|
Post by citycentresaint on Sept 14, 2019 23:36:46 GMT
We beat Worthing 6 - 0 last time.
They had the fitness levels of a pub outfit. 6-0 flattered them.
Who knows what will happen this time.
I am still backing the boycott.
#£15 is enough for Division 6 football
|
|
|
Post by norfamptonsaint on Sept 15, 2019 4:17:36 GMT
Pretty much going up a pound a time (except conference e season) roughly every 3 season until LL came in. At that rate should be about £13 to £13.50 now Interesting that the prices you showed pretty much cover the period since the Premier League was formed. Whipping out the inflation calculator again, £4.50 in 1993 is worth £9.09 in 2019, so City’s admission price has risen at twice the rate of inflation over that time. I wonder if this, in part, reflects the impact of Premier League’s practices (wages etc) on the football pyramid without the big bucks generated by TV coverage flowing down with it. Perhaps City’s strategy should be to become ‘adopted’ by a Premier League or Football League club as a ‘feeder’, rather than pursuing its current ‘grab a ground’ growth plan. Alternatively become a fan-owned club playing at a level where £9.09 is a fair reflection of the entertainment, even if it is that of a pub team.
|
|
|
Post by ahad43 on Sept 15, 2019 7:46:41 GMT
No disrespect to Worthing at all but £18 to see St Albans versus a mid-table team from the next division down is potty. Surely they will reduce prices. It should be a tenner and a chance to get a decent crowd in to see hopefully a good win. I'm at a loose end next Saturday but it looks like I'll be going to Kings Langley instead. 'Mid table team from the division below' haha another one to add to the list Calm down Chippy!
|
|
|
Post by notsorecentconvert on Sept 15, 2019 11:58:44 GMT
Interesting that the prices you showed pretty much cover the period since the Premier League was formed. Whipping out the inflation calculator again, £4.50 in 1993 is worth £9.09 in 2019, so City’s admission price has risen at twice the rate of inflation over that time. I wonder if this, in part, reflects the impact of Premier League’s practices (wages etc) on the football pyramid without the big bucks generated by TV coverage flowing down with it. Perhaps City’s strategy should be to become ‘adopted’ by a Premier League or Football League club as a ‘feeder’, rather than pursuing its current ‘grab a ground’ growth plan. Alternatively become a fan-owned club playing at a level where £9.09 is a fair reflection of the entertainment, even if it is that of a pub team. It was £8 to get in at Watford (all-seater) in 1993-94 and now it's £36 for the same seat.
I think the idea of being a feeder club is a tricky one. To take away a club's autonomy at any level robs it of something that cannot easily be restored. Relying on one pro club for loans, or being required to play people because they have been sent out on loan, does not help the manager, the squad, the players that are being loaned or the fans.
If I was St Albans City's owners and I was serious about developing a new ground (and all the houses that go with it) I'd have contacted Watford FC years ago to see if a new stadium of mutual benefit could have been developed jointly. Watford's academy and women's teams need good quality facilities. They already have a training base in London Colney (practically St Albans territory). Saints had been looking at all sorts of locations from Chiswell Green to Radlett to Smallford or wherever the various proposals have been, and all would be equally suitable for Watford. The way the women's game is developing rapidly, clubs like Watford need to recognise they should get in on the action now before the biggest clubs in the country sew the whole thing up for themselves. It's noticeable that Spurs and Man United have recently developed women's teams that have got into the top division.
An arrangement based on building a great little stadium with a superb playing surface that both clubs could call home might have got off the ground. If Saints reckon they have the political will, Watford have the money. It would be a bit like Boreham Wood's relationship with Arsenal. And it would mean Saints could keep their identity and, in terms of how the place looked, be seen as the 'senior' tenants.
