Barnsley Game Heading For A Sell Out? So What Now Mr L?

[bh_red]

You mean you don't understand it? Please enlighten me and show me your calculations for the average attendance this season.

15,276

[cheese]

15,276

Did your maths teacher never tell you to show your workings? I don't know whether you included the Man City game - I did. But even so, a higher average attendance only strengthens my point.

[City Rocker]

I'd like to see your calculation of the average gate to date - before yesterdays game it was 15073 - and yesterdays attendance wasn't 17177. And where do you get the 5000 from? Oh that's right, you made it up. Poor effort mate.

Oh, and the highest average attendances for 30 odd years - hardly really low attendances is it.

I notice you haven't addressed the rest of my post about marketing. Another poor effort on your part.

My calculation was based on the number of City fans in attendance at each home game to date this season, with the number of away fans deducted from the gate, as that is the only portion of the attendance that is relevant to this discussion. Where did I get 5,000 from? Yes I 'made it up' or rather guessed it based on the assumption of similar attendance to that of the S****horpe game. Bearing in mind the 'Black Saturday' trend I think that's reasonable, though you may disagree.

OK I'll address your point about marketing. You said "...as with any product, you position your prices according to your target market and you charge what the market will bear". Of course that goes without saying. City accordingly pitched this season's prices at a level they thought the market would bear and, apparently, have been disappointed with the attendances to date - as evidenced by the fact they issued an open questionnaire to supporters in the wake of the Cardiff game asking us why the attendance was so low.

It seems the answer came back loud and clear: "The ticket prices are too high". In response, Steve L massively reduced the prices for the Barnsley game and the punters turned up in their droves.

I totally agree with you that trends can only be accurately interpreted over a number of games, not just one; my perception is that Steve is disappointed with the crowds so far this season and I would agree with that. Attendances are at a 28 year high but could and should be higher.

You, me, Steve and everyone else will draw our own conclusions as to whether they got it right or wrong.

[Nibor]

I'd like to see your calculation of the average gate to date - before yesterdays game it was 15073 - and yesterdays attendance wasn't 17177.

There's a difference between average gate and average home supporters attendance - and that's the number of away fans which is a huge part of the variable.

And where do you get the 5000 from?

It's a reasonable enough guess that at full price we'd have had 11.5k city fans at Ashton Gate for Black Saturday not over 16k.

Oh, and the highest average attendances for 30 odd years - hardly really low attendances is it.

Highest league position in that sort of time frame and football attendances in general have gone up massively since then. To me the crowds we're getting right now are disappointing considering how far beyond expectations the team are performing.

Really how can anyone be happy with not selling out games against Southampton, WBA, Cardiff?

It seems to me that some people are forgetting that BCFC is only a business in so far as it needs to be, it's primary purpose is most certainly not to make money.

Why on earth should a football club set it's prices as high as "the market" will bear when the result is an average of 4,000 unsold "products" every home game?

I've heard three arguments against setting prices lower to start to fill those seats:

1. People won't come. Which Saturday would indicate isn't quite right, at the very least it has to be worth a longer trial.

2. We will make less money on sell outs. Which is completely irrelevant since we're miles off selling out.

3. Waa waa waa my season ticket is meant to be cheaper. Which is irrelevant since the prices for the last 11 home games would have to drop to something crazily low to make that not the case over the whole season.

Any others?

[bh_red]

Did your maths teacher never tell you to show your workings? I don't know whether you included the Man City game - I did. But even so, a higher average attendance only strengthens my point.

15,276 as quoted in sunday paper.

[cheese]

My calculation was based on the number of City fans in attendance at each home game to date this season, with the number of away fans deducted from the gate, as that is the only portion of the attendance that is relevant to this discussion. Where did I get 5,000 from? Yes I 'made it up' or rather guessed it based on the assumption of similar attendance to that of the S****horpe game. Bearing in mind the 'Black Saturday' trend I think that's reasonable, though you may disagree.

OK I'll address your point about marketing. You said "...as with any product, you position your prices according to your target market and you charge what the market will bear". Of course that goes without saying. City accordingly pitched this season's prices at a level they thought the market would bear and, apparently, have been disappointed with the attendances to date - as evidenced by the fact they issued an open questionnaire to supporters in the wake of the Cardiff game asking us why the attendance was so low.

