OT ticket price hikes for rest of season

With the CL football no longer o tap, Glazer debt, transfers getting more and more expensive, PSR and stadium regeneration urgent, one can certainly see why this has happened.

Small wonder they did not involve MUST. The antics of the so-called '1958' and their 'full sale only' motif will have absolutely been factored, also.

Grim all around, really. Ineos, the Glazers, Qatar and Liverpool can all do one. I do not support this move at all.

But it's not at all surprising it's landed as it has.
 
TMDaines said:
Crafton confirms what we all knew that it was Radcliffe’s team and not the Glazers who made the £66 switch:

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5953380/2024/11/28/ineos-ratcliffe-ticket-price-rises/
Click to expand...
It's been clear since day one of the takeover that Ratcliffe is in charge of not just the football side but the whole club. They wouldn't be allowing Ratcliffe to pick his own CEO and restructure the whole club how he wants if they were still the final decision makers. The Glazers have taken a backseat.
 
Rather depressing seeing the hike. I travel down a few times a season if I can but not sure I will be doing it if they stay that expensive.

Even the same up here for rugby now. Tickets over £100 to go watch Scotland at Murrayfield for example, they've went up massively the last few years.
 
Cloud7 said:
The PR from the non football side of things has been dreadful since ineos came in.
Click to expand...
Timing wise, they could have announces something towards the end of last season - something along the lines that they will be reviewing the ticketing policy/structure. It could have been vague but at least you've given people the heads up.

I think a more sensible approach would have been to make it a thing for next season (which wouldn't need to be announced now), just manage you key stakeholders, the fans, a lot better. No one is going to be happy with a price rise but an immediate price rise kills any perceived nuance. At least pretend to act like you care.
 
As some have said on here - Iv written a relatively long (and probably boring to them) email and sent it to feedback@manutd.com and iv also copied Jim Ratcliffe in.

I know they wont read it and it wont make a blind bit of difference but I wanted to tell them what this means for me and my 5 year old - and the experiences that he's had this season going to OT for the first time.
 
Rood said:
So basically you don't actually have the info about how many have and haven't and just made up the fact that 'United are one of the last clubs left still allowing concession pricing'

Even if this were true (and it's not), it's still a disgrace to do it in the middle of the season with no warning whatsoever
Click to expand...
West Ham have been doing it since the start of the season. Fans groups have been releasing black balloons en masse as a protest. Better off walking out during a game to give more impact. Not gonna miss much the way the team is playing
 
Champ said:
Spurs, Aston Villa, Fulham, Arsenal, Man City, Forest, West Ham, Liverpool, Everton, Crystal Palace, all clubs that have removed concession pricing for all games...
Click to expand...
As has already been pointed out to you, this information is not true in the slightest - bizarre behaviour to keep making things up
 
Champ said:
Again, this isn't a great look for the club, but they certainly are not the only ones doing this.
Click to expand...

Again, our club are the ONLY ones who have removed all concession pricing in the middle of a season - it's not difficult to understand but seems you continually need it spelling out to you
 
Mrs Smith said:
West Ham have been doing it since the start of the season. Fans groups have been releasing black balloons en masse as a protest. Better off walking out during a game to give more impact. Not gonna miss much the way the team is playing
Click to expand...
Those balloons will show them that’s for sure
 
Rood said:
Again, our club are the ONLY ones who have removed all concession pricing in the middle of a season - it's not difficult to understand but seems you continually need it spelling out to you
Click to expand...

It's not all concession pricing in fairness, the concession pricing is still in play for the cup games at the moment and the PL games against arsenal and city that are yet to be balloted.

But it's still a disgrace.
 
Cloud7 said:
This really puts things in perspective.

At some point you will wonder if it's worth it. Like yes, we all love football, and these families will no doubt want their kids to experience what they got the chance to as well, but this isn't 40 years ago where football is the biggest form of entertainment around. There are way more things for younger people to do now, and a lot of other things that less money could be spent on, that they will probably enjoy for longer than 90 minutes as well.

It would be great if ticket sales actually do drop off, and this decision comes back to bite the club, though I have no idea what the demand will be like if more of the current support drops off due to the cost.
Click to expand...

Yeah ultimately we as customer can control this.

Just stop going. Stop buying the overpriced merchandise.

Can't keep complaining and keep paying.
 
