Ccc Attendances

[pdgifford64]

This is debate thats going to rage on and on. However, i`d say not to blame the club for trying to compete. The club has to set its pricing strategy for what is most likely to happen. I`m sure CS et al were under no illusion that the pricing structure would not see ST much over 10,000 and POTD would not fill the remaining seats. But they had a very good idea of what was the more likely tally that would pretty much guarantee the regular income over the season. Nobody can guarantee that the Gate would be a near sell out for most home games if the prices had been lower. There is no history of that happening in the past 10-15 years. Even last season where we spent almost 2/3 of it in contention for the top two slots and prices were `affordable`it wasn`t until the end of the season that the big attendances came in and that was helped by a visit by Yeovil.

Our current position has little to do with things. Look at Man City v Newcastle on Saturday. City knew a win would lift them to second, they`ve had a great start to the season, have, arguably, one of the most `charismatic` managers in English football :noexpression: yet the ground was barely half full.

Yes, there are people who have been priced out of it and thats unfortunate, but that will happen to a certain extent every season as personal circumstances change and i find it distasteful that any member of this forum should question any other members situation. Some comments i`ve read, EDDIE, are plain ignorant.

I`ve said it before and i`ll say it again, i`m fortunate enough to still be able to afford supporting City as my main pastime, but IF City were to get to the Prem i`m not sure i could afford the ST and I too would have to pick and choose my matches. It doesn`t make me any less loyal a supporter as it doesn`t to those who find themselves in that situation now.

PDG

[Eddie]

This is debate thats going to rage on and on. However, i`d say not to blame the club for trying to compete. The club has to set its pricing strategy for what is most likely to happen. I`m sure CS et al were under no illusion that the pricing structure would not see ST much over 10,000 and POTD would not fill the remaining seats. But they had a very good idea of what was the more likely tally that would pretty much guarantee the regular income over the season. Nobody can guarantee that the Gate would be a near sell out for most home games if the prices had been lower. There is no history of that happening in the past 10-15 years. Even last season where we spent almost 2/3 of it in contention for the top two slots and prices were `affordable`it wasn`t until the end of the season that the big attendances came in and that was helped by a visit by Yeovil.

Our current position has little to do with things. Look at Man City v Newcastle on Saturday. City knew a win would lift them to second, they`ve had a great start to the season, have, arguably, one of the most `charismatic` managers in English football :noexpression: yet the ground was barely half full.

Yes, there are people who have been priced out of it and thats unfortunate, but that will happen to a certain extent every season as personal circumstances change and i find it distasteful that any member of this forum should question any other members situation. Some comments i`ve read, EDDIE, are plain ignorant.

I`ve said it before and i`ll say it again, i`m fortunate enough to still be able to afford supporting City as my main pastime, but IF City were to get to the Prem i`m not sure i could afford the ST and I too would have to pick and choose my matches. It doesn`t make me any less loyal a supporter as it doesn`t to those who find themselves in that situation now.

PDG

Apologies if I seem unsympathetic towards some peoples circumstances. I guess from my point of view the price rise is a good thing but I would take a different stance if i had kids.

[Andy082005]

Apologies if I seem unsympathetic towards some peoples circumstances. I guess from my point of view the price rise is a good thing but I would take a different stance if i had kids.

So I assume your a floater then if thats the case?

[Eddie]

So I assume your a floater then if thats the case?

nah i attend most home games to be fair(unless on sky or a midweek match i cant get too because of work)

The price rise is good for me because I am an ambitious supporter who wants premiership football. We have to charge these prices to be competitive in this league.

[Andy082005]

nah i attend most home games to be fair(unless on sky or a midweek match i cant get too because of work)

The price rise is good for me because I am an ambitious supporter who wants premiership football. We have to charge these prices to be competitive in this league.

....you call people who cannot afford to go, or who cannot "afford £30 every two weeks" a part timer/floater??

however, you also state that if you had kids or a family, it would be different and you wouldnt be able to go as much?