It seems the answer came back loud and clear: "The ticket prices are too high". In response, Steve L massively reduced the prices for the Barnsley game and the punters turned up in their droves.

I totally agree with you that trends can only be accurately interpreted over a number of games, not just one; my perception is that Steve is disappointed with the crowds so far this season and I would agree with that. Attendances are at a 28 year high but could and should be higher.

You, me, Steve and everyone else will draw our own conclusions as to whether they got it right or wrong.

Couldn't be bothered to deduct the away portion and accep that you may have a point although if I could be bothered I might argue against it. If I had a choice between S****horpe or Barnsley I'd choose Barnsley. They've been in the Chumpionship a little longer, are further up the table and could be seen as a promotion rival. S****horpe was also 4 days before the Man City game. Why did you not choose to compare with Burnley or even Leicester? Or was their higher attendances a deciding factor for you?

And I think you are mistaken if you think that prices yesterday were lowered as a direct result of the questionnaire. It was the last Saturday before Xmas, ticket prices were always going to be lowered - SL just decided to make a point beforehand. I personally think he was making a rod for his own back by doing so. As for whether SL is disappointed by attendances well, who knows. Like most of us I expect he was anticipating lower attendances than we have had.

Someone somewhere said that he had budgeted for an average of 15k. I don't know whether that's true or not, but they are higher than that, so can't see how e can be too upset!

[cheese]

15,276 as quoted in sunday paper.

Must be true then!!!! ;-)

[cheese]

There's a difference between average gate and average home supporters attendance - and that's the number of away fans which is a huge part of the variable.

It's a reasonable enough guess that at full price we'd have had 11.5k city fans at Ashton Gate for Black Saturday not over 16k.

Highest league position in that sort of time frame and football attendances in general have gone up massively since then. To me the crowds we're getting right now are disappointing considering how far beyond expectations the team are performing.

Really how can anyone be happy with not selling out games against Southampton, WBA, Cardiff?

It seems to me that some people are forgetting that BCFC is only a business in so far as it needs to be, it's primary purpose is most certainly not to make money.

Why on earth should a football club set it's prices as high as "the market" will bear when the result is an average of 4,000 unsold "products" every home game?

I've heard three arguments against setting prices lower to start to fill those seats:

1. People won't come. Which Saturday would indicate isn't quite right, at the very least it has to be worth a longer trial.

2. We will make less money on sell outs. Which is completely irrelevant since we're miles off selling out.

3. Waa waa waa my season ticket is meant to be cheaper. Which is irrelevant since the prices for the last 11 home games would have to drop to something crazily low to make that not the case over the whole season.

Any others?

You're disappointed by attendances but will only consider ticket prices as the sole reason. Yesterday proved nothing as this discussion clearly proves.

And as for BCFC only being a business in so far as it needs to be? What does that mean? It is a business, SL says it must stand on it's own two feet.

I went to the cinema yesterday - there were loads of empty seats - now if they'd slashed the price of tickets by 50% they may have got more people attending. They didn't, they won't - are they wrong too?

[City Rocker]

OK, despite a stupid level of mulled wine and Laphroaig, here's them there workings you're looking for, teach:

Up to and including yesterday's game, our average league attendance is 15,385

Of that, the average away following is 1,258

Therefore the average home following is 14,127

At yesterday's game the total number of home fans was 16,231- the highest for ANY of our games this season, on a day that would be expected to attract without doubt our LOWEST of the season, particularly given both the date and the status of the opposition - no disrespect intended to Barnsley

Without the fantastic discounts that City gave to non season ticket holders, I believe the City fans in attendance would have numbered no more than about 12,000 and I suspect that was also the club's expectation, hence the discount. I have a season ticket so was not affected and won't be by any future deals, but I do hope the club will act on the results of this little experiment.

(Edit: don't do simple arithmetic when drunk)

[Will Rollason]

just like to say i was close with prediction...

you reds!!!!

( cant be arrrrrsed with arguments, happy xmas y'all)

xxxx,xx.

[Nibor]

You're disappointed by attendances but will only consider ticket prices as the sole reason.

Not at all, I'll consider any other reasons you care to come up with that have as much evidence supporting them and as much groundswell of opinion amongst fans. There just isn't another one.

Yesterday proved nothing as this discussion clearly proves.

All this discussion proves is that a few people struggle with simple logic.

Slashed prices lead to the biggest home attendance of the season against one of the least attractive sides on the least attractive date. Where I come from 2 + 2 usually = 4.