Hammondo said:
That the idea that football has finished, or is dead is silly.
Click to expand...
The idea that football is dead or dying isn’t silly and not addressing very real concerns, . In many ways, parts of it or incarnations of it have already died. Yes, the "product" remains, and it will continue to exist, but it can be argued the soul of the game is gone, or going. For me, a piece of it died with the formation of the Premier League. This current predicament? It’s been a long time coming. It’s the logical conclusion of years of decisions like Monday night TV games that didn’t give a toss about matchgoing fans—especially the travelling ones. The shift to clubs as commercial enterprises, where TV revenue vastly outstrips ticket sales, was another clear sign of where things were heading.

For years, it’s been obvious that "out-of-towners" spend much more on a matchday. Local fans, the ones who’ve always been the soul of the club, became seen as a financial millstone. Once, there was worry that if season ticket holders dwindled and day-trippers stopped coming, there’d be no one left to fill the stands. Now, the global expansion of fanbases pretty much guarantees that won’t be an issue for a while.

But for me, and many others, the romance of football was tied to its history and traditions. That dies when you start trampling on both. Football clubs were born out of working-class communities, unions, and local pride. They were more than just teams; they were community institutions. That’s a huge part of why I fell in love with the game in the first place. And now, that social historical connection feels all but dead. The removal of the local vocal passionate fans will make that concrete.

So to say football won't die, you have to know why and how it matters to people. Because if you rip out the roots—the history, the traditions, the sense of belonging—what’s left is just a hollow product. It’ll sell, sure, but it won’t mean the same. It doesn’t mean the same to me.
 
Longshanks said:
It's not all concession pricing in fairness, the concession pricing is still in play for the cup games at the moment and the PL games against arsenal and city that are yet to be balloted.

But it's still a disgrace.
Click to expand...
Not much reported yet, but also announced to remove the 25% discount on EL from knockouts onwards (assuming we get there!)

And I hope the ticket office aren't reading this as they'll be fixing their oversight on the ballots ASAP!
 
Marwood said:
Yeah ultimately we as customer can control this.

Just stop going. Stop buying the overpriced merchandise.

Can't keep complaining and keep paying.
Click to expand...

Ok, so I don’t go and a fella over from the US goes instead - great.
 
Marwood said:
Yeah ultimately we as customer can control this.

Just stop going. Stop buying the overpriced merchandise.

Can't keep complaining and keep paying.
Click to expand...
You don't really. I don't think this is a situation where a boycott will work.
 
Marwood said:
Yeah ultimately we as customer can control this.

Just stop going. Stop buying the overpriced merchandise.

Can't keep complaining and keep paying.
Click to expand...
There lies the problem - it's not as easy as "just stop going".

The club know that if a supporter of x amount of years decides to stop going in protest, they know full well that seat will be filled by someone else.
 
moses said:
The idea that football is dead or dying isn’t silly and not addressing very real concerns, . In many ways, parts of it or incarnations of it have already died. Yes, the "product" remains, and it will continue to exist, but it can be argued the soul of the game is gone, or going. For me, a piece of it died with the formation of the Premier League. This current predicament? It’s been a long time coming. It’s the logical conclusion of years of decisions like Monday night TV games that didn’t give a toss about matchgoing fans—especially the travelling ones. The shift to clubs as commercial enterprises, where TV revenue vastly outstrips ticket sales, was another clear sign of where things were heading.

For years, it’s been obvious that "out-of-towners" spend much more on a matchday. Local fans, the ones who’ve always been the soul of the club, became seen as a financial millstone. Once, there was worry that if season ticket holders dwindled and day-trippers stopped coming, there’d be no one left to fill the stands. Now, the global expansion of fanbases pretty much guarantees that won’t be an issue for a while.

But for me, and many others, the romance of football was tied to its history and traditions. That dies when you start trampling on both. Football clubs were born out of working-class communities, unions, and local pride. They were more than just teams; they were community institutions. That’s a huge part of why I fell in love with the game in the first place. And now, that social historical connection feels all but dead. The removal of the local vocal passionate fans will make that concrete.

So to say football won't die, you have to know why and how it matters to people. Because if you rip out the roots—the history, the traditions, the sense of belonging—what’s left is just a hollow product. It’ll sell, sure, but it won’t mean the same. It doesn’t mean the same to me.
Click to expand...

This is all nicely put.

I also think when people don’t go anymore, or not as regularly - for whatever reason. It becomes easy to think ‘it’s all dead now’ as you see TV cameras pan in on a family who have flown over for a day out with their phones out and megastore bags (nothing wrong with this in isolation for the record). Hear about dead atmosphere on Sky tv etc etc.

