Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2014 21:36:18 GMT
'Reading the statement from their owners, the subtext for Saints fans is worrying. They are saying their club cannot stay solvent at this level of football without benefactors pumping a ton of cash in "Effectively the Club can only continue at its current level with the support of the Owners, John McGowan and Lawrence Levy, who have put undreamed of amounts of money into the Club over the last three years."
By putting their prices up so high, their appetite for investment looks like it's drying up. If the public vote with their feet and don't turn up, with players on big contracts, what happens next?'
This would be true if it weren't for the fact that the statement says the owners have agreed a considerable increase to the playing budget for next season, which in my opinion is unnecessary (not that I don't want it!)
|
|
|
Post by Saint on May 27, 2014 21:47:35 GMT
'Reading the statement from their owners, the subtext for Saints fans is worrying. They are saying their club cannot stay solvent at this level of football without benefactors pumping a ton of cash in "Effectively the Club can only continue at its current level with the support of the Owners, John McGowan and Lawrence Levy, who have put undreamed of amounts of money into the Club over the last three years." By putting their prices up so high, their appetite for investment looks like it's drying up. If the public vote with their feet and don't turn up, with players on big contracts, what happens next?' This would be true if it weren't for the fact that the statement says the owners have agreed a considerable increase to the playing budget for next season, which in my opinion is unnecessary (not that I don't want it!) That is a good point.
|
|
|
Post by Boomer on May 27, 2014 22:02:04 GMT
I'll give you another scenario. With an increased budget and (what the the owners perceive are going to be) increased gate receipts, what the hell will happen if we go and win the league/play offs next season and get promoted to the Conference National. Personally, I would have been more than happy to stabilise with a mid table finish next season but I think a lot of other supporters will now be looking for a lot more than that, after hearing today's news.
|
|
|
Post by tangerineman on May 27, 2014 22:16:49 GMT
Flabbergasted by that!!!
Expected a rise to £13 but no more than that.
I understand the Saints supporters organise a meet at the Station system for away games to take advantage of discounted rail tickets.
Any mileage in a similar plan for single pin supporters to tag along with a parent/grandparent & their 2 children to get in for the family ticket price. By my hurried calculations you would save £11 per match between you???
Please correct me if I've made a glaring error here.
|
|
|
Post by asaintreborn on May 27, 2014 22:20:45 GMT
After getting over the initial shock of the announcement here is my take on the increase in admission prices. People are probably thinking isn't it the owners responsibility to make sure this club is financially stable. Perhaps it is, but it isn't half a selfish way to look at it. Yes Levy and Lawrence have a bit of money and actually I think there quite in their right to state how much money the have placed into this club, I think certain people are quite obnoxious when it comes how much it is costing the owners to run this football club each year. They're not a charity, so expecting them to subsidies the admission fees, so we can have admission prices like Hemel is absolutely ridiculous. Most owners would have bolted by now with the amounts they have to put in and with no external revenue generated whatsoever, who would blame them. I applaud them for sticking with us so far. The reason why Hemel are able to fix their tickets prices at £10 is because and I have this on good authority, their external facilities are generating 200k. That is the game changer right there! The slam dunk! I am actually sick and tired of stressing this point about Clarence Park. It is not a viable option anymore, unless the trust decide to let CP expand. Yes it might turn out to be a soulless ground, but I don't believe it will. We don't even know what the location is yet, it's just all speculation. However, even if we lost fans moving to a new stadium and I'm not a 100% sure we would, the external revenues would make up for it and more. I'd rather have a local football team that is going to be there for the future generations to support. Than a Local football team that could fold at any minute. We could be blown over by a summers breeze atm if those two pulled the plug.
The council is our biggest enemy at this point in time, they couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery. Unfortunately, until the council pull there head out from the sand (that was being polite) and we can have a stadium that generates extra profit from of the field activities each year. We as fans are going to have to pay the price because in order to sustain the players budget their is no magic trick I know of to produce that money. The only way I believe we can get the attention of the council is to keep climbing the league, because we will not get big enough crowds at this level for them to take note. In order to climb the leagues, the player budget will have to be increased, which means the admission prices will keep rising.