So, by your own logic, this makes you a part timer?

[Frome Valley]

Eat at home before you go to the game.

I take your point about pricing out the future supporters though. maybe more quid-a-kid offers should be used to make it more affordable for families!

would you prefer to be in league 1 with the old prices?

No we could get higher gates in this division with prices on par with the majority of this division because despite whatever the club tells you Citys prices are above the average for pod and season tickets.

[Frome Valley]

The price rise is good for me because I am an ambitious supporter who wants premiership football. We have to charge these prices to be competitive in this league.

Mr Lansdown does not share that sentiment as he has stated City will be competing in a mini league at the bottom of the table. Sorry can't remeber the exact quote but it was something along the lines of "league of eight".

There is competitive and prohibitive and the Gates are telling a story.

[Guest Eddie_Mulcahy]

nah i attend most home games to be fair(unless on sky or a midweek match i cant get too because of work)

The price rise is good for me because I am an ambitious supporter who wants premiership football. We have to charge these prices to be competitive in this league.

I'm happy to pay more to see the likes of Lee trundle playing. I want to pay £100 to watch him.

[Nibor]

I'm happy to pay more to see the likes of Lee trundle playing. I want to pay £100 to watch him.

Send the club a cheque then, and why are you replying to yourself with a different username?

[Guest Eddie_Mulcahy]

nah i attend most home games to be fair(unless on sky or a midweek match i cant get too because of work)

The price rise is good for me because I am an ambitious supporter who wants premiership football. We have to charge these prices to be competitive in this league.

And that way we can great players like Trundle or maybe even Ronaldo

[Guest Eddie_Mulcahy]

Send the club a cheque then, and why are you replying to yourself with a different username?

I'm out-smarting you

[Eddie]

And that way we can great players like Trundle or maybe even Ronaldo

Aplogies for this joker. It is my housemate trying to impersonate me to make me sound camp!

His moto is 'run from fear, fun from rear' so try not to take him too seriously....

[Nibor]

I'm out-smarting you

Obviously.

[zookeeper]

This is debate thats going to rage on and on. However, i`d say not to blame the club for trying to compete. The club has to set its pricing strategy for what is most likely to happen. I`m sure CS et al were under no illusion that the pricing structure would not see ST much over 10,000 and POTD would not fill the remaining seats. But they had a very good idea of what was the more likely tally that would pretty much guarantee the regular income over the season. Nobody can guarantee that the Gate would be a near sell out for most home games if the prices had been lower. There is no history of that happening in the past 10-15 years. Even last season where we spent almost 2/3 of it in contention for the top two slots and prices were `affordable`it wasn`t until the end of the season that the big attendances came in and that was helped by a visit by Yeovil.

Our current position has little to do with things. Look at Man City v Newcastle on Saturday. City knew a win would lift them to second, they`ve had a great start to the season, have, arguably, one of the most `charismatic` managers in English football :noexpression: yet the ground was barely half full.

Yes, there are people who have been priced out of it and thats unfortunate, but that will happen to a certain extent every season as personal circumstances change and i find it distasteful that any member of this forum should question any other members situation. Some comments i`ve read, EDDIE, are plain ignorant.

A very good response.

I would also argue that increasing attendances to sell outs and still generating the same income isn't fantastic business. It could be argued long term that these people are the future of the club but if they are only there because of cheaper prices will they stay if there was an increase? At the moment it isn't such a problem as there is spare capacity but I'll be interested to see what happens at the next few home games with the students coming back. Aren't there about 30,000 of them invading Bristol at the moment. Then the opportunity cost of the pricing decision made at the start of the season will be very apparent.

It's all too early to tell anyway. The decision was made for the whole season not just the first few games which we are judging it on.

Oh and is 14th in the division bad or good. I'd say it's not too bad.

