Barnsley Ticket Price 'experiment'...

[dezgimed]

We must have been taught in differing schools of thought then , we were shown a mind-bogglingly boring "elasticity curve", the idea being a product could be at different part of the curve

Ah well, not the sort of exciting thing worth arguing about!

Is there much call for economics in the Bingo world?

Maybe its inelastic seeing as the prices keep bloody going up and attendances arent really falling in comparison to the % hike.

Addictive, no substitute etc.

[collier]

We have had 2 attendances below 14,000 people and one of those was on sky.

The discount would have been offered to the Barnsley fans as well so I'm not too sure we can totally discount them. From what I've seen a lot of away fans are normally based locally.

Yes but most attendances have been boosted by away fans. How do they factor into the argument of how many people turn up as bristol city supporters based on ticket prices. If you don't factor in away fans then we don't often get more than 3 thousand potd supporters. The barnsley game attracted 6 thousand potd and most obviously believe the potd support was doubled because of the price. This is also noted as one of the worst attended games of the season and potd supporters doubled. I would love to know why this was the case if it was not based on price alone??

[zookeeper]

how can they be considered when we are trying to gauge if more home fans will turn up if the prices are lowered. certain teams will always bring x amount of fans whatever the prices are. I doubt you would get fans from most away sides looking at the prices for away tickets and then saying well I was going to go but I wont bother because its a few quid over my budget.

I thought the whole point of this discussion was to work out if the lower prices affected the home attendance at the barnsley match.

So are away ticket prices very inelastic and home tickets elastic?

I think people are in agreement that the price had an effect. It's the extent of the effect that I think people are discussing.

The people I went with went for two reasons, firstly it was cheaper and secondly we weren't playing football that day so were able to go. I imagine that there were a fair few in the same situation and I for one would probably have paid the normal price to go.

[cheese]

how can they be considered when we are trying to gauge if more home fans will turn up if the prices are lowered. certain teams will always bring x amount of fans whatever the prices are. I doubt you would get fans from most away sides looking at the prices for away tickets and then saying well I was going to go but I wont bother because its a few quid over my budget.

I thought the whole point of this discussion was to work out if the lower prices affected the home attendance at the barnsley match.

No, we're considering whether reducing prices would increase gates and revenue. As away fans contribute to that revenue then they should be included. After all, if we want a stadium full of Brisolians then reducing the cost of a ticket to £1 will guarantee that!!

[collier]

No, we're considering whether reducing prices would increase gates and revenue. As away fans contribute to that revenue then they should be included. After all, if we want a stadium full of Brisolians then reducing the cost of a ticket to £1 will guarantee that!!

so the thread isnt titled Barnsley ticket price experiment then!! sorry my mistake.

No we want a stadium full of bristolians at the correct price. Your talking out of your rear end to suggest people would wnat us to reduce ticket prices to £1. Fact is reduced prices against a less than glamourous side on the most poorly supported day of the season, attracted more CITY fans than 95% of our previous home games. Now you tell me how halfing the price and attracting twice as many people to the game means we lose out on revenue then I will concede the point. More people means more food sold, more merchandise sold, a chance that more people will purchase tickets for remaining games, plus the fact that a more full stadium is beneficial to the team adn to the whole of Bristol City football club. Now I am not even suggesting that prices be halfed as thats probably too much of a reduction but reasonably reduced prices equals more revenue and fans for the club end of.

[cheese]

so the thread isnt titled Barnsley ticket price experiment then!! sorry my mistake.

No we want a stadium full of bristolians at the correct price. Your talking out of your rear end to suggest people would wnat us to reduce ticket prices to £1. Fact is reduced prices against a less than glamourous side on the most poorly supported day of the season, attracted more CITY fans than 95% of our previous home games. Now you tell me how halfing the price and attracting twice as many people to the game means we lose out on revenue then I will concede the point. More people means more food sold, more merchandise sold, a chance that more people will purchase tickets for remaining games, plus the fact that a more full stadium is beneficial to the team adn to the whole of Bristol City football club. Now I am not even suggesting that prices be halfed as thats probably too much of a reduction but reasonably reduced prices equals more revenue and fans for the club end of.

Personal insults do not make your side of the argument right! If you re-read the entire thread you'll come across this:

So far this season we have averages 15,320 people per game. If we took £5 off our average ticket price of say £20 we would need to sell out (19,200 or there abouts) to achieve the same income. To me that doesn't make financial sense.

So, bearing that in mind, how will reducing prices increase our match day revenue? Catering will be negligible and anyway, wouldn't be surprised if they're on a franchhise basis and the amount of sales make no difference to what they pay.

[Nibor]

Great post Geoff.