And as for BCFC only being a business in so far as it needs to be? What does that mean? It is a business, SL says it must stand on it's own two feet.

It does not exist for the purpose of making money for shareholders. That's what it means and what some people frequently forget.

I went to the cinema yesterday - there were loads of empty seats - now if they'd slashed the price of tickets by 50% they may have got more people attending. They didn't, they won't - are they wrong too?

Taking refuge in a spurious analogy rather than coming up with a good reason not to reduce prices and attract more fans shows the weakness of your argument. But, if the cinema could make more money overall by reducing prices then yes they are wrong not to by any yardstick.

[italian dave]

I've heard three arguments against setting prices lower to start to fill those seats:

2. We will make less money on sell outs. Which is completely irrelevant since we're miles off selling out.

.

No, that's not the argument. Forget sell outs. The argument is simply that its (financially) better to sell 3000 tickets at £20 than it is to sell 5000 tickets at £10. Despite 2000 empty seats.

[megansdad]

Not at all, I'll consider any other reasons you care to come up with that have as much evidence supporting them and as much groundswell of opinion amongst fans. There just isn't another one.

All this discussion proves is that a few people struggle with simple logic.

Slashed prices lead to the biggest home attendance of the season against one of the least attractive sides on the least attractive date. Where I come from 2 + 2 usually = 4.

It does not exist for the purpose of making money for shareholders. That's what it means and what some people frequently forget.

Taking refuge in a spurious analogy rather than coming up with a good reason not to reduce prices and attract more fans shows the weakness of your argument. But, if the cinema could make more money overall by reducing prices then yes they are wrong not to by any yardstick.

yesterday was the biggest attendance but certainly would not have been the most successful day for the club in revenue terms. your simple logic is simply nonsense. Success cannot be judged simply on the numbers who turned up, the wrong pricing policy may well lead to losses even with a full ground.

what you seem to ignore is that without the financial support of the shareholders the club would be in far worse shape. the club should stand on its own two feet - making losses year after year is not sustainable.

Don't see why its spurious at all - reducing prices is fine as long as overall revenue rises as a result and the argument on the latter is by no means proven.

[Tunley Legend]

yesterday was the biggest attendance but certainly would not have been the most successful day for the club in revenue terms. your simple logic is simply nonsense. Success cannot be judged simply on the numbers who turned up, the wrong pricing policy may well lead to losses even with a full ground.

what you seem to ignore is that without the financial support of the shareholders the club would be in far worse shape. the club should stand on its own two feet - making losses year after year is not sustainable.

Don't see why its spurious at all - reducing prices is fine as long as overall revenue rises as a result and the argument on the latter is by no means proven.

Nothing has been proven or DISPROVEN. Therefore it makes sense to at least trial lower prices at a number of games and if, as expected, a pattern of higher attendances emerges we may well have the answer for the slightly disappointing attendances this season. It would then up to the club NEXT SEASON to properly strike the balance (which I and many others believe is too high in favour of price this season). If the attendances do not rise then we can strike price off as a factor and have to accept that Bristolians do not give a f00k about local sport.

[cheese]

Not at all, I'll consider any other reasons you care to come up with that have as much evidence supporting them and as much groundswell of opinion amongst fans. There just isn't another one.

But there is - the Bristol public aren't convinced yet. We've only been in the championship for one season and, having been in the third tier for a very long time, the hard core of support isn't there yet. Alternative forms of entertainment are cheaper. By who's criteria should we be a sell-out? The shareholders and directors budgeted for average gates of 15k - we've got that - why should they reduce prices at no extra benefit?

All this discussion proves is that a few people struggle with simple logic.

With mine and others help I think you might get there - keep reading!!

Slashed prices lead to the biggest home attendance of the season against one of the least attractive sides on the least attractive date. Where I come from 2 + 2 usually = 4.

Ever been an accountant?

It does not exist for the purpose of making money for shareholders. That's what it means and what some people frequently forget.

According to whom? I'm sure the shareholders would like to see a return from their investment.

Taking refuge in a spurious analogy rather than coming up with a good reason not to reduce prices and attract more fans shows the weakness of your argument. But, if the cinema could make more money overall by reducing prices then yes they are wrong not to by any yardstick.