The difference in money we will be paid for being in the Skrill south in comparison to the Calor league will be peanuts btw, so we can rule out that as extra income. Also to make this clear although this is post is written from a owners perspective, because I like to look at both sides of the coin I still believe a £3 increase is steep but I completely understand the reasons for it. No new stadium = no external revenue= increase in admission. If we don't increase admission= club financially unstable= John Gibson round two= Club into liquidation I fear= Last one out turn the lights out. Let me be clear that is a very real future for us. To freeze admission prices= external revenue. I wish the club could some how attract external revenues, because it basically just shat on all the good work from last season. The reaching out to communities has gone down the pan. If someone has and idea share it because I'm out.
|
|
|
Post by tangerineman on May 27, 2014 22:24:09 GMT
Also the season ticket price is attractive if you are able to attend every home game but you only need to miss 5 matches to be paying over £15 per game.
I for one will continue to follow the Saints at away games & look forward to visiting some new grounds this season but on principle I think £15 is too much for football at this level.
Big big shame & another non-league club in my area will get my money on alternate Saturday's.
|
|
|
Post by albansaint on May 27, 2014 22:50:21 GMT
I shall want to see some big name signings if I am to accept that the increased budget justifies such a huge increase. If early season form is poor then many folk will look for alternative entertainment. £15 is 50% more than Hemel or Maidenhead to mention just two clubs.
It will be embarrassing to tell people what our admission prices are. Away supporters will surely think twice before coming to CP.
i shall put up with paying £15 next season but when I retire in the close season (aged under 65) it is doubtful that i will be willing to continue paying such an inflated sum - regardless of the league we are in.
A PR disaster in my humble opinion.
|
|
|
Post by moriarty on May 27, 2014 23:00:49 GMT
It's going to feel like a dent to the wallet, but I was happy paying £12 last season after feeling the same from the first hike. Asaintreborn makes some great points, we are subsidising the lack of business opportunities that are available to the clubs around us. I really hope that the fans momentum isn't knocked too much because it's been a joy. With a considerably increased transfer budget, I'll be happy to pay £15 if we challenge promotion and I think most people will too. It's a calculated risk which could see small crowds and a mid table team, but I remain positive and hope it stems more from ambition than misjudgement. COYS!
|
|
|
Post by notsorecentconvert on May 28, 2014 7:24:27 GMT
Asaintreborn, that was certainly a passionate defence of the owners but the lack of commercial opportunities at the current ground is not the fault of the fans. As I said before, owning a football club - large or small - is a pretty thankless task, so they must have their reasons for doing so and they must have gone into it with their eyes open. I don't know enough about them - perhaps they are lifelong fans of the club, perhaps they feel it promotes their own standing in the city or community, perhaps it promotes their own businesses, perhaps they have their eyes on relocation and a large slice of cash for the associated housing and retail developments. I don't know enough about them to say. Perhaps others can give a bit of info?
But what I do know from my very brief time as a (fairly committed) Saints fan is that the messages coming from the club, either through the programme notes by the chairman or the local media have had two strands: growing the club's position in the community, reaching out to more fans, and improving the status of the team on the pitch.
Part two of that has been achieved. Part one is in jeopardy if St Albans are to be the most expensive team to watch in the division.
All clubs of this size face funding issues. Many teams may have the benefit of their own ground and facilities to generate cash from but then again St Albans have other benefits. A modest rent (so I gather) being one. What is required is more creative work than sticking three quid on the admission price.
Anyway, the decision has been taken now. It will either work out as the club hopes, or it won't.
If Saints average 650 at the new price, it will have been a roaring success. But I went to quite a few games in November, December and January where the gates were 280, 303, 313, that sort of gate. Looking at attendances from the previous spells in Conference South it might be optimistic to expect 500 to 600 if the team is firmly in the play-off hunt. But what effect will the new prices have?