It appears to me that what has happened is that Mr Sexstone was a cricket man but was offered the job running the football club. The ideas about charging people for the priviledge of phoning their own club via an 0870 number, the booking fees, the credit/debit card charges etc... were introduced from looking at what others have done and emulating them and quite frankly it's wrong.

What alienates people are the prices and the hidden extras of watching the club - set a freephone number for ticket sales - yes sales i.e. you will earn money if people phone the club with a clear intention to pay for your product - just because you have to pay the telephone sales people is not a reason to ask people to pay for the service - you don't have to isolate their cost and say we have to make this amount of money back to subsidise their existence - their existence is there for the club to make money - want to make more money from these sales assisants - then why not get them to phone your clients who havent bought a ticket or get them to phone season ticket holders and tell them that seat "X" - 2 seats away from you is free - would you be interested in buying the ticket for a youngster at Y price or a friend at a discounted price of Z.

Credit card and debit card charges - I go into Asdas and see a little sign saying that a certain amount of money will be deducted fromt he total sales price - it doesnt get added to my bill it's just an inheernt price "the cost of doing business" don't isolate the cost and pass it on - just realise you are making a sale and be pleased that this is happening.

I am sick to death of these costs of doing business added as an extra - it's like an airlines surcharge due to volatile fuel prices - except that we don't have any volatile elements to the pricing of the tickets - the costs are pretty much fixed - stop following others and start doing the things that make sense.

Absolutely spot on.

There is no benefit whatsoever to the club or the fans in these extra charges, tickets should have a single simple price regardless of when or how they are purchased.

It's offputting to casual fans because it feels like a rip off, I really can't see why the hell they do it.

The number one focus should always be on selling more tickets, that's what makes a healthy club, and everything else should be geared around that.

It appears that Mr Lansdowne is accutely aware of how much it's costing himself personally to be involved with the club and takes the view that if it costs me this much then "they" can pay at least "X" for the priviledge of coming to watch their own side.

Not too sure I agree with that. Bear in mind that Steve loans money to the club (and has converted those loans to stock). If we build a new stadium I suspect he will be in pocket. I've no objection to that but I don't like this portrayal of us as a club that has a rich benefactor without whom we couldn't exist. It's not true, the fans put in far more money every year than the directors and we aren't the ones who decide how it's spent.

I think SteveL genuinely set the prices at what he thought was best but I think he misjudged what people were willing to pay and perhaps had the wrong focus when doing so. Longer term thinking would be that lower prices getting more people in whilst we're successful will pay off in the future.

My daughter asked why she hasnt gone to any footy this year - well it's straight forward the prices City charge for an adult and a child to attend a football match is too high - last 10 years there has been bring a kid for a quid etc... the oppertunities for doing this have been reduced (thankfully - no tin pot cup, no littlewoods cup, no FAcup etc...) but the problem I see is that City will alienate their customers so mush that they have no chance of filling a 30000 stadium if we are not in the premiership and when they start their incentives at the new stadium the response will be innert - all those you alienated wont respond, all those potential City youngsters will go about their business of playing on their Playstation 4 with their Man U, Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool shirts on saying nah I want to play as Ronaldo on my game rather than spend money watching a club down the road. Mr Lansdowne will get more and more chewed up about the cost of funding the club and stop investing - it's a dark dark story but come on it's easy to avoid this story, make the changes look at what is right and what is common sense - ignore the "experts" of football marketing who advocate making as much money as possible from the fans - go visit Middlesboro chairman and Wigan's chairman, Bolton's etc... those who understand the fans and don't shaft them on stupid rediculous concepts of making fans pay for the right to buy tickets at a reasonable price who want to bring their kids along too.

One club did a special - bring 10 kids in for £1 or £2 a head and adult goes free!

This is by far the biggest worry I have about the prices. The club IS the fans, and if we want to be successful we have to have more fans coming through the gates. Doing that is an evolutionary process, you get increases over generations and this year's prices did immense damage to it. When you have a situation that a die hard long term city fan can't afford to take their kids to football you are losing future die hard fans.

The danger is that it won't be apparent in the immediate bottom line because we've replaced them with wealthier fans - but when the club goes through a tough time (and we surely will) - those will be the ones that bugger off.

Getting back to the original topic I think the attendance against Barnsley was far enough above it would have been at normal prices (12k or so) to warrant some sort of acknowledgment or response from the club. Hopefully in the form of an experimental significant price drop for a couple of home games that is well marketed and communicated. It's worth praising the club for doing a quid a kid game against Colchester which is great but I'd like to see more publicity about that so it's taken up by as many as possible.

