Ccc Attendances

[Bristol Boy]

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,

Thanks for that-I just wondered how much you pay for your ticket becaue cost never seems an issue for you-I can't remember much, if any moaning about costs last season.Still, you're probably right if people who've followed the club for years can't afford it, ***k 'em, ay??

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!

So next week 10,000 people sit in the Atyeo-Yep, got that another cracking initiative showing empathy and forethought.

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.

Do you mean like Colchester did last season with their average free transfers?

It's about what you spend it on and VFM.It's ironic given your statement that out two of our cheapest signings in terms of fees, look the best at the moment.

Once again S****horpe, Blackpool & Colchester all appear to be doing OK without pricing people out and even then you miss the point-If the people that ARE staying away continue to stay away, that's about £1.8m+ other purchases the club have to find.

Still, as long as you're alright.

[Bristol Boy]

£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

You forgot to add his Dads or cant he come?

[bartolona]

You forgot to add his Dads or cant he come?

£55 a month dd.

[zookeeper]

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.

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.

On the whole I believe that it's reletively inelastic. The importance that cost pays in people's decision is less important than other aspects. Sport is quite unique in people's willingness to go even when the product is poor. The aspects such as brand loyalty and the effect of customer to potetial customer marketing have more impact than fluctuations in price. I'm not saying that it doesn't have an effect but it will have an effect at less than 1.

In effect I believe that an increase in price of 10% will mean that less than 10% decide not to come. As this is the case we have made more money this way. I also believe that the higher the price increase the less the effect with the poosibility of the figure going above 1 and having a negative effect. Possible this is the case. My hunch says no but...... only the clubs figures could say.

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.

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.

I think we will both have to wait and see what happens. If we gained an extra 1000 people onto the season average through bundling some games and running some succesful schemes then I will be happy. At the moment I think the policy isn't necessarily the problem but more the way it's carried out.

You forgot to add his Dads or cant he come?

Do you know something we don't???

[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,

Thanks for that-I just wondered how much you pay for your ticket becaue cost never seems an issue for you-I can't remember much, if any moaning about costs last season.Still, you're probably right if people who've followed the club for years can't afford it, ***k 'em, ay??

a number of people on here were moaning about prices and picked and chose games, some of them of still part of the people complaining now, I paid £375 for my season ticket, up £100, and so far I feel I have got EXCELLENT value for money, prices went up, so did expectations, and the team has performed about those levels of expections

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!

So next week 10,000 people sit in the Atyeo-Yep, got that another cracking initiative showing empathy and forethought.

what a stupid and pedantic remark.......so 10,000 people are paying £28 at the moment are they? ummm No, it's a case that some people are using the £28 price as a mark that all tickets are very expensive, when it isn't the case.

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

Do you mean like Colchester did last season with their average free transfers?

yeah, and for each Colchester, there is a southend who went straight back down, instead we have made ourselves a stronger team beyond recgonition of last seasons squad

It's about what you spend it on and VFM.It's ironic given your statement that out two of our cheapest signings in terms of fees, look the best at the moment.

yes and based on the sigings we have made, Byfield, Elliott and McIndoe have looked excellent signings so far providing good value for money, where as the jury is still out on Trundle, Sproule and Vasko

Once again S****horpe, Blackpool & Colchester all appear to be doing OK without pricing people out and even then you miss the point-If the people that ARE staying away continue to stay away, that's about £1.8m+ other purchases the club have to find.

I'm sure they are doing well, but by no means are we aiming to compete alongside those teams in this league, we are trying to establish ourselves right away as one of the top teams in this league, as for people actually "staying away" from the games, to surely be classed as "stay away fans", surely they had to attend on a regular basis in the first place? something that has been happening since the 70's?

Still, as long as you're alright.

Yes, I am alright thanks, watching Bristol City isn't cheap, but it's an option pleasure in life and I'm willing and able to make sacrifices to do so, if other people can't or won't, that's not the clubs fault.

[jellyred]

Do you mean like Colchester did last season with their average free transfers?

It's about what you spend it on and VFM.It's ironic given your statement that out two of our cheapest signings in terms of fees, look the best at the moment.