[Guest Eddie_Mulcahy]

This is debate thats going to rage on and on. However, i`d say not to blame the club for trying to compete. The club has to set its pricing strategy for what is most likely to happen. I`m sure CS et al were under no illusion that the pricing structure would not see ST much over 10,000 and POTD would not fill the remaining seats. But they had a very good idea of what was the more likely tally that would pretty much guarantee the regular income over the season. Nobody can guarantee that the Gate would be a near sell out for most home games if the prices had been lower. There is no history of that happening in the past 10-15 years. Even last season where we spent almost 2/3 of it in contention for the top two slots and prices were `affordable`it wasn`t until the end of the season that the big attendances came in and that was helped by a visit by Yeovil.

Our current position has little to do with things. Look at Man City v Newcastle on Saturday. City knew a win would lift them to second, they`ve had a great start to the season, have, arguably, one of the most `charismatic` managers in English football :noexpression: yet the ground was barely half full.

Yes, there are people who have been priced out of it and thats unfortunate, but that will happen to a certain extent every season as personal circumstances change and i find it distasteful that any member of this forum should question any other members situation. Some comments i`ve read, EDDIE, are plain ignorant.

I`ve said it before and i`ll say it again, i`m fortunate enough to still be able to afford supporting City as my main pastime, but IF City were to get to the Prem i`m not sure i could afford the ST and I too would have to pick and choose my matches. It doesn`t make me any less loyal a supporter as it doesn`t to those who find themselves in that situation now.

PDG

If they like trundle as much as i do they would get the money together somehow

[Nibor]

I would also argue that increasing attendances to sell outs and still generating the same income isn't fantastic business. It could be argued long term that these people are the future of the club but if they are only there because of cheaper prices will they stay if there was an increase?

That argument would be silly though because there is a damn sight more chance of them staying for an increase than there is of them buying tickets for the first time when there's an increase.

A lower price rise would have sold more tickets, more people at the Gate is always better than less people at the Gate because we all know that football is like a bug. Once they're hooked they're going to find it very hard to walk away.

I'll be interested to see what happens at the next few home games with the students coming back. Aren't there about 30,000 of them invading Bristol at the moment.

If anything it will make attendances go down as Bristol born City fans bugger off to Uni elsewhere and Uni students from elsewhere continue their usual practise of not having the slightest interest in Bristol City.

Oh and is 14th in the division bad or good. I'd say it's not too bad.

I'd say not really relevant since we're not competing against them for fans, we all have different stadiums and histories.

Fact is the team is vastly exceeding everyone's expectations and if it carries on for another couple of months we can genuinely consider ourselves promotion challengers, yet we're averaging over 4,000 empty seats per game. Those are seats that aren't generating cash or support for the team or addicting innocent Bristolians to life as a City fan, and for that reason I think the prices and marketing have been poorly thought and badly implemented.

[Barrs Court Red]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - Of the 10 lads off the top of my head who like City I'm friendly with round my way, non of them fancy paying near £30. They've not been brought up on going to matches more often than not like seemingly most people you will find that do over the age of 16.

On top of that, the people in work who fancy a local game sometimes are slightly put off, but still come, when told the price of tickets.

Also to me and the people I tend to associate with socially, it's not just about going to the football. It's about drinking copious amounts of alcohol and having a good time, with the football as a good catalyst to get everyone out. Expensive tickets make an impromptu drinking session less attractive.

I have no doubt if City got to the prem we would still struggle to sell out each match, because I don't believe there is 17,000 in Bristol who want to see football week in, week out.

[Frome Valley]

This is debate thats going to rage on and on. However, i`d say not to blame the club for trying to compete. The club has to set its pricing strategy for what is most likely to happen. I`m sure CS et al were under no illusion that the pricing structure would not see ST much over 10,000 and POTD would not fill the remaining seats. But they had a very good idea of what was the more likely tally that would pretty much guarantee the regular income over the season. Nobody can guarantee that the Gate would be a near sell out for most home games if the prices had been lower. There is no history of that happening in the past 10-15 years. Even last season where we spent almost 2/3 of it in contention for the top two slots and prices were `affordable`it wasn`t until the end of the season that the big attendances came in and that was helped by a visit by Yeovil.