[collier]

Personal insults do not make your side of the argument right! If you re-read the entire thread you'll come across this:

So, bearing that in mind, how will reducing prices increase our match day revenue? Catering will be negligible and anyway, wouldn't be surprised if they're on a franchhise basis and the amount of sales make no difference to what they pay.

Is wasnt a personal insult just a polite way of saying imo you were talking rubbish regarding the £1 price thing. We are averaging 15k, but are you forgetting that 10k have already prepaid ie season tickets. How do you know the average ticket price is £20?? how many of the 5k are adults or children or oap??

[Chappers]

I thought that the prices were set far too high in the summer, and the success to date has hidden that. It is very disappointing that we are still not selling out regularly despite doing so well, and I am sure that the prices have had an impact. I am not looking forward to next summer, as I suspect it will either be a huge hike so that we can compete in the Premiership (Or at least fare marginally better than Derby!), or a hike to 'build on last season and make a push for the Premiership.

Short-term we will get away with it. Longer term, recession looms, credit is crunching, we are bound to have an indifferent season soon, and that is when reality will kick in. Or maybe us older fans are in denial, football is looking to attract higher earners rather than the traditional fan, and maybe these new fans will show the same level of loyalty, and if they do, they will probably spend more money overall.

[Nibor]

Personal insults do not make your side of the argument right! If you re-read the entire thread you'll come across this:

Those maths are completely and utterly wrong for two reasons:

- 10,000 of those are Season tickets.

- None of us know the actual ticket prices paid.

In the last long thread on this subject I put some workings out that are still an estimate based on a couple of assumptions but far closer to reality than that make believe.

[zookeeper]

so the thread isnt titled Barnsley ticket price experiment then!! sorry my mistake.

And what was the point of the "experiment"? To increase numbers for one isolated game with no thought about future revenue or the affect of away fans.

Was it really an experiment or a opportunity for city to discount it's product to provide an impetus to increase future sales. To me it seems that whenever city do something worthwhile it is portrayed on here as being done more by luck that judgment.

No we want a stadium full of bristolians at the correct price. Your talking out of your rear end to suggest people would wnat us to reduce ticket prices to £1. Fact is reduced prices against a less than glamourous side on the most poorly supported day of the season, attracted more CITY fans than 95% of our previous home games. Now you tell me how halfing the price and attracting twice as many people to the game means we lose out on revenue then I will concede the point. More people means more food sold, more merchandise sold, a chance that more people will purchase tickets for remaining games, plus the fact that a more full stadium is beneficial to the team adn to the whole of Bristol City football club. Now I am not even suggesting that prices be halfed as thats probably too much of a reduction but reasonably reduced prices equals more revenue and fans for the club end of.

And now we get back to the point of the elasticity. If you believe that football is an elastic product then yes all of these things are true. If it's not then a reduction in price does not necessarily generate extra revenue and it is by no means as clear cut as you like to make it out to be.

The club can lose out a few ways by halving the price. Firstly they will need to find ways to compensate those people who have bought season tickets or risk the fact that many might not renew. They would also lose out if demand goes above the capacity. As the season progresses and if we maintain our league position more people will come to watch regardless of the price. If it is discounted then we will have missed out on the opportunity cost of these people.

At less then halve price is there the same incentive and opportunity to attend?

[Nibor]

I'd argue that there are price brackets where it is elastic but the main pice regions I'd argue the opposite. An elastic product would be where a halving of the ticket cost would more than double the number of purchases. This wasn't the case for that match. We probably sold an extra 2000 pay on the day people.

More like 4,000.

12k home fans for a game like that on Black Saturday is more likely than 14k home fans.

[Nibor]

And now we get back to the point of the elasticity. If you believe that football is an elastic product then yes all of these things are true. If it's not then a reduction in price does not necessarily generate extra revenue and it is by no means as clear cut as you like to make it out to be.

Elasticity is a red herring.

You can argue whether a product is fully elastic or not, what can't be argued is that lower prices means more people through the gate.

We're talking here about a "product" (and I ###### hate that term, we're a football club for christ's sake) that is repeatable.

If you tempt extra people through the door often enough they will become fans for YEARS.

We have an average of 4,000 opportunities to do that being passed up every week.

For it's long term health I believe the club's primary focus should be on filling seats, secondary on revenue per seats, not the other way around as it is right now.

Besides which, this club exists so that fans can watch football, not so that it can make money. It should be thought of as a not for profit style organisation, it's a business out of necessity only and it's primary goals are not economic and never should be.

[cheese]

Those maths are completely and utterly wrong for two reasons:

- 10,000 of those are Season tickets.

- None of us know the actual ticket prices paid.

In the last long thread on this subject I put some workings out that are still an estimate based on a couple of assumptions but far closer to reality than that make believe.

