|
Post by ex-saintswebbo on May 28, 2014 19:50:02 GMT
I have spoke to a few people about this… including "floating fans".
The general consensus is that an extra 3 quid to watch The Saints is actually not that bad - as yellowalf pointed out - if you go for a pint up town its going to cost you a damn site more than certain locals (I drink in the Blackberry Jack which is 2.78 a pint or as low as 1.90 on occasions) but am happy to pay 4.00 for a beer up town. It is what it is. Also - if you are not going to goto Clarence Park because of the 3 quid hike - you weren't going to go anyway!
For those who are threatening to not attend or go to Hemel - so be it. I prefer St Albans City.
|
|
|
Post by Saint on May 28, 2014 20:00:38 GMT
If the team is performing well with this 'considerable increase' in the playing budget, then I suspect fans may not mind about the £3. But if the team is struggling near the bottom, fans may start to get very vocal about it.
I think a lot of people are just annoyed at the principal of the rise suddenly to £15, the most expensive in the league and on par with Conference Clubs.
The lack of articles on either the Herts Ad or the Review is interesting... But I've heard that we will hear an interview in one of the paper's fairly soonish.
|
|
|
Post by asaintreborn on May 28, 2014 20:18:59 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. I'll ask you this then, is it's the owners fault that there are no commercial opportunities at Clarence Park? The answer is No! (This always seems to swing round in full circle to the limitations of Clarence Park). Why should the owners subsidies the extra admission costs? It's not like they don't plough in 100k a year into a financial black hole and that's being kind! Plus there is the playing budget and this is after the 100k to keep the club a float. Lets say for an example we all pay £3 extra across 11 home games that's an increase of £33 a year we then times that by the average gate which was roughly 400 that's about £13,200 if that generates enough money to help support the club financially and keep them being competitive then so be it. After all £33-00 for 400 people vs 100k split between two, it's a no contest. If that was a boxing match we would have been all K'OD. They need help to keep this club moving in the right direction and if it's £3 then so be it. Don't get me wrong £15 is about my limit for this level and if we had external revenues streaming in to help with the club finances, then we would be having a very different conversation. So what if we take a look at the other options we freeze or decrease the admission, drop the playing budget to make this club more sustainable. Three things would happen! Firstly, there wouldn't be enough money to attract new players, our current crop would move as they would lose the belief that this club was going places and finally we would drop down the leagues. I'm not talking about the Calor league either! I could only imagine what we would be complaining about then. The football will be terrible and the referee's Christ don't get me started on them. It's not like back in the day where you could pay a player £10 a week, there is money in Non League these days. You said that they should of done there due diligence before they took on such a responsibility. I'm willing to bet my car (I don't own a house) that there is much more to running a club than we and they could ever imagine and despite being savy businessman they have no footballing background. I'm also willing to bet they did what they thought was right, but they then had a quick learning curve when they realised they had opened a whole new can of worms. 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 you have had an absoluter belter with these posts today. I couldn't have put it better myself! One less cup of coffee at Costa's and one less pint down the local a week easily covers the £3 deficit. If you really want to see the Saints at home then you will find a way to scrape together the £3. 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! Sorry this doesn't wash with me, people purchase items for many different reasons. For example people purchase products because they trust the brand, its quality or because it deliver a superior level of customer service. I only have apple products, they may cost more, but they are pretty reliable, nothing is ever a problem and the service is superior to most other brands. Going back to the pub analogy you may be able to get a cheap pint down the Baton, not a chance in hell you would see me drinking there.
|
|
|
Post by asaintreborn on May 28, 2014 20:24:05 GMT
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. Didn't say that bud! It's the council attention which is the problem, they have still got there head in the sand. If they actually got their bottom into gear this stadium would be completed in two years. By moving up the divisions, the club would be making a lot of noise and it would be a lot harder for the council to ignore. Moving up the divisions will also increase the interest for new fans.
|
|
|
Post by ex-saintswebbo on May 28, 2014 20:25:45 GMT
well said to both asaintreborn and yellowalf.
|
|
|
Post by Saint on May 28, 2014 20:38:10 GMT
If, and that's a big if, we could establish ourselves somehow as Conference Club, or even a high placing Conference South club, then I don't think it can be argued that the Council wouldn't want to help out. If they see us doing well, I'm sure they would be very glad to assist in any way possible, even if it is just so they can say that they support local businesses and the community.
