy, I do enjoy the banter, so please don't take it personally or anything!

[Belfastcityfan]

This is a big two fingers to all the "fans" who winged and moaned about the ST increase!!!!!!! For those who will shy away from re-newing or buying this year, others are more than willing to take your place.

Well done

[redlozza]

Just to add a few more figures into the debate. All clubs in the Championship next year excluding those relegated from the Premiership or in the playoffs this year and Cardiff for whom I could find no information, offered existing season ticketholders early bird deals of some description.

Under these special offers the price for a seat equivalent to mine in the Dolman (£455) varied from £325 to £450. The average was £395. So basically we are paying more than renewing season ticket holders at all these clubs by an average of £60.

Interestingly some of these clubs do not offer reductions to students/U21s and in general their prices for juveniles seemed to be in line with ours. It would seem therefore that it is only the adults who are paying over the odds for their tickets.

Obviously you can still argue that the club needs to charge that amount to make an impact on this league this season but I don't see how they can justify charging so much over the average on an ongoing basis and not having an early payment discount.

[Nibor]

But if SL hadn't taken on that debt?

I applaud him for taking it up because it saves us interest payments but the flip side is what if we'd never run it up...

Do I believe that 500 people are not going to bother for the sake of an additional 30-£40 spread over a season in which we'll be playing Championship football? Well, no. But let's see when the final ticket sales come out

Well, it'll be hard to tell even then because it's all a "what if?", but for me it's all about the average attendance at the end of the season. If, having been promoted, we're not being watched by significantly more people than before I would think they got the pricing wrong.

Right - that's it from me on this thread for the time-being. I'm way behind with my work

Much as I don't agree with your views Nibor and BristolBoy, I do enjoy the banter, so please don't take it personally or anything!

I enjoy arguing with people who can argue back well, never take anything on here personally.