As you say - even your figures are an estimate and no more valid than anyone elses. I've said it before and I'll say it again; the ONLY facts are that with current prices we have sold more season tickets than we ever have before and are enjoying attendances higher than they have been for decades. Where's the incentive to reduce prices? It's a rhectroical question because any answer has to make assumptions on figures to which we don't have access and can therefore be wildly wrong or coincidentally right.

[zookeeper]

Those maths are completely and utterly wrong for two reasons:

- 10,000 of those are Season tickets.

- None of us know the actual ticket prices paid.

In the last long thread on this subject I put some workings out that are still an estimate based on a couple of assumptions but far closer to reality than that make believe.

If the club was to make a decision on discounting tickets it would have to reflect for season ticket holders. The impact of the negative goodwill generated by offereing non season tickets holders a substantial discount for the rest of the season would be huge. To not think about it's impact would be wrong in my opinion.

I hope the club know how much the average ticket costs. At any rate a £5 discount off a £20 ticket equated to a 25% reduction. If this was applied to the actual price paid and the discount was 25% the increase in the number of people would still have to be by 25%. The actual price in effect is irrelevant.

[cheese]

Elasticity is a red herring.

You can argue whether a product is fully elastic or not, what can't be argued is that lower prices means more people through the gate.

We're talking here about a "product" (and I ###### hate that term, we're a football club for christ's sake) that is repeatable.

If you tempt extra people through the door often enough they will become fans for YEARS.

We have an average of 4,000 opportunities to do that being passed up every week.

For it's long term health I believe the club's primary focus should be on filling seats, secondary on revenue per seats, not the other way around as it is right now.

Besides which, this club exists so that fans can watch football, not so that it can make money. It should be thought of as a not for profit style organisation, it's a business out of necessity only and it's primary goals are not economic and never should be.

Do you think you should read that again?

Revenue has to be it's primary consideration - it will go out of business otherwise.

Not for profit organisation?? When was the last time the club made a profit?

[Dave L]

Interesting thread this, with some very perceptive points being made. Those who haven't read it might be interested in my latest blog in which touches on the price issue.

http://www.bcfc.co.uk/page/TakingTheMic/0,,10327,00.html

There hasn't been a response since the Barnsley game because of the holidays, but as I say in my blog ticket pricing is a subject which is under constant discussion.

[collier]

Elasticity is a red herring.

You can argue whether a product is fully elastic or not, what can't be argued is that lower prices means more people through the gate.

We're talking here about a "product" (and I ###### hate that term, we're a football club for christ's sake) that is repeatable.

If you tempt extra people through the door often enough they will become fans for YEARS.

We have an average of 4,000 opportunities to do that being passed up every week.

For it's long term health I believe the club's primary focus should be on filling seats, secondary on revenue per seats, not the other way around as it is right now.

Besides which, this club exists so that fans can watch football, not so that it can make money. It should be thought of as a not for profit style organisation, it's a business out of necessity only and it's primary goals are not economic and never should be.

speculate to accumalate comes to mind. Why don't people understand that this is a long term thing. Its not just this season but the next 10 after it and beyond. Once you alienate the fans by charging more than they can afford or are willing to pay you may lose them for life to other activities. In turn you then lose their children as future fans/customers. Losing a little in the short term is beneficial to the club if it generates more in the long term.

[rockin-robin]

Although this topic has been run into the ground, and I very much doubt that we'll ever reach a unanimous agreement, it is a poignant one, and one that we as supporters have a direct effect upon as regards the future of the club.

For what its worth, my opinion is that ticket prices are only one of the influential factors upon attendances. What I do believe is that BCFC is not as well supported as some would like to think. Bristol City never really has, and in fact, the last 20 years has seen a remarkable increase in attendances at AG considering our league status.

What Bristol in general has, as a football city, is a lot of "daytrippers" i.e. those who will go to Wembley, The Millenium, play-off's, and big games versus Premiership sides. But who will not regularly attend football matches unless all other entertainment options have been exhausted in their day to day lives. These people just do not have that much of an interest in Bristol football in order for them to give up a majority of Saturday afternoons. This goes for Rovers as well as City. Just look at how the Gas took 40,000 to Wembley but can now only get 6,000. The same applies to us to a similiar degree. How many of that 40,000 do you reckon went to see City at the Millenium a few years back as well? I can bet quite a large percentage did.

