I know you disagree but Ive never really understood what exactly your views are as you rarely go into detail.
Do you honestly think our ticket prices are too high in comparison to other Premier League clubs?
ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
- Status
I know you disagree but Ive never really understood what exactly your views are as you rarely go into detail.
Do you honestly think our ticket prices are too high in comparison to other Premier League clubs?
I don't have the time or inclination to engage in these threads as much as some do but I would have thought my views were fairly clear.
I think most Premiership (and Championship) clubs prices are too high. Straight comparisons are fairly futile anyway as they don't take in account the ground capacity, regional differences etc. The point is that the current prices are too high compared to when the Glazers took over.
I can currently afford to go but that doesn't mean that I can't empathise with others that have been priced out and understand their position. To say they have no cause to complain is extremely ignorant.
No your views arent clear at all - you often pick at stuff I and others say without ever properly explaining your opinion.
Now I completely agree that prices for football tickets in England are too high across the board - but that of course is about how football has changed and is not specific to our club.
Straight comparisons are not futile, what other measure do you propose to gage if prices are reasonable? Comparison to your peers seems like a perfectly valid measure to me.
You say that "The point is that the current prices are too high compared to when the Glazers took over." - what measure are you using to judge that? Do you think that our prices should stay the same eventhough all others are increasing theirs? If not, then what do you feel is a reasonable level of rise?
My views on ticket prices have nothing to do with my personal situation (which for the record you were way off about). I just dont see how anyone can think that an average 5% price rise per year is something to get worked up over. People have been priced out for as long as I remember, it is not good but neither it is something that has only started since 2005. If you look at our historical ticket prices then it is clear that prices have risen much faster in the past.
In my post I was talking about City and Chelsea - had it not been for the rich owners they would have been watching mediocrity mate, rather than competing with the likes of United. Ferguson in his post assumed possible new owners would rock the boat at United. There is no perfect ownership, however this constant criticism of foreign owners is getting tired.
Well, in the context of this thread the main difference between ourselves and City and Chelsea is not the nationality of the owners, but the method of funding. Chelsea and City are both run by 'sugar-daddies' (Chelsea less so now, but still to a significant extent) with little or no interest in setting up their clubs as genuinely functioning and self-sufficient businesses. It's a tactic which some disagree with due to both the desperately unsustainable nature of the clubs should the owners decide to sell, as well as it seemingly going hand-in-hand with the deplorable 'interfering owner' who takes the attitude that 'It's my money so I'll play with my toy how I like'. At United however we have the Glazers who, despite the relatively high levels of debt - the impact of which imo has been exaggerated massively by parties who stand to gain most by its exaggeration - are running a very successful and seemingly infinitely sustainable business; if the Glazers sell the club we won't stand to lose anything, unlike at Chelsea and City who rely almost exclusively on their owners' backing. It's for this reason that I prefer the Glazer model over the Sheikh's or the Ogliarch's; nothing to do with their respective nationalities. It's very much worth noting too that the impending FFP regs. will significantly favour our current model over that of the sugar-daddies, hence Abramovich's efforts towards cutting the wage bill at Chelsea and the Sheikh's mad dash for a squad of competitive players at City before the floodgates are closed on both of them and their hands are tied.
I know who I would you prefer if I were a long term suffering Chelsea or a City fan. This interfering nonsense is mostly a stick for incompetent managers (Benitez) to beat the owners. United have been successful on the pitch prior to the Glazers and under different forms of ownership, because we have mostly had the right football people in charge, nothing to do with the owners.
Glazers staying out of footballing side is because they are intelligent people. They have had no reason to interfere. It would have been financial suicide had they interfered with a manager as successful and popular as SAF. I'm sure had there been a few lean years they would have interfered just like others - they would have had a right to protect their investment in the best way they see fit. I have not yet seen owners of Chelsea or City running away from their club. In fact if anything Chelsea are now trying to implement successful business model, and I'm sure City will do likewise in the future.