Once again S****horpe, Blackpool & Colchester all appear to be doing OK without pricing people out and even then you miss the point-If the people that ARE staying away continue to stay away, that's about £1.8m+ other purchases the club have to find.

Still, as long as you're alright.

I have to agree with BHred. Whilst I am one of the many who can no longer afford to go on a regular basis (for me it was the same last season as well) I DO understand that the club needs to be competitive on a financial level in order for us to compete with the bigger teams in the division and therefore get better players and progress. We are certainly not over priced on tickets compared to other teams and whether people believe it or not we are in one of the wealthier areas of the country where earnings are on average higher than those in the north, so City, even though prices are high for a lot of people (again myself included), are still getting a pretty good attendance at around 15k average. I know you can say but IF prices were lower we'd sell out every game, but would we really? No one can say for sure. One thing is for sure is that City are still getting the fans through the gate.

[Nibor]

here we go again, yawn, if you can't afford it, you don't go it's quite simple,

Is your real name Jack and are you alright?

many complained about prices last season and people are doing the same this year,

Not many people complained about the prices last season at all, that's just rubbish.

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.

Yawn. Try reading the actual thread. Use some logic, how would a smaller price rise have seen us any less able to spend?

[Nibor]

On the whole I believe that it's reletively inelastic. The importance that cost pays in people's decision is less important than other aspects. Sport is quite unique in people's willingness to go even when the product is poor. The aspects such as brand loyalty and the effect of customer to potetial customer marketing have more impact than fluctuations in price. I'm not saying that it doesn't have an effect but it will have an effect at less than 1.

I'd agree the effect would be less than 1, but only a small affect is needed to make the case for a smaller rise in prices. The example I showed had an effect of less than 0.4 and it nearly broke even.

[bh_red]

Is your real name Jack and are you alright?

Yes, if some people can't afford tickets that not my fault, I'm sure many couldn't afford last season ticket prices as well,

Not many people complained about the prices last season at all, that's just rubbish.

um!, yes, maybe not directly saying......"it's too expensive" but people saying that they don't go to 2 games in a week due to the prices and football was expensive, actually thinking about it, one of them was ashtonyate, who used to moan at all the players, but never actually saw them play as football was too much money.

Yawn. Try reading the actual thread. Use some logic, how would a smaller price rise have seen us any less able to spend?

One of City's main income's each season is through season tickets, if they sold them cheaper, less income, straightforward really, and although the season tickets have gone up this season, they still managed to break old season ticket records without a problem.

[Nibor]

One of City's main income's each season is through season tickets, if they sold them cheaper, less income, straightforward really, and although the season tickets have gone up this season, they still managed to break old season ticket records without a problem.

Just shows you haven't bothered reading the thread. Lower prices does not mean less income.

[zookeeper]

I'd agree the effect would be less than 1, but only a small affect is needed to make the case for a smaller rise in prices. The example I showed had an effect of less than 0.4 and it nearly broke even.

I don't think the effect was 0.4 more about 0.65 but that in itself actually goes in favour of of price increases. Reducing the price wouldn't have a suffiecient effect on demand to really justify it. You would like an elastic product to benefit from price increases.

I think!!

[bh_red]

Just shows you haven't bothered reading the thread. Lower prices does not mean less income.

I've read through the thread and your example of 9200 x £300 = £2.76m v 10000 x £260 = £2.6m show that in pre-season incomes they would have recouped less money, albeit with a slightly increased attedance, the thing is, although some people have said that they haven't renewed would the Season Ticket being cheaper by an average of £40, would that really be enough to encourage and extra 800 or so fans......I doubt personally.

[jellyred]

Just shows you haven't bothered reading the thread. Lower prices does not mean less income.

It only doesn't mean less income if you can guarantee the number of season tickets sold and also guarantee the number of potd fans. Something you can't do.

[Bristol Boy]

Yes, I am alright thanks, watching Bristol City isn't cheap, but it's an option pleasure in life and I'm willing and able to make sacrifices to do so, if other people can't or won't, that's not the clubs fault.

So if they're not coming due to price, who's fault is it then?

[Nibor]

I've read through the thread and your example of 9200 x £300 = £2.76m v 10000 x £260 = £2.6m show that in pre-season incomes they would have recouped less money, albeit with a slightly increased attedance, the thing is, although some people have said that they haven't renewed would the Season Ticket being cheaper by an average of £40, would that really be enough to encourage and extra 800 or so fans......I doubt personally.