But, I guess, that would not necessarily help Levy and McGowan make as much from the development of houses and shops and things.
|
|
|
Post by saint68 on Sept 15, 2019 13:41:30 GMT
That’s a really interesting idea. Much as I dislike Boring Wood, their relationship with Arsenal has benefited them tremendously. When I remember my fist visit to Broughinge Road in 1971 and compare it with shiny Meadow Park last April, I admit to feeling a little jealous. Women’s football is coming on in leaps and bounds - Manchester City’s training ground and Chelsea buying Kingsmeadow have shown the potential for this. A new ground somewhere in the City and District in partnership with Watford would benefit both clubs. However, I agree with you that Levy and McGowan would probably not want to go down that path.
|
|
|
Post by Hatboy on Sept 18, 2019 8:24:47 GMT
I hear as well as the boycott, the crowds being down and away fans not spending in the ground that the clubhouse is empty now on match days and the Sky has been cut off again.
I think the owners will be gone by the end of the season.
|
|
|
Post by notsorecentconvert on Sept 18, 2019 10:03:01 GMT
From the very little I understand about the situation, it’s surely going to be difficult for them to leave without writing off all their loans to the club or calling in the debts and collapsing the club.
Or is that too simplistic a way of looking at it?
I mean, if they are in for half a million or a million or whatever it is they are never going to find a buyer to take that on. The club is, effectively, the name and the team on the pitch. There’s no ground, there’s no significant assets that I can think of. There’s just liabilities.
So I’d be surprised if they walked away.
More likely they decide not to continue to plug the funding gap with the immediate consequence being the budget is slashed and the medium term consequence being relegation.
The ticket price fiasco is a double whammy for them because the ill-will created by the rises means there’s absolutely zero chance of appealing to supporters to Boost the Budget.
It looks like they are in quite a bind. Obviously, the challenges of running a club like Saints are considerable but there’s no easy solutions.
|
|
|
Post by Boomer on Sept 18, 2019 10:48:23 GMT
..................the clubhouse is empty now on match days and the Sky has been cut off again................ I'm not sure when you were last in the bar but as far as I am aware, they only have the terrestial channels. I don't think they have had Sky in there for months.
|
|
|
Post by lagerman on Sept 18, 2019 12:14:08 GMT
I hear as well as the boycott, the crowds being down and away fans not spending in the ground that the clubhouse is empty now on match days and the Sky has been cut off again. I think the owners will be gone by the end of the season. It wouldn't surprise me if they go by or at the end of the season. It may depend on how much they believe they are doing the right things in the way they are managing the Club, how determined they are to stay and get us a new ground, how progressive or non-progressive they feel with the Council in getting a new ground
|
|
|
Post by notsorecentconvert on Sept 18, 2019 12:48:15 GMT
Lagerman, how will they go at the end of the season if the hundreds of thousands of pounds they've put in over the past six years or so are now loans?
They only have two ways to get their money back.
1. A buyer comes along and pays enough to take control of the club as well as repay Levy and McGowan. (How likely is that?)
2. They call in their loans, which effectively makes the club insolvent. And doesn't get them their money back.
Do you think it's likely they will walk away from all the money they have committed to the club? They may have a very low chance of recouping their loans but if they walk, they have zero chance.
Do you think they'll find a buyer?
I don't think either scenario is likely.
The owners have tried a high-risk strategy this season by raising prices. Effectively this is telling supporters to pay more. And it's not worked out too well so far.
Their next option, as far as I see it, is to say: 'Okay, we're not prepared to keep covering the funding gap, so we'll reduce the budget so the club can only spend what it can generate.'
It's either that or seek investment from third parties and the current owners are apparently reluctant to do that.
|
|
|
Post by lagerman on Sept 18, 2019 13:51:42 GMT
No, not really, thinking about it all now and like that.
|
|
|
Post by notsorecentconvert on Sept 18, 2019 14:32:10 GMT
Yeah, I was genuinely asking whether I was missing something but I can't see how, having lent the club so much money, they can just walk away from that. I'd be interested if anyone has any theories.