Of course, this is purely speculation.
|
|
|
Post by notsorecentconvert on May 28, 2014 20:38:22 GMT
Yes, very well-argued points from both asaintreborn and yellowalf... and i know I'm taking the discussion round in circles so I will change the record after this post, I promise...
But, you are arguing from the die-hard's perspective. Yes, you can skip a pint or a coffee and find the extra £3. But that's not really the point. The point is that at a time when the club wants to increase the number of bodies in the stadium this could be counter-productive.
As someone who went from casual attendee to pretty much regular this season, I would say that £15 is a deterrent. I can afford it. I can skip a pint and a coffee and not even notice. It's just too expensive for the experience on offer. It's only £3 cheaper than watching Luton win the Conference from a seat this season. People may will roll up to the turnstiles and there'll be more than the odd sharp intake of breath. All the analogies about beer prices and choice and so on will not change that.
And yes, the limitations of Clarence Park make it hard to generate other revenues but the owners knew that before they took the club on. If their most imaginative solution is to make newly-promoted St Albans City the most expensive team in the sixth tier of English football, then I think that should be questioned.
|
|
|
Post by Saint on May 28, 2014 20:45:45 GMT
Here's a post from a Sutton fan on what they've done to counter a lack of revenue streams from their ground (Again, posted on Conference South Forum)
I thought I'd post it to see what other's make of it, and to see how other clubs deal with the issues similar to ours.
|
|
|
Post by asaintreborn on May 28, 2014 20:50:38 GMT
Love that! I suppose that's where we as fans need to step up! It's all well and good saying the owners need to think of different ideas for commercial revenues etc. The Sutton fans took a proactive approach and look at the result. What about taking Frendo's and Marriots wages off there hands
|
|
|
Post by asaintreborn on May 28, 2014 21:03:41 GMT
Yes, very well-argued points from both asaintreborn and yellowalf... and i know I'm taking the discussion round in circles so I will change the record after this post, I promise... But, you are arguing from the die-hard's perspective. Yes, you can skip a pint or a coffee and find the extra £3. But that's not really the point. The point is that at a time when the club wants to increase the number of bodies in the stadium this could be counter-productive. As someone who went from casual attendee to pretty much regular this season, I would say that £15 is a deterrent. I can afford it. I can skip a pint and a coffee and not even notice. It's just too expensive for the experience on offer. It's only £3 cheaper than watching Luton win the Conference from a seat this season. People may will roll up to the turnstiles and there'll be more than the odd sharp intake of breath. All the analogies about beer prices and choice and so on will not change that. And yes, the limitations of Clarence Park make it hard to generate other revenues but the owners knew that before they took the club on. If their most imaginative solution is to make newly-promoted St Albans City the most expensive team in the sixth tier of English football, then I think that should be questioned. I understand the floating fans concept, but extra external revenues in a new stadium would make us more financially sound and cover off those floaters plus more. Success would then bring those fans back. I would hope they would then reward our loyalty if this was achieved. I believe the limitations of Clarence Park might have been the only thing they were blindsided. I don't disagree with you though that £5 in 18 months is extraordinary.
|
|
|
Post by notsorecentconvert on May 28, 2014 21:05:19 GMT
I seem to recall Wealdstone had a whip-round to enable them to keep their prolific striker Jolly for another season.
I wonder what a more flexible approach to charging might have, perhaps in conjunction with advance warning that ticket revenues need to be increased. Non-league football needs to be more creative, so here's some random ideas to be completely shot down in flames.