Do you really think such a small difference would have made us less able to sign players? I doubt it somehow. And as pointed out the effect on POTD isn't accounted for either and lower prices can only mean more sales.

I think it's perfectly reasonably to suppose that an increase of 20% as opposed to 40% would have resulted in less than 10% more sales. We know for example that 800 didn't renew despite promotion, consistent with previous years, I would have expected that to be much smaller given we finally went up.

We're spending beyond our means anyway, a smaller price rise would have effectively been an investment in the long term fan base and one well spent I think.

I don't think the effect was 0.4 more about 0.65 but that in itself actually goes in favour of of price increases. Reducing the price wouldn't have a suffiecient effect on demand to really justify it. You would like an elastic product to benefit from price increases.

I think!!

Depends what your goal is though. We're not in this to make money for money's sake, we're in it to reach a revenue target sufficient to fund the team. Given two choices, cheaper prices and more fans or higher prices and less fans the former makes sense to me because it builds for the future. You can always increase prices next season by another small amount, but now we've thrown away the chance of getting some of those people in through the door in the first place.

[bh_red]

So if they're not coming due to price, who's fault is it then?

Football.......in general.

Football is all about money, it's no longer the fans game, it's not right but that's they way it has gone, it's either keep up with the rest and put the prices up or get left behind in the lower leagues.

I know which I would prefer.

[Bristol Boy]

It only doesn't mean less income if you can guarantee the number of season tickets sold and also guarantee the number of potd fans. Something you can't do.

What we can say, based on four reasonably representative home games,. is that we have 4,000 empty seats on average every week.That is the outurn of the current strategy.

What we can also safely say is that we would have lost none of those already attending had we charged 10% less across the Board.

[Nibor]

It only doesn't mean less income if you can guarantee the number of season tickets sold and also guarantee the number of potd fans. Something you can't do.

Cuts both ways. Higher prices only mean more income if you can make the same guarantees.

I think it's pretty obvious that we'd have sold more tickets with lower prices.

But as I pointed out, even if there was less income the amount would be a tiny proportion of the total so as to make no difference to the club immediately yet the increased number of ST holders pays dividends in the medium to longer term.

If we keep hiking prices at the first hint of success we'll simply limit what success we can have.

[Nibor]

Football.......in general.

Football is all about money, it's no longer the fans game, it's not right but that's they way it has gone, it's either keep up with the rest and put the prices up or get left behind in the lower leagues.

I know which I would prefer.

Actually it's either get a rich backer willing to spend stupid, or get 30,000 fans and a new stadium or languish in the lower leagues.

I don't see how say a scant hundred grand extra a season out of your less than 10k season ticket holders is going to help much.

[jellyred]

What we can say, based on four reasonably representative home games,. is that we have 4,000 empty seats on average every week.That is the outurn of the current strategy.

What we can also safely say is that we would have lost none of those already attending had we charged 10% less across the Board.

I'm afraid I disagree. There were already people struggling with prices last season, even at 10% less then current prices I still believe that we would not see the other 4000 suddenly attend.

[Bristol Boy]

Football.......in general.

Football is all about money, it's no longer the fans game, it's not right but that's they way it has gone, it's either keep up with the rest and put the prices up or get left behind in the lower leagues.

I know which I would prefer.

So the first thing we need to do is cancel the £7m EE redevelopment simply on the basis that the long term outcome,based on your premis, is that we'll have smaller crowds, paying more per head.

That would appear to be counter productive in both retaining the existing fans and attracting new ones.

Football Fans in other areas such as the NW have shown what can be acheived simply by not turning up-even when Prem away teams are in town and I fear we're heading that way.

[Bristol Boy]

I'm afraid I disagree. There were already people struggling with prices last season, even at 10% less then current prices I still believe that we would not see the other 4000 suddenly attend.

That can't be substantiated if we're looking at facts and if people were struggling last seson, why hike the prices 30/40% in the first place?

How would you set about filling the ground?

[jellyred]

Cuts both ways. Higher prices only mean more income if you can make the same guarantees.

I think it's pretty obvious that we'd have sold more tickets with lower prices.