Our current position has little to do with things. Look at Man City v Newcastle on Saturday. City knew a win would lift them to second, they`ve had a great start to the season, have, arguably, one of the most `charismatic` managers in English football :noexpression: yet the ground was barely half full.

Yes, there are people who have been priced out of it and thats unfortunate, but that will happen to a certain extent every season as personal circumstances change and i find it distasteful that any member of this forum should question any other members situation. Some comments i`ve read, EDDIE, are plain ignorant.

I`ve said it before and i`ll say it again, i`m fortunate enough to still be able to afford supporting City as my main pastime, but IF City were to get to the Prem i`m not sure i could afford the ST and I too would have to pick and choose my matches. It doesn`t make me any less loyal a supporter as it doesn`t to those who find themselves in that situation now.

PDG

I would argue that increasing City sprices past most of the division but also past some premiership sides is short sighted and very risky. The premeir ship now attaracts less than 7% of 16 -24 year olds looks suicidal that.

When we have thousands of empty seats and a position in the top four unfortunate has nothing to do with it.

[Nogbad the Bad]

At the moment it isn't such a problem as there is spare capacity but I'll be interested to see what happens at the next few home games with the students coming back. Aren't there about 30,000 of them invading Bristol at the moment. Then the opportunity cost of the pricing decision made at the start of the season will be very apparent.

Agree with Nibor

Not sure many incoming students are going to trample down the gates to watch City, It's never happened in the past.

Our gates are more likely to be adversely affected by the legions of young Bristolians presently leaving the City for Universities all over the country.

[richwwtk]

Agree with Nibor

Not sure many incoming students are going to trample down the gates to watch City, It's never happened in the past.

Our gates are more likely to be adversely affected by the legions of young Bristolians presently leaving the City for Universities all over the country.

Not sure I agree with you there.

I know at least three City fans that are from nowhere near Bristol and caught the bug whilst at University here.

I also believe this is how our (possibly) #1 celebrity fan Tony Robinson came to support the mighty Reds.

[Nibor]

Not sure I agree with you there.

I know at least three City fans that are from nowhere near Bristol and caught the bug whilst at University here.

I also believe this is how our (possibly) #1 celebrity fan Tony Robinson came to support the mighty Reds.

I wouldn't say it doesn't happen but surely the number of city fans moving away for the same reason is higher?

[bartolona]

Oh dear

It's £46 and you could have to find that twice in four days as the fixtures fall-That's £92 and, judging by our attendances, people can't or. won't.

Unless you got a season ticket then it's £55 a month by dd which seems the best option to me.

[richwwtk]

I wouldn't say it doesn't happen but surely the number of city fans moving away for the same reason is higher?

If you take into account the number of City fans who go away to university but continue to attend Ashton Gate when possible and the people who go away for their education then come back to the City, plus the fact that Bristol has one of the larger student populations to maybe draw a few extra fans from I would suggest that the overall effect is probably positive for Citys support although it would probably be so few people as to be negligible.

[zookeeper]

That argument would be silly though because there is a damn sight more chance of them staying for an increase than there is of them buying tickets for the first time when there's an increase.

A lower price rise would have sold more tickets, more people at the Gate is always better than less people at the Gate because we all know that football is like a bug. Once they're hooked they're going to find it very hard to walk away.

Apparently not though. It seems that people have decided to walk away and when the prices get to a certain point then it doesn't matter how much of a bug it is. The same revenue with potential to gain more is good business practise. Nearly all of the costs associated to city are fixed and the club needed to increase the contribution per ticket to be able to compete. I'm not saying that I'm happy about the decision but to me it makes good business sense. We will generate more money next year by being succesful on the pitch this season.