1. Pay what you want. Minimum charge £10 but encourage people to pay extra if they so wish. Set clearly-defined fundraising targets for the season. It's not so much a guilt trip but an incentivised system. No one wants to see the club go short so if the club said: "We're behind target" people might pay £12, £15 perhaps even more, maybe even chucking the odd £20 in when they feel generous.
2. Base the matchday price on the previous home game's result. So, if Saints win at home the next match is £15. If they draw, it's £12, if they've lost it's a tenner. Takes the sting out of a home defeat a bit knowing the price will go down next time.
3. Base prices on league position If Saints are in the top 6 make it £15, 7th to 14th make it £12 and 15th to 22nd £10.
Maybe all totally impractical.
Other fundraising ideas. Many people love a bet, so without falling foul of any match-fixing shenanigans, how about setting up lottery based on certain match outcomes. I don't know, think creatively... How about the Lee Chappell Lottery. Get people to donate every matchday, or even by donating online, get a sponsor to stick £500 in, anyway, the fund grows and grows. Publicise how big the fund is on the website. Anyway, when Chappell scores a goal, a donator is drawn at random to win 10% of the pot. Then it carries on. On the basis Chappell may score three times in a season it keeps the suspense going, builds up the cash over time and becomes a bit of fun.
A similar idea could be done for John Frendo... just the fund pays out every time he reaches 10 goals.
I dunno, I'd be more inclined to bung £2 into one of those pots every matchday knowing that the cash is supporting the club.
I know this sounds counter-intuitive and people will say: "Well if you're saying you're happy to spend another £4 a match why are you grumbling so much about the increases," but it's as much about engagement, getting people involved, making them realise that supporting a non-league club is not a passive exercise that every effort the fans make is reflected in the health and success of the club.
|
|
|
Post by asaintreborn on May 28, 2014 21:15:46 GMT
I seem to recall Wealdstone had a whip-round to enable them to keep their prolific striker Jolly for another season. I wonder what a more flexible approach to charging might have, perhaps in conjunction with advance warning that ticket revenues need to be increased. Non-league football needs to be more creative, so here's some random ideas to be completely shot down in flames. 1. Pay what you want. Minimum charge £10 but encourage people to pay extra if they so wish. Set clearly-defined fundraising targets for the season. It's not so much a guilt trip but an incentivised system. No one wants to see the club go short so if the club said: "We're behind target" people might pay £12, £15 perhaps even more, maybe even chucking the odd £20 in when they feel generous. 2. Base the matchday price on the previous home game's result. So, if Saints win at home the next match is £15. If they draw, it's £12, if they've lost it's a tenner. Takes the sting out of a home defeat a bit knowing the price will go down next time. 3. Base prices on league position If Saints are in the top 6 make it £15, 7th to 14th make it £12 and 15th to 22nd £10. Maybe all totally impractical. Other fundraising ideas. Many people love a bet, so without falling foul of any match-fixing shenanigans, how about setting up lottery based on certain match outcomes. I don't know, think creatively... How about the Lee Chappell Lottery. Get people to donate every matchday, or even by donating online, get a sponsor to stick £500 in, anyway, the fund grows and grows. Publicise how big the fund is on the website. Anyway, when Chappell scores a goal, a donator is drawn at random to win 10% of the pot. Then it carries on. On the basis Chappell may score three times in a season it keeps the suspense going, builds up the cash over time and becomes a bit of fun.A similar idea could be done for John Frendo... just the fund pays out every time he reaches 10 goals. I dunno, I'd be more inclined to bung £2 into one of those pots every matchday knowing that the cash is supporting the club. I know this sounds counter-intuitive and people will say: "Well if you're saying you're happy to spend another £4 a match why are you grumbling so much about the increases," but it's as much about engagement, getting people involved, making them realise that supporting a non-league club is not a passive exercise that every effort the fans make is reflected in the health and success of the club. I Highlighted it in bold, absolutely top notch Idea! "The Lords Lottery" He'd love that too.