How is that spurious? Why doesn't the cinema reduce prices and atrract more filmgoers? If you answer that you answer both questions. Just because you don't like an analogy doesn't make it spurious. If it helps, spurious means "not genuine, authentic or true..." - the analogy is most certainly true and your claims about the ticket prices and the extra numbers of fans you reckon will be attracted to the game are closer to being spurious (ie made-up).

[Nibor]

No, that's not the argument. Forget sell outs. The argument is simply that its (financially) better to sell 3000 tickets at £20 than it is to sell 5000 tickets at £10. Despite 2000 empty seats.

No that's not the argument. Because the people that are suggesting lowering prices are suggesting that it would be more like 4,500 tickets at £15 hence more revenue. And the people arguing against it are saying... well I'm not quite sure, they're either disagreeing that more people would turn up or just saying the board must be right about prices... because.

yesterday was the biggest attendance but certainly would not have been the most successful day for the club in revenue terms. your simple logic is simply nonsense. Success cannot be judged simply on the numbers who turned up, the wrong pricing policy may well lead to losses even with a full ground.

It doesn't matter whether it was the most successful day in terms of revenue or not, they key point is that it made more money than it would have done at normal price.

what you seem to ignore is that without the financial support of the shareholders the club would be in far worse shape. the club should stand on its own two feet - making losses year after year is not sustainable.

I don't ignore that, in fact I have a very good understanding of it. I can point you at dozens of posts outlining the financial situation for the club but you can use the search function if you're actually interested..

Quite simply, SteveL has funded overspending on transfers in league one. That's what has run up the debt and making those signings was his choice.

The club has made enough revenue to more than cover it's wage bill every year he's been in charge. Whether the club would be in better or worse shape without any of that input is a very arguable and subjective point, but I would suggest that thinking just because SteveL loans the club money he is propping us up is overly simplistic. We're certainly in good shape on the field.

Don't see why its spurious at all - reducing prices is fine as long as overall revenue rises as a result and the argument on the latter is by no means proven.

Well duh. The suggestion all along has been to try it out and see if it does work. Saturday indicates it might well, not proof but a positive indication.

But there is - the Bristol public aren't convinced yet. We've only been in the championship for one season and, having been in the third tier for a very long time, the hard core of support isn't there yet.

If they're not convinced yet why did they turn up to a game that merely had cheaper tickets and was otherwise far less attractive? What about the 19+k at the Rotherham game? Isn't it more likely that some people simply can't afford the prices?

Alternative forms of entertainment are cheaper.

Halle-######-lujah.

By who's criteria should we be a sell-out? The shareholders and directors budgeted for average gates of 15k - we've got that - why should they reduce prices at no extra benefit?

I would have thought it was obvious.

Big crowds are healthy for the club in so many ways.

First of all support for the team is better. GJ has said dozens of times how much difference that makes.

Second, the long term health and growth of the club. More people coming to odd games this season is more people considering a season ticket next season. And dragging their friends and family along to odd games. It needs to be built up organically and you can't do that with oppressive prices.

Third it's less risky. As it is now should disaster on the pitch befall us what exactly will happen to gate revenue do you think? What if we got relegated?

As for budgeting, that's a misnomer. They could have budgeted for gates of 17k at a lower price. The question should be, why increase prices at no extra benefit?

Ever been an accountant?

No thank god. I wasn't aware being an ACCA was necessary to do primary school arithmetic.

According to whom? I'm sure the shareholders would like to see a return from their investment.

Common sense. I'm sure noone in their right mind invests in a league one football club to make money. That's entirely different to getting some of it back some day.

The only way a club is ever financially successful is if they're successful on the field so that should be the primary goal.

How is that spurious? Why doesn't the cinema reduce prices and atrract more filmgoers? If you answer that you answer both questions. Just because you don't like an analogy doesn't make it spurious. If it helps, spurious means "not genuine, authentic or true..." - the analogy is most certainly true and your claims about the ticket prices and the extra numbers of fans you reckon will be attracted to the game are closer to being spurious (ie made-up).

I know what spurious means, I tend not to use words I don't understand. It's spurious because a cinema is not a football club, does not have the same business model or the same customers, the same sort of costs, competitive arena or means of income. Other than that it was a good analogy.

[cheese]

No that's not the argument. Because the people that are suggesting lowering prices are suggesting that it would be more like 4,500 tickets at £15 hence more revenue. And the people arguing against it are saying... well I'm not quite sure, they're either disagreeing that more people would turn up or just saying the board must be right about prices... because.