Chelsea have peaked imo; Abramovich's hands will be tied by the FFP regs. and without his money to attract players they have very little to offer and will decline accordingly; will Abramovich stick around for that? Who knows. We could likely see a similar story at City; when the Dubians realise that they can't throw their money at wages and transfers anymore, what will stop them selling? Where is the prestige at City without the Sheikh's money to puff their feathers up? United is a different story, we have prestige, success and worldwide recognition without a sugar-daddy to buy it for us; so why do we suddenly all want one?
We don't need a sugar daddy as such, but a debt free club would be a good start. Our net spending has been pitiful over the last few seasons....and I'm not sure there's any indication of that changing. Anyway, I'm confident the opportunists will sell up eventually. They're businessmen after all....doubling your money in 5 or 6 seasons is a great return. We'll see though...I'm hoping there's more than hot air in the Qatari rumours.
And Cider aren't you bored of this thread? You're repeating stuff, ad nauseum, surely you can see you're an obsessive cnut? You'll just have to accept not everyone sees the sun shining out of the backsides of Joel et al.
Nah I like it.
I can see where Ciders coming from though, the way some are going on it's reminiscent of the scousers and their 'any owners will do (with deep pockets)'* mindset... it's not that clear cut, and I suspect some of you know this. Still, it sounds good to say Glazers out right? Only until you start to think about the possible outcomes of some of the alternatives....
Lets just hope that when we are sold (be that next year or next decade) that some of the good things that the Glazers do are kept on and the bad things are fcuked off (by now we all know what the good and bad are so no need to repeat), that would be my ideal situation...
*Back to the 'any owners will do' mindset, how often does that work out? I'd like to think that the people looking over and dictating the sale of United would come with more than a 'any owners will do' mindset...
Lets just hope that when we are sold (be that next year or next decade) that some of the good things that the Glazers do are kept on and the bad things are fcuked off (by now we all know what the good and bad are so no need to repeat), that would be my ideal situation...
*Back to the 'any owners will do' mindset, how often does that work out? I'd like to think that the people looking over and dictating the sale of United would come with more than a 'any owners will do' mindset...
Well just to clarify something totally random then, you can see here in this table from anders' blog that up until this season the average real increase to ticket prices under the Glazers (that's actual average rise minus the annual RPI inflation rate) was 34%.
Of course though this season's price freeze minus this year's 4.7% RPI inflation rate means the latest figure for average real price rises under the Glazers has been only 29.6%,. You kinda said it was 60% or something? Nah, nah it's not, it's nowhere near, that's just MUSTshit.
I know, I know. It's a whacky idea to consider inflation rates when totting up ticket price rises, that's why MUST don't bother, but I'm absolutely mental like that and I'm not clued up like them; it's an affliction I unfortunately have to live with
It's more than just whacky, it's actually irrelevant; the national RPI is not a good indicator of affordability. The table merely illustrates that the price of some goods (tickets) has seriously outpaced the cost of goods in general. Ticket prices have grown by 48% whereas prices in general have increased by 14%.
To determine affordability you need to look at salaries. Alas, the NSO doesn't compile useable stats for salary trends in the north-west and it certainly doesn't produce income stats for ST holders. But the PL does via the National Fan Survey Report. This survey is referenced in the IM from 2006. The average salary of ST holders (all premier clubs) in 2003 was £34,000. There was a clear 'north/south' divide:
As it happens, the income of Manchester United fans follows the average of PL fans as a whole, being better salaried than their northern counterparts but not as high earning as London folk.
Average salaries for ST holders at OT in 2008 was £38,000 giving an 11% increase over 5 years. While this period doen't mirror the 5 year period in the table, I think it's reasonable to assume (given the economic conditions over the last 2 years) that an 11% increase can be extrapolated to the 2005-2010period as well. On that basis, ticket prices have outstripped salaries by 37%; and this, rather than relative movements against RPI, is the proper guage of affordability.