|
|
|
Post by Hatboy on May 28, 2014 22:10:31 GMT
asaintreborn (why reborn ?) I didn't say you did say about moving up the leagues to get a new ground so i don't know why you quoted me about it and responded BUD, you can see below the comment i was refering to. If you want to force the hand of the council you need to be climbing the leagues.. to climb the leagues needs better players... better players are on better money... I notice no one has responded to the other part of my post either 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 ! Also - if you are not going to goto Clarence Park because of the 3 quid hike - you weren't going to go anyway! Mark those people that won't go because of the £3 rise I take it your counting yourself as one of them
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2014 22:26:23 GMT
asaintreborn - " It's not like they don't plough in 100k a year into a financial black hole and that's being kind! Plus there is the playing budget and this is after the 100k to keep the club a float "
In Lawrence Levy's own words " the club lost £125k and £100k in our first two seasons in charge". said at the Fans Forum. That must include the playing budget. While last seasons numbers have not been announced, one would think that they would be considerably less given the fact that the number of paid staff was reduced from three to one, thirty thousand pounds was won in Cup prize money,more people attend matches,and according to asaintreborn's notes from the October Fans Forum - last season we were operating on a lot lower playing budget than the previous season. I am not going to speculate on the final figure, but it must be quite a bit below six figures. Secondly,how can the prospect of moving out of Clarence Park and building houses be a financial black hole ? I don't think JM sees it as one !
|
|
|
Post by asaintreborn on May 28, 2014 22:57:46 GMT
Second part to your post at what point did I say that??
|
|
|
Post by midweeksaint on May 29, 2014 12:10:38 GMT
I'm amazed no one has raised price elasticity in this debate (although perhaps they have as I haven't read all of the posts). My point being to raise the same revenue the price could either increase from £12 to £15 or the gate could increase from 400 to 500 (if all paying full price). The latter would be a lot easier to achieve at the lower price and with more in the ground non-gate takings would also increase. It's clear from this debate that some element of the crowd is sensitive to price (and I'll include myself in that category), particularly when one thinks of all the competing local clubs at higher standards of football. You can all pour scorn on the floating / fickle fans but without them clubs like St Albans City cannot hope to thrive. It does seem to me that increasing ticket prices in this manner is counter to that objective.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2014 17:17:17 GMT
Agreed, midweeksaint. There are other ways rather than just whacking the ticket prices up 50% in 18 months.
|
|
|
Post by davymac55 on May 29, 2014 17:36:56 GMT
Strange as this may sound we actually have fans for whom £12 is a lot of money and who sometimes actually miss games due to lack of finances. The £3 hike may be a greater burden to some than others. Of course, we could go the whole hog and just stick the price up to £20 and separate the haves from havenots. Hemel £10 (regardless of how they are 'financed') and Saints £15. Doesn't read well does it? Wonder if this price increase will result in smaller crowds . . . . . discuss.
|
|
simesy
Saints Trialist
Posts: 1
|
Post by simesy on May 29, 2014 18:12:58 GMT
asaintreborn - " It's not like they don't plough in 100k a year into a financial black hole and that's being kind! Plus there is the playing budget and this is after the 100k to keep the club a float " In Lawrence Levy's own words " the club lost £125k and £100k in our first two seasons in charge". said at the Fans Forum. That must include the playing budget. Christ on a bike. £15 to get in and the club lost £250,000 in the last two years. Last time we visited there was a record number of disabled, senior concessions and carers, as well as pizza delivered over the fence. If the club is losing money like that you really need to look at cutting your cloth accordingly. Just because the town is situated in the very affluent London commuter belt it doesn't follow that all your visiting fans will tolerate such pricing. It seems to me that financially speaking the club is more suited to Southern League Central. However, if finances are a problem you might have an issue in the Conference as they are quite stringent when it comes to that sort of thing. Good luck for the coming season... at £15 to get in you might need it.
|
|
|
Post by Boomer on May 29, 2014 18:15:02 GMT
Page 7 in today's Herts Ad for anyone outside the local area or anyone that hasn't seen it yet. Not sure why it is buried in the middle of the paper and is not in the Sport section.