If anything it will make attendances go down as Bristol born City fans bugger off to Uni elsewhere and Uni students from elsewhere continue their usual practise of not having the slightest interest in Bristol City.

It appears that lots of students will be willing to come back to watch the city though. I think it adds people onto the attendances. I know that a lot of students went to watch the local clubs when I was a student.

I'd say not really relevant since we're not competing against them for fans, we all have different stadiums and histories.

Fact is the team is vastly exceeding everyone's expectations and if it carries on for another couple of months we can genuinely consider ourselves promotion challengers, yet we're averaging over 4,000 empty seats per game. Those are seats that aren't generating cash or support for the team or addicting innocent Bristolians to life as a City fan, and for that reason I think the prices and marketing have been poorly thought and badly implemented.

They may not be generating cash now but if we carry on the way we've started I don't think it's a fair assumption to say that they won't generate cash.

I'll continue to argue the point of the thinking behind the pricing but i won't argue about the ability to market and implement their strategies.

[Nibor]

Apparently not though. It seems that people have decided to walk away and when the prices get to a certain point then it doesn't matter how much of a bug it is. The same revenue with potential to gain more is good business practise. Nearly all of the costs associated to city are fixed and the club needed to increase the contribution per ticket to be able to compete. I'm not saying that I'm happy about the decision but to me it makes good business sense. We will generate more money next year by being succesful on the pitch this season.

I don't think anyone decided to walk away. I think some simply couldn't afford a 40% hike. a 20% hike followed by a 10-15% one the year after would have been much more affordable.

Good business practise is debatable. It's 10 times easier to keep a customer than win a new one. I disagree that the contribution per ticket needs to increase, that is only the case if we're at capacity and we're far from it.

I think the club should have viewed this as a chance to get a big boost in supporter numbers in one go and then had years of gently milking them, instead they went for the fast cash. I'm glad we've started so well because if we'd been anywhere near relegation that would have been backfiring very unpleasantly. As it is it hasn't seemed very successful yet, we shall have to wait and see the accounts this time next year though really.

It appears that lots of students will be willing to come back to watch the city though. I think it adds people onto the attendances. I know that a lot of students went to watch the local clubs when I was a student.

Well, we'll see. I haven't noticed it make a big difference before and I doubt it will this time though I suppose being in the Championship might make it more attractive to people who aren't much bothered either way.

They may not be generating cash now but if we carry on the way we've started I don't think it's a fair assumption to say that they won't generate cash.

I'll continue to argue the point of the thinking behind the pricing but i won't argue about the ability to market and implement their strategies.

Oh I'm sure if we're in the top 6 at the end of the season the last 3 or 4 home games will sell out but our average this season won't get much higher IMO and in all honesty as well as we're doing now not many of us expect to be there.

[zookeeper]

I don't think anyone decided to walk away. I think some simply couldn't afford a 40% hike. a 20% hike followed by a 10-15% one the year after would have been much more affordable.

Good business practise is debatable. It's 10 times easier to keep a customer than win a new one. I disagree that the contribution per ticket needs to increase, that is only the case if we're at capacity and we're far from it.

I think the club should have viewed this as a chance to get a big boost in supporter numbers in one go and then had years of gently milking them, instead they went for the fast cash. I'm glad we've started so well because if we'd been anywhere near relegation that would have been backfiring very unpleasantly. As it is it hasn't seemed very successful yet, we shall have to wait and see the accounts this time next year though really.

Everyone has a choice. Some people decided to eat!

40% over 2 years may have made it easier for the fans but may not have allowed the rebuilding of the team that happened over the summer and we wouldn't be able to implement it back in league 1.

Contribution per unit is important. The quicker we reach our breakeven point the more opportunity we have to make profit. The opporuntiy cost is irrelevant when we're not at full capacity but contribution is especially in a market that historically is inelastic to demand.

