Exactly. A club that has to pay its fans to go and watch them play.
Bluemoon goes into Meltdown
- Thread starter Logan!
- Start date
Exactly. A club that has to pay its fans to go and watch them play.
.Instead of using it to take a dig against an opposing team, how about applauding clubs who are actually trying to make it cheaper for fans to go to games? People constantly complain about the price of supporting your team, yet when prices are cut, people still have a go.
Hehe.
Have to agree, nice gesture from the club would be great if the other 19 did the same.
Newcastle are apparently launching a scheme where they charge opposition fans £20 a ticket if it means that the reverse fixture is the same price for their away fans.
One of the organisations are trying to get every to club in the league to set a £20 limit, it's good to see someone taking part in the scheme.
Bang on really. Good gesture by City and I wish all clubs would do the same.
I'd rather our club was financed by the supporters money if that's ok. I don't really want us to start discounting if it means we need a sugardaddy owner.
Or alternatively it's a nice scheme to give something back to the fans who pay the players wages. Hell let's just get every team to raise the price of tickets if it means everyone doesn't need a sugar daddy.
On a side note, what would people's opinion's be on having a billionaire owner, who ran the club as the fans wanted it, pumped in money and made ticket prices around £15 a ticket?
Yes, please.
It's nothing to the clubs in the grand scheme of things. You wouldn't need a sugar daddy club to finance it.
Isn't that City? Except if you are a supporter you don't have to pay £15 a ticket has their tickets are routinely given away for free. The problem is finding enough fans to take them.
Then what about the fans that are priced out? Football is already becoming too expensive for a large majority of fans. Taking your family to a game costs a fortune. I welcome any scheme that helps people out.
Instead of getting a dig in at a rival, you could answer the question. How would you feel if United got bought over by a billionaire, never interfered with anything, gave the manager funds and reduced ticket prices massively.
Disneyland?
Entirely depends how we use the funds. United got to the top the hard way, and I never want to see us buying success. When we spend money now, you know it's money that we've earned through years of footballing success, and everything that comes with it. But if we were owned by some sugar-daddy and started buying in superstar after superstar, I'd feel pretty conflicted about it.
I'm sure we'd get over it pretty quickly.
How on earth can you say any of this speculative psychobabble with a straight face?
How many of the City players have played in the knockout stages?
T
Agreed. There'd be one or two claiming they didn't like it, but once a couple of genuinely world class players were signed they'd go quiet.
The sad thing is, that we have the money to do this already but the owners won't spend it.
Agreed. There'd be one or two claiming they didn't like it, but once a couple of genuinely world class players were signed they'd go quiet.
The sad thing is, that we have the money to do this already but the owners won't spend it.
I disagree. If we ever were bought out and started doing what City, Chelsea, Monaco and PSG, etc do, I would be upset and I know many more would be as well. That is not United and never should be. Yes, I'd be happy about winning (everyone always is) but I'd also be very bitter and upset about the way we won and it wouldn't be the same as winning off of your own merit.
Not sure if this has been posted but a nice little recap.
That's great from City. However you want to take it that's saved £20 for people travelling to watch them. Even more if you're going to London. To use it as a stick to beat them with is pretty sad.
They've got to do something to fill up the stand.
All the Premier League clubs have been given £20k to encourage away support - this is what they're all doing with it:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk//footbal...at-Premier-League-clubs-spending-200k-on.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk//footbal...at-Premier-League-clubs-spending-200k-on.html
Spot on. A good gesture by the club who seem not to want to wring every last penny out of fans - unlike the vast majority of other clubs, United included.
I was obviously taking a cheap shot with my comment, but the fact remains that ours will be one of the last clubs to do this because away tickets are gold dust. Whereas City genuinely don't sell out the "tricky" aways they will be funding.
I know United away tickets are tough to get, United should still be doing something to reward those that spend the money. If City get more away fans out of this move, then they deserve it. An increase in attendance will mean they've made football affordable for more people than before, which is a massive plus for everyone, regardless of Cities motives.
True, but you're confusing what football clubs should do, andwhat there is a snowball's chance in hell of them actually doing. As you say - City have a motive, whereas we don't. There aren't a lot of big clubs around who would do this just for the fan's benefit.
To look at it the other way, City could justify their motives as "ah look, our poor fans can't afford to get to these games", which is putting a very positive spin on "we haven't got enough fans who give a shit to make the sacrifice". Whereas United can happily look at the away crowd and say "looks like everybody is making it to the match OK, nothing to address here".
I agree a lot of clubs wouldn't do it, but that doesn't mean it's correct, and that clubs that do, should be insulted for having poor attendance and attempting to correct that problem. At some point, too many fans are going to be priced out of football, if the current growth maintains. In the future, will it even be possible for a top club to be self sustaining, if the wages and transfer fees keep spiraling, without extorting the fans?
Depends, I imagine if United had a separate TV deal then the ticket prices would be cheaper.
Wrong thread guys, probably deserves its own thread anyway.
Exactly what I meant by the difference between what they should and will do.
I do, however, at all times reserve the right to insult City on any grounds whatosever, real or imaginary.
They simply could start paying less? I don't really understand that. If given the choice would you really prefer the club buying Willian at the end of the transfer window over paying significantly less for watching the games, let's say £10 less for each ticket each game (10*40.000*30 home games = 12m, which probably equals around the 12m Chelsea pays for Willian each year over that 5year contract if we add transfer and wages together). Of course, it's not that simple, but it's probably not far off either. I just think the question is ridiculous.
Watzke recently gave an interview in which he called the 'yellow wall' in Dortmund a financial disaster. The club is loosing millions each year in comparison to turning the standing area into normal seats or charging way more which would price out a lot of the passionate football fans. But he also says it's part of the club's identity and they are using it for marketing and try to make up for the money they loose that way. So yeah, of course it's possible, it's just not the easiest way for the club.
Could you imagine how well it would go down if Woodwoodwood came out & said that the reason we never brought that top midfielder was so they could reduce ticket prices by a fiver? Not sure that would go down too well with the fans tbh.
If there is a sudden increase in City away following then it's pretty clear that the cost of tickets was preventing their supporters from following the club. They're not buying supporters, they're simply helping out those who can't afford the ridiculous prices.
Over here they could do both but won't as they don't need to.