Currently, RPI is at 4.7% and outstrips salary inflation. Indeed, this is the expectation for the next few years. Living standards are expected to drop as salaries fall behind the cost of living. Thus, ticket price hikes in line with RPI (the Glazer plan according to the JPM report) will be less affordable in really 'real' terms.
Another 'affordability' issue for the typical fan is travel costs. These costs have grown rapidly over the last 10 years and are no doubt more keenly felt by OT matchgoers as they, on average, travel more than the fans of all other PL clubs. This is no fault of the Glazers, but the typical fan- perhaps facing a stagant or dwindling paycheck- will have to factor in travel costs into his reckoning of 'affordability'.
the andersred blog: Red Football parent companies issues two new shares each: for £249m!
Good! And keep your bloody nose out of it! The PIKs were always their own personal debt and it's none of our business how they've dealt with them.
Good! And keep your bloody nose out of it! The PIKs were always their own personal debt and it's none of our business how they've dealt with them.Irrelevant, eh?
I wasn't trying to demonstrate how affordable or otherwise the tickets were, I was simply pointing out to Spoony that the 60% Glazer increases were but a myth created by MUST to scare and anger people. RPI is a good indicator of how much one would expect the cost of living to rise by each year, if salaries do not rise accordingly then quality and affordability of living drops slightly, that much is obvious. Is it the Glazers fault though that salaries are not rising at an ideal rate? Is it they who're expected to restore the quality of living in United fans despite all others suffering without such charitable saviours to protect them? Should the Glazers just ignore RPI because... waaaaaaaaa it's not fair! waaaaaaaaa we're United fans!
RPI is far from irrelevant. To reach a reasonable figure indicating Glazer ticket price rises you deduct the RPI rate over their tenure from the total average increase in price; it's as simple as that. If the quality and affordability of British life in general has deteriorated somewhat in the meantime then the Glazers should not be held accountable any more than they already are for those rises specifically above RPI.
Irrelevant my arse.
You do it deliberately, don't you... the trying to sound like you are somehow tied in with the Glazers?
A reasonable figure for what? How ticket prices move relative to a bag of sugar? So the pricing of tickets at all premiership clubs will be a function of the price of a bag of sugar as opposed to the earnings of their patrons?
Chelsea fans earn, on average, 50+k while Wigan supporters earn 30+k. Should Wigan adopt Chelsea's pricing policy because a bag of sugar is roughly the same price across the nation? Do I need to elaborate further? The RPI (by definition) doesn't reflect the local economy and most ST holders in the PL are local to their clubs.
Affordability is key to demand. If the price of tickets rise too much, the demand drops, because some fans can not 'afford' to go. Do they look at the price of bag of sugar nationally or their local paycheck to determine affordability? You have previously stated that you can not 'afford' to go to OT and you weren't crying 'waaaaaaaaa it's not fair!' about it. Fine. My attitute is the same. I use the word 'affordability' without emotivity. You should do the same. Chill a little.
Prices at OT and other clubs are set in advance of the season and demand reacts accordingly. In order to gauge how demand might react, clubs will be mindful of conditions in the local economy. That's just good business. Useable stats from the local economy are more useful than nationally compiled stats.
When the Glazers "successfully implemented a blended 14% price
increase for the 2006/07 season" (IM 2006) they referenced the National Fan Survey Report (2003/2004) citing the Fans' satisfaction with "great value tickets". They were also aware of the income distribution provided by Report:
65% of fans earned less than 30k; 13% earned more than 50k; and the remainder fell between 30K and 50K. So even the unsentimental Glazers, your idols, recognised that demand was a function of local salaries (affordability) and blended prices accordingly. To quote the IM report:
IM said:
Of course demand is effected by affordability, I was responding in contradiction to your assurance that RPI was irrelevant, not making similarly ridiculous assurances that the relative wealth of the fanbase is irrelevant to demand. Both are very relevant.