So they seem to have backed themselves into a bit of a cul-de-sac. If they were to take the 'nuclear' option and stop covering the budget shortfall the effects would be pretty apparent on the pitch and if the club were relegated their plans for a new stadium would be even harder to realise and they'd find it harder to sell the club and recoup their losses.
|
|
|
Post by ex-saintswebbo on Sept 18, 2019 18:28:27 GMT
"Save Our Saints" anyone? Hope we don't go that route agin. I must admit this whole thing is a bit Mr Gibson MkII IMO
|
|
|
Post by notsorecentconvert on Sept 18, 2019 18:47:13 GMT
What happened with Mr Gibson?
|
|
|
Post by ex-saintswebbo on Sept 18, 2019 19:37:45 GMT
What happened with Mr Gibson? Statement or question? Mr Gibson would have preferred no fans he didn't agree with or like in the ground whilst he watched the game...
|
|
|
Post by notsorecentconvert on Sept 18, 2019 20:14:18 GMT
Question. I wasn't living in the area then. Wasn't he in charge when the club got promoted to the Conference?
|
|
|
Post by ex-saintswebbo on Sept 18, 2019 20:48:09 GMT
He was. Pretty sure what happened is available to read somewhere. I thought he was OK and his wife was very passionate with youth football. Shame he alienated supporters. Lessons to be learnt eh?
|
|
|
Post by Canary Saint on Sept 18, 2019 22:08:40 GMT
What happened with Mr Gibson? TBH I do not know the ins and outs of Mr Gibson's time at the club. However my understanding is that he bought the club for £1, but sadly was socially awkward and managed to put the backs up of many supporters. To his credit he did turn up for most games. His funding of the club was through a building company that he was involved with and unfortunately it did not look good when the building company went bust and apparently money had been syphoned off to a StAlbans City FC. The above may be total bollox, maybe somebody in the know can correct where necessary.
|
|
|
Post by bob666 on Sept 19, 2019 0:15:04 GMT
Yeah, I was genuinely asking whether I was missing something but I can't see how, having lent the club so much money, they can just walk away from that. I'd be interested if anyone has any theories. So they seem to have backed themselves into a bit of a cul-de-sac. If they were to take the 'nuclear' option and stop covering the budget shortfall the effects would be pretty apparent on the pitch and if the club were relegated their plans for a new stadium would be even harder to realise and they'd find it harder to sell the club and recoup their losses. I don't disagree with notsorecent. A sale would be difficult to achieve but I did think of a couple of counterpoints. First, one of the main motivations for 'investing' in football clubs is repetitional benefit. So from PSG/Man City and football as a global diplomatic tool/ a project for a state to manage its global image to a local business giving a village team a bag of balls, the pay off from investment is its value as repetitional asset/pr/marketing. I wonder if there a point were owing a football club that is consistently losing (as we would be if we suddenly cut funding) and has a dreadful relationship with its fans has a negative repetitional effect on a business. That it can reach a point were the club has a negative economic value to the present owners (because of how it effects their wider business repetitions) and the logical thing to do is just walk away and write off your losses. Second, based on what I heard from people who have been to lunches with Levy and councillors present, while a successful business man in this field, he is not necessarily the best at cultivating relationships with key office holders in local government. Levy has been critical of the amount spent on the new Museum and the visitor number projections- he might be right about this but maybe it would have been better left unsaid given the ambitions of the club. Also his reaction to the club's business rates bill could have been more measured. At the same time a owner with better relations with the fans would be in a better position to exploit public pressure to lobby the council. The club may be worth more to someone with better relationship with key officeholders/fans as they are more likely to secure permission for a new stadium, so they may be a potential buyer. I sure any sale would involve a loss for the present owners (writing of a percentage of debt) but you might be willing to accept a smaller loss to protect against a large one. Finally, people frequently buy football clubs without having a clear route to profitability or even sustainability simply because they want to own a football club- Tamplin is a extreme example. someone could offer the owners some of their moneyback simply because they want to own a club. On a side note, while the ground situation clearly presents issues having a council owned ground does give the club a certain resilience- we have no assets so their no point bankrupting us and we always have somewhere to play- at some level. In principle I support a new ground but we need to make any support conditional on legally binding commitments regarding the ownership of that ground- I not willing to simply trust the owners and offer unconditional support. support.