If you don't understand the argument may I suggest you re-read the thread - it seems fairly clear. You suggest that tickets should be reduced because t would attract more people. That's indisputable - Saturday proved more would come. What you cannot do is say with any certainty how many more people would be attracted at a given price and therefore whether or not that would have a financial benefit. What we can be certain of is that with the current pricing structure we have sold more season tickets than ever before and are enjoying attendances higher than for a good many years. Those are the facts, anything else is conjecture.

Common sense. I'm sure noone in their right mind invests in a league one football club to make money. That's entirely different to getting some of it back some day.

Swindon Town have just been bought out by a consortium of business men - be under no illusions they are there to make a profit. Swindon are a league one club so that's that blown out the water!

I know what spurious means, I tend not to use words I don't understand. It's spurious because a cinema is not a football club, does not have the same business model or the same customers, the same sort of costs, competitive arena or means of income. Other than that it was a good analogy.

You clearly don't understand spurious - it means it's made up - it wasn't. You might also like to look up the meaning of misnomer - your usage of it further up is incorrect.

[Nibor]

If you don't understand the argument may I suggest you re-read the thread - it seems fairly clear. You suggest that tickets should be reduced because t would attract more people. That's indisputable - Saturday proved more would come.

Congratulations you finally got there.

What you cannot do is say with any certainty how many more people would be attracted at a given price and therefore whether or not that would have a financial benefit.

Of course I can't. I can only guess. That's been obvious from the very first discussion on ticket prices back in the summer. It's the nature of any debate of this type.

What we can be certain of is that with the current pricing structure we have sold more season tickets than ever before and are enjoying attendances higher than for a good many years. Those are the facts, anything else is conjecture.

Yes well I've already pointed out the flaws in those arguments more times than I care to count.

Swindon Town have just been bought out by a consortium of business men - be under no illusions they are there to make a profit. Swindon are a league one club so that's that blown out the water!

No it isn't. Many clubs are owned by a consortium of businessmen who aren't out to make a profit. Besides, anyone buying Swindon hoping to make a profit is clearly not in their right mind.

You clearly don't understand spurious - it means it's made up - it wasn't. You might also like to look up the meaning of misnomer - your usage of it further up is incorrect.

Oh dear. Your analogy wasn't genuine, hence spurious.

I find when people resort to criticising language or grammar it usually indicates they have run out of any meaningful arguments. The fact that you again ignored the central points would seem to back this up too.

Please explain why you think prices shouldn't be lowered substantially (to say £20 for an adult) for a few games to see if the good indications from Saturday prove out and we get bigger crowds and make more money or at least not lose money?

[Bristol Boy]

[bristolrich]

Satuday's game proved that lower ticket prices mean more fans will attend. The evidence is clear -

- Barnsley, not an attractive match, 3 days before xmas, cheaper prices = more fans than Cardiff, which was a week before, and was a DERBY match.

Approx. £30 for 1 and 1/2 hour football is a lot of money!! Money is the only reason why the stadium is not filled every week. You cannot say its the football because we are 3rd in the league!!!!!

How do you expect to fill a new 40,000 or whatever size stadium, when the current one is just over half full for most matches???

I feel that ticket prices shoud be something like:

Adult = £12

Student = £10

OAP = £10

Kids = £5.

Prices something like this would guarantee a full stadium each week.

Some people forget that its the fans that make football what it is - no fans no football.

The only reason I do not go to Ashton Gate every week is because of the prices, and I started supporting City when were in the well into the relegation zone of Division 1 - so I'm not a fair weather fan!!!

[Bristol Boy]

I feel that ticket prices shoud be something like:

Adult = £12

Student = £10

OAP = £10

Kids = £5.

I like your style Rich but there are limits!

How about:

Dolman & Williams £20 Adults Students/Kids/OAPS £15

Both Ends £15 Adults

Oh & drop the stealth charges.

[Nibor]

Dolman & Williams £20 Adults Students/Kids/OAPS £15

Both Ends £15 Adults

Oh & drop the stealth charges.

I'd make kids under 16 a tenner and rather than students just make it 16-21s but otherwise yeah.

I really do think prices like those would bump our average up by a couple of thousand - which probably works out better than revenue neutral.

[cheese]

I'd make kids under 16 a tenner and rather than students just make it 16-21s but otherwise yeah.