Another unintended consequence is the pressure this puts on the management and team to get off to a good start. If the team is in the bottom third in mid-October I think we could all cope and hope for consolidation as the season goes on. But the price increase raises expectations, whether that's the intention or not.
|
|
yellowalf
Saints Reserve Team Player
Posts: 301
|
Post by yellowalf on May 28, 2014 7:46:36 GMT
I don't think it's particularly acceptable to be so opaque when explaining the reasons for increasing the prices. To make bold statements such as "John McGowan and Lawrence Levy, who have put undreamed of amounts of money into the club..." and "we can tell you that we have agreed a considerable increase to the playing budget for next season..." needs greater explanation. Perhaps others are better informed than I but does the club, or the company that owns it, publish any kind of financial report each year? Do we have any idea of the running costs and income? Like all companies, St Albans City does publish its annual accounts and they are available from the Companies House website: wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk//wcframe?name=accessCompanyInfo at a cost of £1 per report. Although I have 'O' Level Accounts ('O' Levels - remember them?! ) and can theoretically read a Balance Sheet and a Profit & Loss Account, I do find it quite difficult to analyse the abbreviated accounts that football clubs tend to publish as they don't give the level of information that my limited accounting knowledge requires. What I can say is that from the latest accounts that cover the period up to 30 June 2013 (published on 24 March 2014), the Profit & Loss account is showing a running loss of £941k compared to £833k for year end 2012. That means that the club lost £110k in the year 2012/13 (£941k minus £833k). That running loss of £930k is offset by £630k of share-holding so the running deficit is £311k. I would presume that this is the amount that Lawrence Levy and John McGowan are effectively underwriting, and therefore they will have had to stick £110k into the club to cover this imbalance. The level of creditors "falling due after more than one year" is a smidgen under the running loss figure (its actually £2,094 less so I'm going to call the current loss £310k to make the maths easier) so I presume that the loss is underwritten by loans from the two owners. As far as the shareholding is concerned, St Albans City FC has 630,00 of issued £1 shares: 20 shares split between three people and 629,980 that belong to Hertfordshire Sports Holdings Ltd. Hertfordshire Sports Holdings is a company with two directors, unsurprisingly they are Lawrence Levy and John McGowan who each hold 112,500 £1 shares in that company. The implication (and any accountants should feel free to contradict me here) is that Levy and McGowan have spent a combined £855k on owning St Albans City (£690k in the club and a further £225k in Herts Sports Holdings) PLUS whatever season-by-season losses they have had to cover (currently £310k). I haven't gone back very far in the history and maybe Hertfordshire Sports Holdings bought the 630k of shares from John Gibson for a tenner, so it could be that the club has actually cost them £250k holding company shares plus the £310k loans (for a running cost of £560k) plus whatever the St Albans City shares cost them. Even then, half a million's not to be sniffed at! The thing that I always think it the most pertinent thing to remember when talking about football club ownership is the actual resale value of a football club's shareholding. When the two main men decide they've had enough and want to sell St Albans City FC, they're going to be very lucky to find anyone willing to pay £855k for their combined shareholding. Unless there are two or three interested parties willing to fight for the right to own it, why would anyone pay even as much as £50k for the shares given the current £310k liability attached to that shareholding? Without the City of St Albans Stadium and any money-making ventures connected with that (eg the proposed house-building), Levy and McGowan are sitting on a fairly large loss. What this also suggests it that the FA Cup money that came into the club on the back of the cup run and Mansfield attendance will only really go to absorb some of the running costs and isn't available to be put aside to offset increased costs for this coming season. That doesn't really answer your question, recentconvert, but I hope it gives a better idea of the level of investment that Levy and McGowan have made; notwithstanding any glaring errors in my investigative methods. Sherlock Holmes I certainly ain't!
|
|
|
Post by moordownbh9 on May 28, 2014 8:17:59 GMT
It's too much of a jump in price. I'm going to have to justify the expense and pick and choose games. A season ticket isn't an option as I won't be able to get to 8 or 9 games anyway.
If other people have to pick and choose it will be self defeating. I don't think this is a good move....lub is priving itself out of picking up floating support.