|
|
barker
Saints Youth Team Player
Posts: 135
|
Post by barker on Sept 19, 2019 9:33:21 GMT
This is a really tricky issue, as everyone has talked about, from various angles, in this long running thread. As we know, over the past 20 years or so, football has become much more part of the global TV entertainment market. Huge amounts of money have come in at the very time when the idea of football being part of a community has declined. Unless there is some dramatic redistribution of the wealth within football, according to principles other than winner-takes-all, then smaller clubs - all the way down from League one, and maybe above, are going to struggle. Vast numbers of non-league teams exist due to goodwill - people giving up their time and effort and money to make the team keep going: way below St Albans City FC's elevated position, teams exist due to the collective time and commitment, and 'investment'/ donations of parents, families, friends etc. That's how City Youth exist. There has to be much more talk in football of its community and social importance, and less about its overpaid superstars and shopping-mall superstadiums, and latest sponsorship deals with dodgy corporations. Perhaps the bad feeling and so-called 'boycott' could be averted by having a minimum fee and then asking for a donation and stressing what this donation is for - quite a few smaller rock bands have done this. Then you can just forego one mediocre cup of over-priced coffee from one of those generic high street places and donate it. Those are the places that should be boycotted - they are taking the money from their over-priced product and stashing it away and using it in such a way that the don't pay much tax.
|
|
|
Post by casper on Oct 6, 2019 10:20:00 GMT
www.stalbanscityfc.com/non-league-day-2019/Tickets prices for non-league day are £15 on the gate and £14 in advance. Great entice people in to watch the game for £14/15 then next time they turn up for a game, whack them for £18. Great marketing strategy.
|
|
|
Post by casper on Oct 6, 2019 10:29:40 GMT
Another example of cheaper prices for the person who turns up once per year, yet regular supporters get charged the higher prices!
|
|
|
Post by ahad43 on Oct 6, 2019 10:38:49 GMT
The owners and their spineless yes men are a joke. Still cheaper for people with season tickets at league clubs, presumably?
Free fruit? Signed footballs thrown into the crowd? Do me a favour... May as well hand them out to the crowd rather than throw them into it
If the club really want to get the park rocking they are going about it the wrong way. Still.
|
|
|
Post by sideshowbob on Oct 6, 2019 12:14:50 GMT
£15 that will certainly bring the crowd in!
|
|
|
Post by notsorecentconvert on Oct 6, 2019 19:52:01 GMT
We could give the club the benefit of the doubt. Maybe they are quietly putting the prices down to £15 for the foreseeable future. Sometimes it's difficult to admit you're wrong about something so perhaps they want to reinstate the £15 admission price without making a big song and dance about how they made the wrong decision at the start of the season?
|
|
|
Post by saint68 on Oct 6, 2019 20:05:22 GMT
I’d love to think that is the case but I’m afraid it’s just an attempt to get a good crowd in. The last two occasions we’ve been at home on non-league day around 1,500 have turned up so I reckon they’re just desperate to get a four figure crowd in.
|
|
|
Post by davymac55 on Oct 6, 2019 20:08:17 GMT
TBH 15 is too much so lets not apologise fora poo poo situaton.. wearenot dealing with kids...and yet again having piss taken as yiu are expected to subsidise premier league season ticket holders..effing joke..have a banana ffs/?
|
|
|
Post by notsorecentconvert on Oct 6, 2019 20:25:34 GMT
If it really is just a cynical reduction for non-league day that would be very disappointing.
|
|
barker
Saints Youth Team Player
Posts: 135
|
Post by barker on Oct 7, 2019 22:37:00 GMT
What a wasted opportunity. The whole point of non-league day is to give those who may never have watched a non-league game an opportunity to see what it's all about ... it's supposed to be an opportunity to highlight all the communal aspects of local football. The Club are clearly putting on events ... and rolling out the beer barrels. So, they want to make it an occasion. They could even have done it as a 'pay what you want, suggested £15' if they have to. Let's face it. People are not going to be queuing up due to the Saints current position and performances ...
|
|
|
Post by ex-saintswebbo on Oct 8, 2019 8:05:12 GMT
One thing that gets me, as well as the adult price, is the cost for Juniors. I don't know many 12-16 year olds that earn enough money to pay £8 (£6 in advance) per game. So if I take my 13 year old it will be £26 to watch the game if I pay on the gate!
|
|