But as I pointed out, even if there was less income the amount would be a tiny proportion of the total so as to make no difference to the club immediately yet the increased number of ST holders pays dividends in the medium to longer term.

If we keep hiking prices at the first hint of success we'll simply limit what success we can have.

But that amount could equate to one players wages for the season and that one player could make the difference. I know it is an unlikely scenario but still is possible.

Also think of it this way, yes lower prices wouldfill the ground on normal match days an the club would generate the same revenue as know but with a full stadium however, when it comes to the big games (sheff Utd, wolves etc) the club would be missing out due to the lower cost of tickets and therefore surely it makes more sense to charge what they do (which unfortunately is not extortiante in this day and age) and now they are making the same on a match day with 14500 as they would with a full stadium but also that for those big games they will sell out and have a nice cash windfall.

Hope that makes sense!

[bh_red]

What we can say, based on four reasonably representative home games,. is that we have 4,000 empty seats on average every week.That is the outurn of the current strategy.

What we can also safely say is that we would have lost none of those already attending had we charged 10% less across the Board.

Yes, we have 4k empty seats for some games, however last season we were looking at around 7k empty seasons each week, so based on the current stragegy, we are actually having less empty seats each week, which is based around Promotion and increased amounts of away fans,

either way, i fail to how we can't magically expect a full house each and every week based on just getting promotion to this league, and don't believe that would have happened this season even if we had frozen prices for season tickets., Ashton gate hasn't had constant sell out for close to 30 years since we were last in the top flight.

[bh_red]

How would you set about filling the ground?

Filling the ground on a weekly basis right now isn't a realistic aim, even if we had frozen last seasons ST prices, I don't think we would we in a position where we were getting sell outs for games such as Scunny and Burnley, regarding or what league we are in and what the prices are there will always be a large amount of people who either can't afford season tickets or just pick and choose their games, even if we are in the prem, yes we would sell out against the likes of Man U, Arsenal etc, but I still don't beleive that we would sell out against teams like Reading, Fulham, Wigan and the like.

[Bristol Boy]

Also think of it this way, yes lower prices wouldfill the ground on normal match days an the club would generate the same revenue as know but with a full stadium however, when it comes to the big games (sheff Utd, wolves etc) the club would be missing out due to the lower cost of tickets and therefore surely it makes more sense to charge what they do (which unfortunately is not extortiante in this day and age) and now they are making the same on a match day with 14500 as they would with a full stadium but also that for those big games they will sell out and have a nice cash windfall.

Hope that makes sense!

Three letters WBA. Some numbers 16,500 (2,019 Away Fans) = 14,500 (9,600 ST Holders) City Fans-Big game, so where's the sell out?

Yes, we have 4k empty seats for some games, however last season we were looking at around 7k empty seasons each week, so based on the current stragegy, we are actually having less empty seats each week, which is based around Promotion and increased amounts of away fans,

The average att is currently 2,538 above last season-up by 20% and the average away fans att is 1,300-That's not great.ST's are up by 26% but that's reduced the POD which, financially could be a bad thing based on how many games those people would have attended as a POD Supporter.Our POD has slipped to only 28% from 40% last season.

This, when we've been top or second

either way, i fail to how we can't magically expect a full house each and every week based on just getting promotion to this league, and don't believe that would have happened this season even if we had frozen prices for season tickets., Ashton gate hasn't had constant sell out for close to 30 years since we were last in the top flight.

Our last time in the top flight saw AG hold up to 39,000 and many of those on terracing.Comparing crowds against then would be futile as the World and BCFC have moved on.

What would you do to bring in 4,000 extra punters every week because attarctive ex prem opposition and league position don't seem to be doing it?

[Nibor]

But that amount could equate to one players wages for the season and that one player could make the difference. I know it is an unlikely scenario but still is possible.

Also think of it this way, yes lower prices wouldfill the ground on normal match days an the club would generate the same revenue as know but with a full stadium however, when it comes to the big games (sheff Utd, wolves etc) the club would be missing out due to the lower cost of tickets and therefore surely it makes more sense to charge what they do (which unfortunately is not extortiante in this day and age) and now they are making the same on a match day with 14500 as they would with a full stadium but also that for those big games they will sell out and have a nice cash windfall.