No images allowed -http://i60.tinypic.com/28k7a86.jpg
|
|
|
Post by Saint on May 29, 2014 18:25:06 GMT
Boomer, it wasn't in the Sport's section, because I'm told Levy decided he wanted to give the News Desk the interview and not that Sport's Desk.
|
|
|
Post by asaintreborn on May 29, 2014 19:56:59 GMT
asaintreborn (why reborn ?) I didn't say you did say about moving up the leagues to get a new ground so i don't know why you quoted me about it and responded BUD, you can see below the comment i was refering to. If you want to force the hand of the council you need to be climbing the leagues.. to climb the leagues needs better players... better players are on better money... I notice no one has responded to the other part of my post either 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 ! Also - if you are not going to goto Clarence Park because of the 3 quid hike - you weren't going to go anyway! Mark those people that won't go because of the £3 rise I take it your counting yourself as one of them Sorry mate I was meant to quote Lonecrank. To respond to Lonecrank first part of his post I think it's becoming quite clear their not giving us the entire picture or perhaps from their side the money is drying up. Well that's how I read into the article that Boomer posted. That wasn't even the point though it was an example used to explain the example of £33 each between 400 people vs two taking on thousands to subsidies this club as much as they can.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2014 8:50:34 GMT
Boomer, it wasn't in the Sport's section, because I'm told Levy decided he wanted to give the News Desk the interview and not that Sport's Desk. Not much of an interview. It sometimes feels like people have forgotten we were in the Conference South a few years ago. And the Ryman for years before that. I'm not so sure the council are suddenly going to turn round and say 'you know what, build your new ground' just because we're sitting in 8th in the Conference South. Bad move handled badly, in my opinion.
|
|
yellowalf
Saints Reserve Team Player
Posts: 301
|
Post by yellowalf on May 30, 2014 10:52:31 GMT
I'm amazed no one has raised price elasticity in this debate (although perhaps they have as I haven't read all of the posts). I would encourage you to read the thread in full. It's well-worth spending the time doing so, not just because price-elasticity has been mentioned at least twice but more because there are some convincing arguments put by both sides of the debate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2014 9:38:44 GMT
It seems the disappointment (anger?) has died down slightly, but I thought I'd post this anyway: Sutton's prices for next year:
----------
We are delighted to confirm that admission prices for next season have been frozen. That means that Adult Admission to the Lane stays at £12, with concessions at £6 (Senior Citizens, 60 & over, and students with valid photo-D) and junior admisison (under-16s) still at just £2. Season Tickets also stay unchanged:-
Adult Ground £185 Adult Stand £210 Over-60s Ground £95 Over-60s Stand £120 Juniors (under 16) £25 Vice-Presidency costs £25 on top of the season ticket price.
Also, following last season's period of reduced prices, any existing season ticket holder who renews will get a 10% discount on these prices.
----------
The season ticket loyalty bonus is ANOTHER good idea.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2014 11:07:09 GMT
so the same as us, 12£
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2014 11:22:23 GMT
You've lost me there gaz
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2014 11:53:54 GMT
it'll cost me 12£ to watch st. albans this season
when i go to sutton it'll cost me 12£ (plus petrol)
|
|
|
Post by Saint on Jun 3, 2014 11:55:21 GMT
Interesting that Sutton's have stayed the same, as their fans seemed to expect a price rise after a rather successful season.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2014 12:11:38 GMT
Oh right, thanks for clearing that up. It'll cost gaz_SUFC £8.81 to watch Sutton next year, and £15 (plus petrol) to watch the Saints. If he bothers coming.
I wonder how many season tickets were sold last year - anyone know?
|
|