Think of a conversation like this:
Shall we go and see St Albans today - our big club is away, they've gone up and play good football so I've heard. Could be fun. £15? £15? FIFTEEN QUID to watch Conference South football.....not even Conference football? Can stick that then!
|
|
|
Post by notsorecentconvert on May 28, 2014 8:19:16 GMT
Very interesting. Thank you, Yellowalf.
|
|
yellowalf
Saints Reserve Team Player
Posts: 301
|
Post by yellowalf on May 28, 2014 8:38:09 GMT
A stunner, as a fan of a nearby League club who was attracted to Clarence Park last season and became a regular after Christmas, I can say that £15 will put me off attending as often. Had it remained at £12 (or even increased to £13) I could see myself spending more Saturdays and midweek evenings at Clarence Park than at my league club but I'm afraid £15 will deter me. It's not the money, it's the value. This is an increase of 25%. The club can't put the prices up by a quarter, even in a relatively affluent city, and not experience a serious cooling of interest. Looking at the typical attendances on the official site for the last spells in Conference South the crowds weren't that big anyway - 500 or 600 looked like a decent gate, with the odd one in the 700-800 range but several in the 300-400 range too. If the team does well, the crowds may hold up reasonably well in the short-term, but if they are mid-table or lower this could turn out to be a pretty disastrous decision. Also, and less easy to quantify, is the effect this has on fans and their matchday experience. Clarence Park is a happy place when the team is playing well and winning but some fans can turn on the team a bit if things are not going well. It strikes me the club, and the team, need the fans on side and a 25% price hike is a brilliant way of making people feel mildly resentful before they've even set foot in the ground. recentconvert - I'm not picking up on your posts intentionally, its just that you make great points that I can discuss! I was thinking about value the other day and it did strike me that value for money is one thing that we can never rely on getting from football. It cost £10 to watch the Play-off final and as far as I'm concerned the 3-1 play-off win was worth about ten times as much as it cost me to get in yet had we conceded a second goal soon after the first and been beaten 3-0 then it would have been a complete waste of money (including petrol). Value for money is solely dependant on the result at the end of the 90 minutes and unless you are a Man United City or Chelsea supporter then any football fan is very likely to have more bad days than good. It is, after all, not the despair that we can't stand, its the hope! As an exile from over 100 miles away having supported a Football League club for 30+ years, I've been very impressed by the football being played at Clarence Park this season. I watched my first St Albans City match on 10 March 2007 (2-2 home to Southport in the Conference National) and that was the only game I saw that season. I may have seen one or even two games each of the next few of seasons or maybe not - I can't remember. I know I watched Saints play about ten times last season and also ten times this season although I'm even now wondering why it was that the Mansfield FA Cup match was my first game of this season. What did stand out for me was that the football was more enjoyable than I could remember it having been in seasons past. Going up a level doesn't guarantee better football - I have personally seen worse football at National Conference, League Two and League One level this season than I've seen at Clarence Park. The only things I can think of that are guaranteed as you go up the levels are larger crowds, better referees and higher wages for the players, and I'm not even sure I believe that second one myself. There are a number of ways you can look at any price increase. As someone once said, 100% of nothing is nothing. We can talk of the 25% increase or we can talk about £3 per fortnight (roughly speaking). We can say that a season ticket costs less than £5 per week which, of course, doesn't take into consideration that if you put £1 into a piggy bank every weekday from today you won't have enough to buy a season ticket for this coming season. But lets take another look at the three pound increase. From August 1st to April 30th is (hold on a moment.....) about 38 weeks. So during the season we have a home league game every 11 days. Therefore, why not look at the increased cost of admission as being 28p per day for the duration of the football season? Is there anyone of us who seriously cannot afford £3 every 11 days? Maybe there is but I would hazard a guess that all of us spend that amount of money a fortnight on things we could easily do without. For me, Costa Coffee will be selling one medium Americano fewer (or maybe one blueberry muffin fewer) per fortnight going forward. Maybe my local will sell one pint less than it would have done before (or maybe Mrs Yellowalf will have to start drinking medium glasses of wine instead of large ones - yes, that's the best sacrifice for me to make); and the cost of one pint will give me nearly enough for the increase plus a golden goal ticket! Have you seen the price of a packet of crisps in the pub these days? £1 per packet! For crisps!!!. But I still buy 'em. Maybe I'll spend less on my lunch or make my own a few days a week. Maybe I'll drive slightly slower and save money on petrol. Maybe I'll start buying second-hand books from charity shops rather than brand-new ones online. We'll all have something that we buy that, if we insisted on making St Albans City FC a priority for our disposable income, we would be happy to make a £3 saving on. The problem is that, immediately after this announcement, we're not making St Albans City FC a priority for our cash; instead we're trying to think of reasons why we won't go to games as often. But I enjoy going to watch St Albans City FC - why would I want to go less often? A 25% increase is a crazily high price rise but £15 for spending a couple of hours in the fresh air (or torrential rain) watching a football team I have an emotional bond to is cheap to me. They are essentially the same things but, from a different angle, one appears much more preferable than the other.