Hope that makes sense!

I know what you mean and yeah, if it was £10 a ticket we'd have that problem. It's about striking the right balance in between the two extremes and I don't think we have.

I think if we'd got the balance right then we could have sold out the opening day and against WBA and seen a couple of thousand more against Scunny and Burnley.

Filling the ground on a weekly basis right now isn't a realistic aim, even if we had frozen last seasons ST prices, I don't think we would we in a position where we were getting sell outs for games such as Scunny and Burnley, regarding or what league we are in and what the prices are there will always be a large amount of people who either can't afford season tickets or just pick and choose their games, even if we are in the prem, yes we would sell out against the likes of Man U, Arsenal etc, but I still don't beleive that we would sell out against teams like Reading, Fulham, Wigan and the like.

Filling the ground is not only realistic it's the only thing we can aim for if we want to be successful long term and join the top tier.

Of course it won't happen right now, but I'd still have hoped to sell out this season against the big sides and it doesn't look like we will despite success beyond most wildest dreams on the pitch.

To fill the ground you have to gradually build up the core support, add more people who renew every year. The 40k who show up for Wembley show the potential, how do you get those people to commit to a season ticket?

You don't do it with 40% price hikes for a start.

[zookeeper]

Cuts both ways. Higher prices only mean more income if you can make the same guarantees.

I think it's pretty obvious that we'd have sold more tickets with lower prices.

But as I pointed out, even if there was less income the amount would be a tiny proportion of the total so as to make no difference to the club immediately yet the increased number of ST holders pays dividends in the medium to longer term.

What you pointed out was that a 13% decrease in price leads to a 6% increase in revenue. 800 people or £160 k. The marginal revenue of those 800 people would be a loss of £200. It doesn't meet a profit or revenue maximising scheme.

It may meet many other requirements though and the knock effect shouldn't be ignored.

[Nibor]

What you pointed out was that a 13% decrease in price leads to a 6% increase in revenue. 800 people or £160 k. The marginal revenue of those 800 people would be a loss of £200. It does meet a profit or revenue maximising scheme.

It may meet many other requirements though and the knock effect shouldn't be ignored.

That was complete guesswork using example figures. The ones shown were the difference between a 35-40% hike (to £300) and a 20% rise (to about £260) and it was meant only to be an example of just how few extra tickets we'd need to sell to get close to break even.

Lower prices need not mean lower revenues despite what you think about how inelastic the demand is, you ignore that with this single hike we have pushed the price beyond what parts of the market will bear as we can clearly see from feedback on here and there was no need for it. It's happening across football, some clubs have recognised this and started to reduce prices realising that they're harming themselves in the long run if they don't.

And even if there was slightly less revenue, in the longer term it's still a sensible move to build the fanbase which has been the main thrust of my argument since the idiotic prices were announced.

[zookeeper]

That was complete guesswork using example figures. The ones shown were the difference between a 35-40% hike (to £300) and a 20% rise (to about £260) and it was meant only to be an example of just how few extra tickets we'd need to sell to get close to break even.

I was trying to show that it's not actually that great and they were figures you were referring to rather than seeing them as some factual figures.

Lower prices need not mean lower revenues despite what you think about how inelastic the demand is, you ignore that with this single hike we have pushed the price beyond what parts of the market will bear as we can clearly see from feedback on here and there was no need for it. It's happening across football, some clubs have recognised this and started to reduce prices realising that they're harming themselves in the long run if they don't.

And even if there was slightly less revenue, in the longer term it's still a sensible move to build the fanbase which has been the main thrust of my argument since the idiotic prices were announced.

I don't ignore the fact that prices have removed an option for some. I've gone so far as to say that the further you push the more elastic it will be. I just think that there was a need for it. The extra money it generates is necessary.

The long term relies on our success both on the pitch and off it. If we come bouncing back down then price increase or not the numbers would drop off after more dissapointment. If we do well people will try harder to make the savings required to go. I know and appreciate the fact that not everyone will be able to do this but some will and it's the marginal revenue that is important rather than the numbers who turn up.

We could carry on growing the fan base through cheap pricing and special offers but at some point you have to cash it in and use a bit of the goodwill you've generated. They are doing this now.