Us not strengthening the team could have backfired very badly and it's difficult to measure success from the pricing policy. People are unhappy at not being able to afford to watch the football makes it feel unsuccesful and we don't know the exact financial impact so it makes this a situation that will always seem unsuccesful.

I wonder what CS's remit was. As part of the "making the club self sustainable" policy I think this season was viewed as a season when the club had to post profits and as they say the proof will be in the pudding.

[Nibor]

40% over 2 years may have made it easier for the fans but may not have allowed the rebuilding of the team that happened over the summer and we wouldn't be able to implement it back in league 1.

Doubt it. A few quid less in the summer would have been a drop in the ocean compared to what we've spent on transfers either way.

Contribution per unit is important. The quicker we reach our breakeven point the more opportunity we have to make profit.

The two aren't really related. We can reach breakeven more quickly by selling more units just as well. It's only a factor if supply is limited and it isn't, there are over 4,000 empty seats each game.

The opporuntiy cost is irrelevant when we're not at full capacity but contribution is especially in a market that historically is inelastic to demand.

Unless I'm misunderstanding the term why do you think the demand is inelastic? If prices were lower we'd have sold more no? We've seen people post on here that would have bought STs if they were cheaper.

Us not strengthening the team could have backfired very badly and it's difficult to measure success from the pricing policy. People are unhappy at not being able to afford to watch the football makes it feel unsuccesful and we don't know the exact financial impact so it makes this a situation that will always seem unsuccesful.

I agree that not strengthening the team would have backfired but I don't agree that that is a real consequence of cheaper tickets. Just to play with some figures:

9200 tickets at average £300 a pop = £2.76m (the other 400 are Prem tickets, £300 is just an arbitrary figure for the example but considering concessions probably isn't that far off).

If they'd averaged £260 and we'd sold 10,000, which I think is realistic, we'd be down a very small amount in the grand scheme of things. That small amount to my mind is worth it because that's 800 people of whom 90% will renew the following year.

That doesn't take into account the knock on affect on match sales either.

I wonder what CS's remit was. As part of the "making the club self sustainable" policy I think this season was viewed as a season when the club had to post profits and as they say the proof will be in the pudding.

So do I wonder what his remit was. I suspect it was to increase revenue per seat but I'm not sure that that was the right goal.

I suspect the club wrongly thought that we'd be shifting a lot more tickets and raised prices so much because of that. They overdid it IMO.

I'll be amazed if we get within a million of profitable for this season given our transfer spending.

[Bristol Boy]

Unless you got a season ticket then it's £55 a month by dd which seems the best option to me.

I was talking about the poster and his boy both coming.

Let's look at Oct.

Assuming you don't travel away, there are three home games:

Assuming, once again, you come on your own and are an adult:

Atyeo:£69 Dolman:£84

Once again, that assumes that you are able to buy your tickets cash in advance and in person.If not, add another 6/7% to the above after adding £2 a ticket for the Dolman for genuine POD.

I'm sure there are fans who are only travelling to see City away and, financially, that benefits our opposition not BCFC.

An average of 4,000 empty seats, (notwithstanding another 2,000 empty due to segregation)needs looking at, because even at £23 - VAT, that's £1.8m a season based on 23 Home League Games.

[bh_red]

here we go again, yawn, if you can't afford it, you don't go it's quite simple, many complained about prices last season and people are doing the same this year,

for all those moaning and complaining about it being £28-£30, it's quite simply, DON'T SIT IN THE MOST EXPENSIVE SEATS IN THE GROUND! sit in the Atyeo and save yourself £5 per game!

The prices were put up this much so the club could compete at this level, rather than just make up the numbers, I'd much rather pay a few more quid to see us playing top half football after spending a couple of million on players, than see us full of average free transfers and struggling in the relegation zone.

[bartolona]

I was talking about the poster and his boy both coming.

£105 for an u16 season ticket sorted for the season, only has to attend half a dozen games to make it pay. No brainer really