|
|
yellowalf
Saints Reserve Team Player
Posts: 301
|
Post by yellowalf on May 28, 2014 8:46:14 GMT
Instead of considering any increases, St Albans should take a leaf out of Wealdstone's book. They offer reduced entry (£5) to season ticket holders from any Premier League or Football League club. If we were to do that, we might get some of those St Albans/Harpenden-based Spurs, Arsenal, Chelsea, West Ham, Watford, Luton, QPR fans to come along. Call me self-centred but why should glory-hunting Premier League fans get preferential pricing? It's their fault that grass-roots football is in such a mess anyway*. Charge them all double for the privilege of standing and being able to more around the ground when they feel like it. * I know its not really their fault but I feel like blaming somebody for it and Richard Scudamore/Premier League players/the players' agents clearly don't care so who is there left to blame? Some arguments leave no room for logic!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2014 8:47:39 GMT
Which games were you impressed with this season, Yellowalf?
The price of spending a couple of hours in the fresh air or torrential rain watching a football team we have an emotional bond to has gone up 50% in 18 months. Maybe we should all go and watch the reserves this season instead?!
As gertcha has said, if your local put the price of a pint up to £4.50, and the pub down the road was selling 'em for £3, you'd go down the road. No matter how much of an emotional bond you had with your local!
I wonder if people will stop buying raffle tickets as well. I'm fairly sure someone stops in at Morrisons on their way to the ground for a tin of biscuits, and box of celebrations, and a bottle of whiskey for the top 3 prizes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2014 8:49:28 GMT
Call me self-centred but why should glory-hunting Premier League fans get preferential pricing? It's their fault that grass-roots football is in such a mess anyway*. Charge them all double for the privilege of standing and being able to more around the ground when they feel like it. That's not going to get season-ticket holders at league clubs coming along for a 'taster' whenever their club isn't at home, is it? Neither's £15, for that matter.
|
|
yellowalf
Saints Reserve Team Player
Posts: 301
|
Post by yellowalf on May 28, 2014 9:12:21 GMT
Would MrMcGowan. charge £4.50 for a pint of beer in his pubs when his nearest competitor was charging £3 ? Pubs already do that, don't they? You can often get a pint in Wetherspoon's for £1.50, usually £1.99. Despite that I choose to drink in The Mermaid or the Bricklayers Arms before a game where I'll pay more than £3.00 for a pint. As a nation, the majority of us don't buy alcohol in pubs by price. We do in the supermarket but not in the pub. We buy by brand and while that is directly influenced by taste, the number of beer brands that taste different to how they did four or five years ago suggests that taste isn't as consistent as we would like it to be. We don't stride up to the bar and ask what lager is the cheapest. We don't ask the price of two pints of bitter, a glass of Pinot Grigio and a half of cider then tell our friends that we're going down the road because its too expensive in here. If we like the pub and the atmosphere we place our order and hand over a £10/£20 note, depending on the size of the order, and hope there will be some change. Pubs benefit from the fact that the experience they offer (drink, surroundings, comfort, atmosphere, company, etc) is price-inelastic which is how the expensive ones go from strength to strength and the rubbish ones close down irrespective of the price of their drinks. St Albans City FC isn't the same as one of the many pubs in the city. If it were we would all hot-foot it to Hemel next season. Will any of us be doing that? I certainly won't. The comparison is more likely that of the one pub within 15 miles that sells your favourite beer or lager, the one that tastes like an angel crying on your tongue (to borrow that Fosters marketing line). When you walk in one evening to find your mate at the bar ashen-faced and you ask what the problem is and he replies that the price of a pint of Crudgington 6X has gone up 25% from £3.00 to £3.75, do you walk out and go next door for a pint of John Smith's? Actually, at that price maybe you would. But after a couple of pints of John Smiths I'd be back, taking a deep breath and paying the new price. I'm old enough to remember saying in all seriousness that when beer cost more than £2 a pint I was giving up drinking it. I think my local charges £3.70 a pint, to be honest I'm not sure because the price is not part of the decision-making process; it's simply the method to get the landlord to hand over the full glass.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2014 9:27:14 GMT
The price of a pint didn't go from £3 to £4.50 in 18 months in one pub but not others.