What you're saying though is that the owners looked at local salary statistics before implementing the price rises; that they spread the rises accordingly so that those on tighter budgets would not be as heavily effected as were those on decent money; well what's wrong with that? It's something I've been trying to point out all year but to very little avail; the cheaper areas of the stadium, those areas suitable for the fans on a budget, didn't really see much of a rise at all relative to the higher end sections, and rightly so.
The Glazers, my idols, saw that demand for tickets far outstripped the finite supply, hence they were trading under the PLC's policy for far less than market value; they were worth more than what they were being sold for. Would you not agree that it is the right of any business owner to be free to sell his wares at market value, to sell them for their full worth without being labelled as rip-off merchants or robbers?
With Old Trafford selling out for all but the most insignificant of midweek cup games, we can see that the pricing policy is fair and correct; the waiting list has been eradicated which shows us that tickets are now trading at their market value; demand no longer outstrips supply and the resulting equilibrium is a fair one.
Of course some people have been priced out by the rises, but they've just joined those who were already priced out, you can't please everyone; match tickets have a worth and if certain fans cannot afford to pay that worth then it is not the fault of the Glazers; it is not the Glazers responsibility to ensure that all United fans can afford to live their lives how they want to live them, the responsibility lies solely with the fans as individuals to either improve their circumstances, adjust their budgets or alter their goals.
I'm happy to watch United on Sky Sports, drinking cans with my mates, I accept that I'm not well off in life and I have never been naive enough to believe that as a United fan I have some God given right to a seat at Old Trafford sold to me at a price which I can afford. A Manchester United season ticket is a luxury item; do not expect them to be handed out like food coupons, and don't go around blaming everybody but yourself if you happen to not be able to afford one.
What you're saying though is that the owners looked at local salary statistics before implementing the price rises; that they spread the rises accordingly so that those on tighter budgets would not be as heavily effected as were those on decent money; well what's wrong with that? It's something I've been trying to point out all year but to very little avail; the cheaper areas of the stadium, those areas suitable for the fans on a budget, didn't really see much of a rise at all relative to the higher end sections, and rightly so.
The Glazers, my idols, saw that demand for tickets far outstripped the finite supply, hence they were trading under the PLC's policy for far less than market value; they were worth more than what they were being sold for. Would you not agree that it is the right of any business owner to be free to sell his wares at market value, to sell them for their full worth without being labelled as rip-off merchants or robbers?
With Old Trafford selling out for all but the most insignificant of midweek cup games, we can see that the pricing policy is fair and correct; the waiting list has been eradicated which shows us that tickets are now trading at their market value; demand no longer outstrips supply and the resulting equilibrium is a fair one.
Of course some people have been priced out by the rises, but they've just joined those who were already priced out, you can't please everyone; match tickets have a worth and if certain fans cannot afford to pay that worth then it is not the fault of the Glazers; it is not the Glazers responsibility to ensure that all United fans can afford to live their lives how they want to live them, the responsibility lies solely with the fans as individuals to either improve their circumstances, adjust their budgets or alter their goals.
I'm happy to watch United on Sky Sports, drinking cans with my mates, I accept that I'm not well off in life and I have never been naive enough to believe that as a United fan I have some God given right to a seat at Old Trafford sold to me at a price which I can afford. A Manchester United season ticket is a luxury item; do not expect them to be handed out like food coupons, and don't go around blaming everybody but yourself if you happen to not be able to afford one.
Twitter journalist
+
+
Good post. The glazer dick sucking by some is getting embarrassing.
Fans could afford tickets.
Glazers buy club, put ticket prices up.
Fans could not afford tickets.
Yes, that would be the fault of the fans.
What a wonderful piece of logic.
As is the Qatari dick sucking in the other thread. You can't have it all one way. People do have different views they are entitled to.
See my above post.
But there's so many of them....