I really do think prices like those would bump our average up by a couple of thousand - which probably works out better than revenue neutral.

And, based on those figures, what would the average attendance have to be to generate the same income as the current prices with an average gate of 15,000 which has been budgeted for?

[Nibor]

And, based on those figures, what would the average attendance have to be to generate the same income as the current prices with an average gate of 15,000 which has been budgeted for?

We don't get told the sales breakdowns so it can't be calculated. Ticket prices range right now from £23 to £30 for adults, £18-£24 for OAPs and £7-£19 for kids, depending on stand, time purchased, payment method, inclination of Mercury etc...

Edit: added some guesswork here:

We're talking about a reduction that ranges from 15% to up to 50% (though there are sod all seats available in the central dolman blocks anyway). I guess the average reduction would be around the 30% mark so the match day attendance would need to increase by the inverse... 5,000 * (1/0.7) = 7,100. So our average would need to go up by about 1,700 (it's presently 15,385 in the league according to football365 and we have just broken 10k ST holders.) I think that's achievable.

The worst that can happen is that the club try it for a few games and end up a little out of pocket (a drop in the ocean of the £3m we're going to lose anyway this season). The best that can happen is that several thousand more City fans are in Ashton Gate this season and we sell a few hundred more season tickets next season. It might even be worth a point or two.

I can't see why that isn't a risk worth taking, and I really don't understand why a few people argue so vehemently against it. Surely it's good for everyone who wants BCFC to succeed to try and get as many people at the Gate as possible?

[italian dave]

No that's not the argument. Because the people that are suggesting lowering prices are suggesting that it would be more like 4,500 tickets at £15 hence more revenue. And the people arguing against it are saying... well I'm not quite sure, they're either disagreeing that more people would turn up or just saying the board must be right about prices... because.

Nibor, with respect, you don't know that we'd sell 4500 at £15 any more than I know that we'd sell 5000 at £10. It isn't that simple, and if it was we wouldn't all have enjoyed hours of debate about this since last May!!

But I go back to the star of this particular thread, which suggested that Saturdays gate proved that the pricing structure was wrong. And it doesn't. Because there are so many ifs and buts about it. We could all say that we think x000 would have turned up at this price, but we don't know. Reducing the prices on Saturday was a sound commercial decision, but it doesn't prove that the pricing structure for the rest of the season is wrong.

If we both knew how many would turn up at what price then we'd both probably be richer men than SL. And I know I'm not!

So, can we at least agree we don't know!! Happy Christmas mate!!

[Enoch]

I think ticket prices should be around..

Adults.. £15 - £20

Students.. £10 - £15

OAP's.. £10 - £15

Under 16's.. £5 - £10

[bristolrich]

But I go back to the star of this particular thread, which suggested that Saturdays gate proved that the pricing structure was wrong. And it doesn't.

I disagree!!! I think it shows that the original ticket prices are too high, and therefore lowering them makes more people come!!

Cardiff game had high prices = less fans!

Barnsley game had lower prices = MORE fans!!

It makes better long term economic sense to have lower prices, thus getting more people in the ground, meaning more people will support the club, which means the club can get extra revenue by people by items in the shop for example!!

Also, what is the point of building a new stadium if we cannot fill the old one?!?!?!

[italian dave]

I disagree!!! I think it shows that the original ticket prices are too high, and therefore lowering them makes more people come!!

Cardiff game had high prices = less fans!

Barnsley game had lower prices = MORE fans!!

It makes better long term economic sense to have lower prices, thus getting more people in the ground, meaning more people will support the club, which means the club can get extra revenue by people by items in the shop for example!!

Also, what is the point of building a new stadium if we cannot fill the old one?!?!?!

Of course. If you charge £5 you'll fill the ground every week. But SL took a decision when we went up to try to make as much money as possible from ticket sales this season.

I've already said that I think that overlooks lots of other issues - better atmosphere if the ground's full, encouraging fans of the future, staying loyal to your fan base, and more. I recognise that they are all legitimate arguments. But the fact is that SL owns the club, he has the right to take the approach he has (whether we like it or not), and that approach has been to maximise income this season. That's his decision, not mine. All I'm saying is that Saturday isn't going to make him change his mind

[bristolrich]

It's a shame prices are so high because its the club that will lose out in the end!! What will happen when the current ST holders stop renewing??

Anyway, Merry Christmas to you all!!