The problem is not that people can not afford it, it is that they just don't want to go. Bristol doesn't have much history in way of sporting success, and, without knocking some cities further north, there are bags of other things to do in Bristol and the surrounding area, rather than watching football every Saturday. Bristol also doesn't have the whole "working men" and "social club" background of the previous labour intensive, industrial cities, where men would work all week then go to the football on a Saturday to get away from their mundane lives. Work these days is far more pleasurable than it once was, and modern life generally allows a plethora of entertainment choices to choose from, although a lot of you will probably disagree with that.

The game against Barnsley was a great example of my argument. There were people there I had never seen before and would never imagine that they would ever go to football. They weren't your typical football supporter but a middle class family munching on popcorn but who wanted to do something a bit different on a saturday afternoon before xmas. Bet you I don't see them again though. Price would of course been a factor in their decision, but the point is, is that it wouldn't have really mattered if it was City, Rovers or Bristol rugby that they were watching.

Of course price does have a huge affect on peoples decision-making but it is not the only one. You could probably lower the ticket prices even more and the ground would still not sell out (unless of course it was a massive game when all the "daytrippers" would pitch up anyway). The general interest in BCFC is not always there. For these reasons, and at this present time, City have no option but to try and maximise revenue with the support that is already there, and will therefore guarantee them a steady revenue stream each week. If City were to get to the the promise land, price would no longer become a factor beacuse games would be sold out each week. Then, if City had a sustained period of success in the top flight, but were to eventually come down, they would retain a lot of the support from that era.

I know that it is a roundabout way of looking at things, but what you must understand is that BCFC does want to sell out each week, but the club must also continue to be finacially viable for it to suceed and to become successfull. Lets not be too critical of the club, at least they are trying to get more bums on seats.

[zookeeper]

Elasticity is a red herring.

You can argue whether a product is fully elastic or not, what can't be argued is that lower prices means more people through the gate.

We're talking here about a "product" (and I ###### hate that term, we're a football club for christ's sake) that is repeatable.

If you tempt extra people through the door often enough they will become fans for YEARS.

We have an average of 4,000 opportunities to do that being passed up every week.

For it's long term health I believe the club's primary focus should be on filling seats, secondary on revenue per seats, not the other way around as it is right now.

What I'm arguing though is that more people does not necessarily mean more money and that it why elasticity it's important. It's all good looking at attendances but the bottom line is £!

I think City have had seasons of tempting people in with offers and discounts and now need to generate cash. They needed to spend on players and have done so and we bore the costs. I think this is where we have differed before though so I won't expect you to suddenly have changed your view.

Besides which, this club exists so that fans can watch football, not so that it can make money. It should be thought of as a not for profit style organisation, it's a business out of necessity only and it's primary goals are not economic and never should be.

I think city pretty much is a not for profit organistaion. It certainly hasn't run a profit for a while but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't try to increase it's revenue. Not for profit organisitions do try and maximise their revenue. Reinvestment of it's revenue has been done this season with some shrewd signings and money does need to be put aside for the bigger plans!

[Nibor]

As you say - even your figures are an estimate and no more valid than anyone elses.

They are more valid because they're calculated correctly and state the assumptions made clearly.

I've said it before and I'll say it again; the ONLY facts are that with current prices we have sold more season tickets than we ever have before and are enjoying attendances higher than they have been for decades.

It was irrelevant before and it's irrelevant now.

We were always going to have higher attendances than we have had for decades, we're at a higher league position that we've had for decades in an era when football attendances are higher across the country than they have been for decades.

It proves absolutely nothing.

This is a question of judgement not one you can prove with statistics because you can never run both scenarios.

Where's the incentive to reduce prices? It's a rhectroical question because any answer has to make assumptions on figures to which we don't have access and can therefore be wildly wrong or coincidentally right.

The incentive is to have more fans helping us be more successful on the field in the longer term. Of COURSE there are assumptions, that's blindingly obvious, either side of the argument has to make them - the whole thing is about getting them right.

If the club was to make a decision on discounting tickets it would have to reflect for season ticket holders. The impact of the negative goodwill generated by offereing non season tickets holders a substantial discount for the rest of the season would be huge. To not think about it's impact would be wrong in my opinion.

No it wouldn't. We're talking about remaining games this season. If the club knocked a tenner a ticket off season tickets would still be cheaper over this season. The club can make significant reductions to matchday prices for the rest of this season and review them at the end should it choose to.

It's incorrect to consider attendance figures including season tickets when trying to workout the affect of changing match day prices.

I hope the club know how much the average ticket costs. At any rate a £5 discount off a £20 ticket equated to a 25% reduction. If this was applied to the actual price paid and the discount was 25% the increase in the number of people would still have to be by 25%. The actual price in effect is irrelevant.

I hope they do too. I hope they're better at maths as well. The actual price is not irrelevant at all if you want to calculate how many tickets need to be sold to break even which was the question.

Do you think you should read that again?