|
|
yellowalf
Saints Reserve Team Player
Posts: 301
|
Post by yellowalf on May 28, 2014 10:14:13 GMT
Which games were you impressed with this season, Yellowalf? The price of spending a couple of hours in the fresh air or torrential rain watching a football team we have an emotional bond to has gone up 50% in 18 months. Maybe we should all go and watch the reserves this season instead?! As gertcha has said, if your local put the price of a pint up to £4.50, and the pub down the road was selling 'em for £3, you'd go down the road. No matter how much of an emotional bond you had with your local! I wonder if people will stop buying raffle tickets as well. I'm fairly sure someone stops in at Morrisons on their way to the ground for a tin of biscuits, and box of celebrations, and a bottle of whiskey for the top 3 prizes. Not so much the games themselves (Poole at home was poor, wasn't it!) as the style. It just seemed to be played along the ground more than other seasons, admittedly the quality got worse as the play-offs got closer. But even at Chesham, once we got ourselves sorted out we were playing some excellent football. That third play-off final goal was worth £15 on its own! As I've written elsewhere I don't think you can compare a percentage price increase against other products. Some people will understandably do exactly that and some people will decide that they won't go to as many (if any) games because of that. I believe that watching football is price-inelastic to a certain extent and each fan has to find that point where it ceases to become an enjoyable way to spend their money. There's an argument to be made that £10 was a cheap price to pay to watch football so 50% shouldn't be seen so much as an increase and more as a reversion to a realistic level. I don't agree with that before anyone jumps to the wrong conclusions. I initially wrote that I thought £12 was a fair price and that increased income should be sourced from other areas of the match-day experience. There will be some fans (I don't know how many but every club has them) who would still go to every home game if the price was £20 never mind £15 and while I suspect they don't number very many they will nevertheless exist. I wonder how much the club is aiming at the floating fan for whom £15 isn't comparable to the cost 18 months ago but instead is a reasonable amount to pay to watch a football match. As much as you can get seats at the Emirates for £26 for Category C matches, the usual price is significantly more than that. I know an Arsenal regular who went to Kenilworth Road last season and said of the (I think) £18 admission: "Is that all it costs, are Luton really that bad?". As people are being priced out of Premier League football their price-expectations are naturally higher because of the cost of watching Premier League football. There are an increasing number of football fans who prefer the casual experience that watching lower- and non-league football can give them. For them, £15 may not be that much of a surprise. It's not just the Premier League that costs a lot to watch. Turn up at Victoria Park, Hartlepool on the day of a game and if you're an away fan you will need to part with £25 to get in to watch a League Two game. That's not necessarily typical: while Northampton was £20, Accrington and Bury both cost £15 for away fans. I honestly don't think the Football League is something Saints should be aspiring to. While clubs currently get £850k of FL grants (including £300k youth funding, so it doesn't all get to be spent on the first team), the losses incurred by the clubs relegated to National Conference suggest that the cost of surviving at the Football League level is more than the funding received. But that being said, the prices have been set and, for what its worth to the general discussion, I think I'll be buying a ticket this season, price increase and all. It's not that £252 falls out of my wallet un-noticed, its that £252 is a lot less money to spend than the cost of making 300-mile round trips on England's motorways of a Saturday following my child-hood team; with which I've become disillusioned. Watching St Albans City is a great way to spend a Saturday afternoon and now I've finally been bitten by the bug I'd hate the club to go the way of, say, Kettering Town; to pluck one of many potential examples.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2014 10:50:19 GMT
for those who choose not to buy a season ticket on the grounds of not being able to attend every game. maybe take a leaf out of EPL ticket holders and lend it out for those games?
i know of spurs/watford fans who do this... or create an ethical StubHubb on twitter, awash with people lending tickets
as for value for money (its never like for like, who cares how much beer is)
woolwich was/is 65£ , real madrid was over £100. lost both games but i know where the value for money was. (it wasn't woolwich)
|
|
|
Post by notsorecentconvert on May 28, 2014 11:26:27 GMT
I think the argument about what committed fans are prepared to pay is a bit of a red herring.