All I want is for people to realise that MUST have deceived them and that the Glazers are not destroying our club. For the fanbase to pointlessly harbour under the delusion that United is a crippled football club on its knees under the Glazer ownership, a widespread delusion perpetuated at the whim of a few vaguely idealistic political activists and enforced by so many knuckle-dragging divs with a penchant for unwavering hatred, is wholly counter-productive, potentially damaging and disrespectful to the name of Manchester United. If you perceive my highlighting of the fact that the club is doing well under the Glazers as dick-sucking then so be it, but, as more and more fans come to realise that the scare-mongerers, with their perma-enraged screams of impending doom over the last six years, were and still are full of nothing but hot air and shit, then animosity towards the Glazers will continue to decline, and the club will be much better off for it.
Start with the one that you quoted which you apparently didn't read.
Thats 2/3 of a Bebe.
Well done, Tipper.
Thanks Porny
it gives me a warm glow to get the nod from one of the caff chief Neanderthalls
it gives me a warm glow to get the nod from one of the caff chief Neanderthalls
All I want is for people to realise that the Glazers have deceived them and that MUST are not destroying our club. For the fanbase to pointlessly harbour under the delusion that United is a crippled football club on its knees under MUST stewardship, a widespread delusion perpetuated at the whim of a few vaguely idealistic political activists and enforced by so many knuckle-dragging divs with a penchant for unwavering hatred, is wholly counter-productive, potentially damaging and disrespectful to the name of Manchester United. If you perceive my highlighting of the fact that the club is doing well under MUST as dick-sucking then so be it, but, as more and more fans come to realise that the scare-mongerers, with their perma-enraged screams of impending doom over the last six years, were and still are full of nothing but hot air and shit, then animosity towards MUST will continue to decline, and the club will be much better off for it.
It doesn't really make any sense when you put it like that, CR. MUST are not running the club, in case you haven't noticed.
Thanks Porny
it gives me a warm glow to get the nod from one of the caff chief Neanderthalls
Neanderthals.
What about us neanderthalls?
yup that wait trayning you do has improoved the musles in yer breyn somthin magik
Makes as much sense as your obsessive anti-must propaganda.
MUST were wrong; surely even you can admit that now? The crippling asset stripping never happened, the club remains in a good financial position and we're sat at the top of the league still six years on from the Glazer takeover. SAF's happy, the players are happy, most of the fans have come to realise that they were duped by the typically pessimistic press (and MUST) and once again seem ready to accept that they are indeed happy. What's the problem?
Haven't you noticed how MUST change and dilute their message every few months to fit what's going on at the club? After all the good news of the last six months they're left with "The Glazers are whoring the name of United out to anyone who'll pay for it, soon we'll have United sausage rolls and washing powder!" Well whoop di do! It's no longer "The Glazers are going to bleed the club dry and we're all going to die!" It's now "We're rich but only because of commercial sponsorship!"
Nobody listens to MUST anymore because everyone knows doing so will only cause you to have your ears pelted with bullshit. This is a good thing for United; the fans are finally getting 'clued up'.
Propaganda?
No...
reality.
It's very sad how so many of you now long for bad news to support you viewpoint, and when it doesn't come you become bitter and take the piss out of people like me for appreciating the good news.
No-one's longing for bad news Cider, it's just the voices in your head.
I know a few who long for bad news, Fred being the most obvious example; he said himself he'd see us go bust and relegated if it meant the Glazers sold the club. Anders actively encouraged sabotage of the financial model through boycott, and many of you supported that; bad news equates to good news for anyone in that mindset. The problem is though, you won't accept good news, you'll never change your minds; you've forgotten why you oppose the Glazers in the first place; it's certainly not because they'll ruin the club, because they haven't, and you're still whinging. What will it take for you to accept that your protestations were overzealous and things aren't half as bad as they were made out to be? When will you open your eyes to reality?
You're feckin nuts man, have a drink it's new years eve!
- Status