Revenue has to be it's primary consideration - it will go out of business otherwise.

Not for profit organisation?? When was the last time the club made a profit?

No revenue doesn't have to be it's primary consideration, and not making it so does not mean it will go out of business.

There are thousands of not for profit organisations in the UK that are very effective at achieving their goals, the whole point is that those goals are not to make a profit for shareholders.

Why should a football club be about making profit?

[Nibor]

What I'm arguing though is that more people does not necessarily mean more money and that it why elasticity it's important. It's all good looking at attendances but the bottom line is £!

More people does mean more money in the longer term, you have to think beyond one game. Elasticity doesn't measure that.

What if lowering prices now means we sell an extra 500 season tickets next season for example? It's far from out of the question.

I think City have had seasons of tempting people in with offers and discounts and now need to generate cash. They needed to spend on players and have done so and we bore the costs. I think this is where we have differed before though so I won't expect you to suddenly have changed your view.

I think they've had seasons of piss poor failure on the field that never gave us the opportunity to tempt people in like we have this season.

I think city pretty much is a not for profit organistaion. It certainly hasn't run a profit for a while but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't try to increase it's revenue. Not for profit organisitions do try and maximise their revenue. Reinvestment of it's revenue has been done this season with some shrewd signings and money does need to be put aside for the bigger plans!

Yes but what I'm arguing is a longer term view of increasing the fanbase to increase revenue to support success on the field, not a short term and quite risky cash grab which is what this seasons prices are.

[zookeeper]

More people does mean more money in the longer term, you have to think beyond one game. Elasticity doesn't measure that.

What if lowering prices now means we sell an extra 500 season tickets next season for example? It's far from out of the question.

I think they've had seasons of piss poor failure on the field that never gave us the opportunity to tempt people in like we have this season.

Yes but what I'm arguing is a longer term view of increasing the fanbase to increase revenue to support success on the field, not a short term and quite risky cash grab which is what this seasons prices are.

Yes we do need to invest in future fans but why does more people mean more money in the long run? If 500 people convert to season tickets we will still need to attract 500 more to be pay on the day customers to actually increase the number of people. At the moment the only way to do that seems to be to reduce the price which then reduces the revenue.

I appreciate that the club needs to plan effectively for the future and agree that a short term buck shouldn't be the ultimate gain but I feel that at some point the club has to try to break even and with the investment in the playing staff and my belief and from Dave L's report the clubs stats show that a reduction in ticket price won't achieve that.

[cheese]

They are more valid because they're calculated correctly and state the assumptions made clearly.

But are still a guess and no more valid than anyone else's guess. If I tell you that reducing ticket prices by £10 a head won't affect attendances because my assumption is that price doesn't affect people's decisions. As I've made my assumptions clear does that make it more valid? I think not.

We were always going to have higher attendances than we have had for decades, we're at a higher league position that we've had for decades in an era when football attendances are higher across the country than they have been for decades.

It proves absolutely nothing.

Conveniently avoiding the season ticket sales as it doesn't help your argument?

No revenue doesn't have to be it's primary consideration, and not making it so does not mean it will go out of business.

There are thousands of not for profit organisations in the UK that are very effective at achieving their goals, the whole point is that those goals are not to make a profit for shareholders.

Why should a football club be about making profit?

Gosh - is this a new business model? The football club has to cover it's costs otherwise it will go out of business - that's a fact - how else will it pay it's debts? One day SL will leave - he will want his loans repaid - that can only come from revenue or someone else investing on the basis of future revenue. As an individual I can use credit cards or loans to increase my spending above my revenue - but at some point, my revenue has to increase to be able to repay them. It ain't no different for any individual or organisation - profit making or not.

[zookeeper]

No revenue doesn't have to be it's primary consideration, and not making it so does not mean it will go out of business.

There are thousands of not for profit organisations in the UK that are very effective at achieving their goals, the whole point is that those goals are not to make a profit for shareholders.

Why should a football club be about making profit?

"Not for profit" doesn't mean that it doesn't focus on revenue. I'm struggling to think of many organisations that don't have a focus on revenue.

Look at the number of calls from charities to donate £2 a month, look at the focus on the NHS, look at places like @ Bristol.

[Nibor]

Yes we do need to invest in future fans but why does more people mean more money in the long run? If 500 people convert to season tickets we will still need to attract 500 more to be pay on the day customers.

I appreciate that the club needs to plan effectively for the future and agree that a short term buck shouldn't be the ultimate gain but I feel that at some point the club has to try to break even and with the investment in the playing staff and my belief and from Dave L's report the clubs stats show that a reduction in ticket price won't achieve that.

Well, first of all let's deal with elasticity.