The fact of the matter is that this season 348 people watched the first Saturday home league game of the season, against Banbury.
677 saw the home league game versus Hemel on a Monday night. 280 watched the home game against Bashley. 730 watched the Boxing Day clash against Chesham, on a day when crowds are traditionally large but 363 watched the game against Froome, when virtually every other game in England was postponed.
It's great to focus on the bumper crowds against St Neots, Arlesey, Weymouth and so on but what was the impact of free or heavily discounted tickets for children and families? Look at the Poole game - 581 against a team that was at the time pushing hard for the play-offs. Would more have come if it was £10? Would fewer have come if it was £15?
I had a look at the crowds from the previous spells in Conference South - plenty of 300s, 400s, not that many in the 600 or 700s. I'd suggest that most people do not see the difference between Bishop's Stortford and Basingstoke and the Banbury and Burnham.
As others have said, the decision has been made so we can just wait and see what happens. Perhaps 800 will turn up for the first home game of the season. But if the crowds are 280 to 350 for ordinary league games then the good work the club did attracting more people earlier this calendar year will have been squandered.
|
|
|
Post by Boomer on May 28, 2014 12:06:09 GMT
I think the argument about what committed fans are prepared to pay is a bit of a red herring. The fact of the matter is that this season 348 people watched the first Saturday home league game of the season, against Banbury. 677 saw the home league game versus Hemel on a Monday night. 280 watched the home game against Bashley. 730 watched the Boxing Day clash against Chesham, on a day when crowds are traditionally large but 363 watched the game against Froome, when virtually every other game in England was postponed. It's great to focus on the bumper crowds against St Neots, Arlesey, Weymouth and so on but what was the impact of free or heavily discounted tickets for children and families? Look at the Poole game - 581 against a team that was at the time pushing hard for the play-offs. Would more have come if it was £10? Would fewer have come if it was £15? I had a look at the crowds from the previous spells in Conference South - plenty of 300s, 400s, not that many in the 600 or 700s. I'd suggest that most people do not see the difference between Bishop's Stortford and Basingstoke and the Banbury and Burnham. As others have said, the decision has been made so we can just wait and see what happens. Perhaps 800 will turn up for the first home game of the season. But if the crowds are 280 to 350 for ordinary league games then the good work the club did attracting more people earlier this calendar year will have been squandered. With the 581 crowd against Poole Town on April 12, this was on the Saturday plumb in the middle of the schools' Easter break. Therefore, as the schools were closed in the week immediately prior to the game, there would have been no promotional visits by the SACFC players and commercial team taking place and the 581 attendance figure would not have included for any free/discounted tickets.
|
|
|
Post by bob666 on May 28, 2014 12:45:31 GMT
Sorry for my ignorance but I would be interested to know what other clubs whose grounds offer limited commercial opportunities do? Take Poole, for example, clearly their ground offers even fewer commercial possibilities, they get lower gates than St Albans (I take recent covert point about our gates being artificially boosted but know that during the run in they were offering admission to midweek games for a £5) and have lower entrance fee. Given that teams were roughly the same standard last year I assume a broad parity in playing budgets. Did there owners simply subsidies a larger loss than St Albans? Which brings me on my second question is St Albans loss large? Is it unusual for a non-league team to lose 100 grand a year? How many teams in Calor league would have had a larger loss? There obvious benefits to owning St Albans in terms of PR and potential opportunities to use ground relocation as part of wider property development. Just as most of us would conceive of a fair price of admission is their a fair price for owning a club? Do the owners want to run the club at a profit/break even or just reduce the subsidy? If our losses are exceptional (the largest in the division) I could accept but not support the decision (as it may be counterproductive- reduce overall revenue)
|
|
|
Post by saintaclaus on May 28, 2014 13:03:22 GMT
Sticking with the pub analogy - if my local put the price of a pint up 25/50% over 12/18 months but the atmosphere improved accordingly - better food, live music, clean glasses!!, quality totty (male or female depending on your view)etc etc then on reflection i am sure that I and others would try it out for as long as the 'quality' remained (contrary to my initial reaction)- however as soon as that quality drops, beers warm, foods cold, band is rubbish, u notice the stretch marks on the totty before the colour of their eyes (male or female depending on your point of view) then price becomes a massive problem. The pressure then is on the landlord/owner to fix it by however means they see fit (often requiring yet more money)-
in other words - decent players, playing good quality exciting football is fine but if we go hoof ball, lose our discipline and get stuffed four nil then pressure is really on
the age old difference is that with a local we can try out pub X as opposed to pub Y - but when it comes to football you (generally) cannot just pop down to Hitchin/Hemel/BWood and start cheering them on - thats just not going to happen.