Consider what the attendance for the Barnsley game would have been at normal prices...

You thought 14k, I thought 12k. We had 14k the previous week for Cardiff who are a far more attractive game and it was closer to Xmas so call it 13k.

We halved prices for matchday tickets and told 6k which on that one game would make it perfectly elastic would it not?

Surely that result on it's own merits more experiment?

Secondly, I don't think that's what it's all about anyway.

You can't run a business by purely looking at numbers, you have to understand the motivations of customers - in this case fans.

You don't wake up one day and decide to be a die hard City fan. It's a gradual process for most people. You go to the odd game, you enjoy it, go more often, eventually get a season ticket, and then you get to the point where you'd still be a fan at the bottom of the league.

The people at the end of that little journey, who will attend until they die, are what the club needs more of. They are what success on the field is actually built on because the more of those there are the more money the club can budget for the first XI. It's the kind of core support you can rely on, it's why Man City and Leeds get 30k crowds in the third division and don't stay there very long.

I think it's obvious that the more accessible you make the games, particularly when you're being successful, the better core support you will build. We have plans for a 30-40k all seater stadium, we should IMO be trying to build up to that. We should be taking advantage of our success on the field to increase our core support.

This is the difference between strategy and tactics.

But are still a guess and no more valid than anyone else's guess. If I tell you that reducing ticket prices by £10 a head won't affect attendances because my assumption is that price doesn't affect people's decisions. As I've made my assumptions clear does that make it more valid? I think not.

As long as it's calculated correctly it's more valid than something that isn't. As I said this is a judgement call not provable in either case.

Conveniently avoiding the season ticket sales as it doesn't help your argument?

Ignoring them how? Whoop de doo we sold more season tickets for our first season back in the second division in 9 years when football attendances nationally are up 30% in the same time. Big surprise that, proves sod all.

Gosh - is this a new business model? The football club has to cover it's costs otherwise it will go out of business - that's a fact - how else will it pay it's debts? One day SL will leave - he will want his loans repaid - that can only come from revenue or someone else investing on the basis of future revenue. As an individual I can use credit cards or loans to increase my spending above my revenue - but at some point, my revenue has to increase to be able to repay them. It ain't no different for any individual or organisation - profit making or not.

Why are you making the assumption that higher prices means more revenue?

Surely it's equally possible that lower prices could mean more revenue?

So I would suggest that because the football club's primary focus should be success on the field it should have been trying the latter first not the former.

I'd also suggest you have a read of the accounts if you want to understand how SteveL's loans will be repaid.

"Not for profit" doesn't mean that it doesn't focus on revenue. I'm struggling to think of many organisations that don't have a focus on revenue.

Look at the number of calls from charities to donate £2 a month, look at the focus on the NHS, look at places like @ Bristol.

Look, this is fairly straightforward.

A not for profit organisation does not aim to make PROFIT.

It's primary focus should not be on revenue, it should only be concerned about revenue insofar as it supports success on the pitch.

Given two ways to make the same revenue - low prices and more fans or high prices and less fans - the club should be picking the former because that is more conducive to success on the field and long term growth.

Now you can never prove that this is the case, the other scenario will always be a what if. But a football club, because it's primary goals should be about football not profit, should be starting from the point that gets more people through the door and working towards the other if it goes wrong, not the way we're doing it.

[Bristol Boy]

The problem is not that people can not afford it, it is that they just don't want to go.

So why did they all want to go against Barnsley? On the worst Saturday of the season against unattractive opposition, our biggest crowd of the season turns up and includes 300 away fans!

Bristol doesn't have much history in way of sporting success, and, without knocking some cities further north, there are bags of other things to do in Bristol and the surrounding area, rather than watching football every Saturday. Bristol also doesn't have the whole "working men" and "social club" background of the previous labour intensive, industrial cities, where men would work all week then go to the football on a Saturday to get away from their mundane lives. Work these days is far more pleasurable than it once was, and modern life generally allows a plethora of entertainment choices to choose from, although a lot of you will probably disagree with that.

You are correct about modern choices but when we drew 2-2 against Liverpool I was in AG with 38,700 others.

The game against Barnsley was a great example of my argument. There were people there I had never seen before and would never imagine that they would ever go to football. They weren't your typical football supporter but a middle class family munching on popcorn but who wanted to do something a bit different on a saturday afternoon before xmas. Bet you I don't see them again though. Price would of course been a factor in their decision, but the point is, is that it wouldn't have really mattered if it was City, Rovers or Bristol rugby that they were watching.

I've no doubt that applied to a few, very few in % terms however you only have to look at the 800 STs that walked away when we were promoted and the stuff that's been posted on here to undermine that argument.

Of course price does have a huge affect on peoples decision-making but it is not the only one. You could probably lower the ticket prices even more and the ground would still not sell out (unless of course it was a massive game when all the "daytrippers" would pitch up anyway).

The first thing you do is to give the away support the number of tickets they can sell.In Barnsley's case about 300, then give early notice to those who want to sit in the EE that it will be open, POD & Cheap.Then, when you've moved Barnsley to the bit our ST's normally have to put up with, you sell all the EE tickets.City had about 200 tickets left to sell to City fans once the away allocation and ridculous segregatiion were accounted for.

The general interest in BCFC is not always there. For these reasons, and at this present time, City have no option but to try and maximise revenue with the support that is already there, and will therefore guarantee them a steady revenue stream each week. If City were to get to the the promise land, price would no longer become a factor beacuse games would be sold out each week. Then, if City had a sustained period of success in the top flight, but were to eventually come down, they would retain a lot of the support from that era.

We have to get there first and it makes no sense to have 4,000 empty seats a week.

I know that it is a roundabout way of looking at things, but what you must understand is that BCFC does want to sell out each week, but the club must also continue to be finacially viable for it to suceed and to become successfull. Lets not be too critical of the club, at least they are trying to get more bums on seats.

They are trying harder, slightly harder and, having just proved a point, they appear to be in denial

[scumbag]

POWER-PHRASING AT IT'S FINEST!

800 SEASON TICKET HOLDERS DID NOT WALK AWAY.......YOU HAVE PICKED UP HALF AN DISCUSSION AND TAKEN IT TOTALLY OUT OF CONTEXT!

still, why let facts get in the way of your agenda's.

now where's my smiley face for "toys out of pram"

[cheese]

You can't run a business by purely looking at numbers, you have to understand the motivations of customers - in this case fans.

Yes indeed, and many will come whatever the price

You don't wake up one day and decide to be a die hard City fan. It's a gradual process for most people. You go to the odd game, you enjoy it, go more often, eventually get a season ticket, and then you get to the point where you'd still be a fan at the bottom of the league.

Nope, being a BCFC fan is a birthright not a choice. I can't remember my first City game - my first ever professional football game was at the Gas - but I still support City. We become fans for as many diverse reasons as there are fans - I don't think you can generalise.

The people at the end of that little journey, who will attend until they die, are what the club needs more of. They are what success on the field is actually built on because the more of those there are the more money the club can budget for the first XI. It's the kind of core support you can rely on, it's why Man City and Leeds get 30k crowds in the third division and don't stay there very long.

Nothing to do with having played at a higher level for longer than us then?

Ignoring them how? Whoop de doo we sold more season tickets for our first season back in the second division in 9 years when football attendances nationally are up 30% in the same time. Big surprise that, proves sod all.

Why are you making the assumption that higher prices means more revenue?

Surely it's equally possible that lower prices could mean more revenue?

So I would suggest that because the football club's primary focus should be success on the field it should have been trying the latter first not the former.

I'd also suggest you have a read of the accounts if you want to understand how SteveL's loans will be repaid.

Sigh - maximising revenue does not necessariy mean maximising profit. And anyway, I don't see why BCFC should be any different to any other business who's primiary aim is a return to shareholders by making a profit.

But, let's set that aside, BCFC are not a profit making venture - they haven't been for many years - they need to increase their revenues to the point where they, at the very least, start to break even - stop whittering on about profit it's irrelevant to this discussion.

Season ticket sales are higher than they have ever been - not just the last nine years, and the fact that you choose to ignore that fact because it doesn't "fit" does not make the fact go away.

We won't agree, but I remain to be convinced that reducing ticket prices will be beneficial to the club in breaking even.

[Bristol Boy]

POWER-PHRASING AT IT'S FINEST!

800 SEASON TICKET HOLDERS DID NOT WALK AWAY.......YOU HAVE PICKED UP HALF AN DISCUSSION AND TAKEN IT TOTALLY OUT OF CONTEXT!

still, why let facts get in the way of your agenda's.

now where's my smiley face for "toys out of pram"

Care to enlighten me?

In reply to the FCF, CS said 800 ST's did not renew.Some people then said that figure included people who had transferred-Notice, some people, not the club and it's very simple.All the club has to do is say of the 800 quoted 250 transferred, so it's actually 550-Simple, but they haven't and only the club have the figures.That would still be dire news in a promotion season.

You still miss the point though-In a season when a club like Blackpool more than doubles it's ST's our goes up by 30% and it takes us until Xmas when we're at the top of the league to do it.At the same time, our POD collapses in % terms even though about 4/5 times more away fans turn up.

Explain that.