My suggestion perhaps try flexible pricing. Start at £13 - if we are in the bottom 6 after X games then £10 a game - if middle 12 stick with £13 - top 6 £15 - maybe if we are top its £20 - the floaters pay more per game but the diehards get it cheaper
|
|
porkypig
Saints Youth Team Player
Posts: 245
|
Post by porkypig on May 28, 2014 13:14:31 GMT
£15 to watch the likes boredom wood and concord rangers not exactly a snip! get used to small attendances
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2014 13:18:35 GMT
Sticking with the pub analogy - if my local put the price of a pint up 25/50% over 12/18 months but the atmosphere improved accordingly - better food, live music, clean glasses!!, quality totty (male or female depending on your view)etc etc then on reflection i am sure that I and others would try it out for as long as the 'quality' remained (contrary to my initial reaction)- however as soon as that quality drops, beers warm, foods cold, band is rubbish, u notice the stretch marks on the totty before the colour of their eyes (male or female depending on your point of view) then price becomes a massive problem. The pressure then is on the landlord/owner to fix it by however means they see fit (often requiring yet more money)- in other words - decent players, playing good quality exciting football is fine but if we go hoof ball, lose our discipline and get stuffed four nil then pressure is really on the age old difference is that with a local we can try out pub X as opposed to pub Y - but when it comes to football you (generally) cannot just pop down to Hitchin/Hemel/BWood and start cheering them on - thats just not going to happen. how much are the chips?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2014 13:46:03 GMT
An early bird special, or a statement of intent in terms of signings (aside from Lee Clarke), or news on friendlies etc, would have helped.
It's not just the value for money in my opinion, it's the considerable increase in budget, potentially unnecessary, that will be coming out of fans' pockets. An increase in the face of the huge losses etc.
|
|
|
Post by Saint on May 28, 2014 14:04:27 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Hatboy on May 28, 2014 19:25:56 GMT
Sticking with the pub analogy - if my local put the price of a pint up 25/50% over 12/18 months but the atmosphere improved accordingly - better food, live music, clean glasses!!, quality totty (male or female depending on your view)etc etc then on reflection i am sure that I and others would try it out for as long as the 'quality' remained (contrary to my initial reaction)- however as soon as that quality drops, beers warm, foods cold, band is rubbish, u notice the stretch marks on the totty before the colour of their eyes (male or female depending on your point of view) then price becomes a massive problem. The pressure then is on the landlord/owner to fix it by however means they see fit (often requiring yet more money)- in other words - decent players, playing good quality exciting football is fine but if we go hoof ball, lose our discipline and get stuffed four nil then pressure is really on the age old difference is that with a local we can try out pub X as opposed to pub Y - but when it comes to football you (generally) cannot just pop down to Hitchin/Hemel/BWood and start cheering them on - thats just not going to happen. how much are the chips? He said better food so i guess they come with steak so no one cares how much the chips are
|
|
|
Post by Hatboy on May 28, 2014 19:38:25 GMT
I don't understand why you would increase tickets another 25% after a 20% increase 18 months earlier to increase the playing budget if you are still going to make a big loss (as it seems season on season) especially if you didn't really want to get promoted and hoped to be challenging at the top of the southern league with big crowds all season !
I don't see how even going up through the divisions would make it any more likely that a new ground would get built either, the owners aren't going to want to do this unless they get the contract to build houses with it.
|
|