Maybe you get a ticket once in a while and sit in the quadrant surrounded by other day trippers {not used in the negative connotation here}

But in reality, OT has 58k ST holders - where I stand over the tunnel is the same people, every week. I see them at European away games, I will see them in London next month for Spurs away in the Carabao on a Thursday night etc. It is still somewhat of a community, a broad one but it exists.

I think people find it easy to swallow the throwaway remarks about OT being a ground full of tourists - you’d get a shock if you went, we aren’t there yet - and many won’t just accept it going that way without a scrap.
 
Utd heap said:
This is all nicely put.

I also think when people don’t go anymore, or not as regularly - for whatever reason. It becomes easy to think ‘it’s all dead now’ as you see TV cameras pan in on a family who have flown over for a day out with their phones out and megastore bags (nothing wrong with this in isolation for the record). Hear about dead atmosphere on Sky tv etc etc.

But in reality, OT has 58k ST holders - where I stand over the tunnel is the same people, every week. I see them at European away games, I will see them in London next month for Spurs away in the Carabao on a Thursday night etc. It is still somewhat of a community, a broad one but it exists.

I think people find it easy to swallow the throwaway remarks about OT being a ground full of tourists - you’d get a shock if you went, we aren’t there yet - and many won’t just accept it going that way without a scrap.
Click to expand...

I know it's not, but it's been a fear of mine for decades (the length of time probably meaning I was fretting too early, which is on brand). I meant more that the current ST holders don't have the power that such numbers should, because of the amount of potential customers to take their place. I was mainly answering the idea that a predicted death of the sport was silly,
 
moses said:
I know it's not, but it's been a fear of mine for decades (the length of time probably meaning I was fretting too early, which is on brand). I meant more that the current ST holders don't have the power that such numbers should, because of the amount of potential customers to take their place. I was mainly answering the idea that a predicted death of the sport was silly,
Click to expand...

I was agreeing with you, just trying to add some additional colour.
 
Skills said:
Btw, weren't INEOS the popular choice of ownership? This whole thing is going rather well.
Click to expand...
Not for me they weren’t. Anybody thinking that Ratcliffe was in this for the love of the club was delusional.

It’s going to get much much worse.
 
gaffs said:
How do we know who is responsible for this? Glazers or INEOS?

The understanding was that INEOS would be taking responsibility for "footballing decisions".
Click to expand...

MancunianAngels said:
Can we stop with this narrative.

People didn't fancy the idea of us being owned and controlled by a nation state. Ratcliffe was very much the lesser of three evils last season.
Click to expand...

Just gonna reply to these two responses since I've had about 20 and these are the first two I've found that aren't dumb, so apologies if I waffle off tangent completely.

To address the first point. We don't know if its INEOS or the Glazers...but we knew part of the INEOS deal was keeping the Glazers...and we also know who Sir Jim Radcliffe is, and actually, screwing over working fans and his own employees is very much more Radcliffe than it is Glazer. You only have to spend 15 minutes reading up about him to know that, and it annoys me that so many fans on here were too lazy to do that at the time and now seem shocked that keeping the Glazers and bringing in an even more greedy man to co own the club with them has resulted in the club becoming even more greedy and penny pinching. It was extremely obvious that this would happen. It is also already clear INEOS are not just responsible for "footballing decisions" because we know it was Radcliffe who decided to lay off half the club's employees to save himself some pennies. So that boat is no longer in the water.

I also, at the time, pointed this eventuality out on here, posted links to news articles of Radcliffe's past behaviour towards people under his employment and his lack of caring about anything other than his money, and what I got back was a load of condescending remarks and abuse. Enough to stop me posting for a while. Hence "you lot". Which might be unfair but it was very much a dumb herd mentality at the time. A flock of sheep is a flock of sheep.

On the second point - it was not an election. You didn't have to like one just because you didn't like the other, and even if it was, the lesser of three evils would actually have been to not have Radcliffe or the nation state option. Where as the best option for success on the pitch would much more likely have been the nation state option. I don't see the scenario where INEOS were the most favourable choice, but that's what everyone on here seemed to go all in on. Presumably because they wanted to pretend to care about what the most "right" choise was, but actually only care about the team winning games, and bought into Radcliffe's substanceless drivle about putting the club back on its perch.

It was the way people were so keen on INEOS at the time that flabberghasted me, because we have spent years battling and moaning about the Glazers, and the only guaranteed thing that came with INEOS was the club continuing to be owned by people who care more about their money than they ever will about morals, the team, fans, etc. Which is EXACTLY what we have hated about the Glazers. It also meant the fans (i.e. all of us) would continue to be treated like shite. and now that is what is going to happen, is happening, and will continue to happen. Since I got so much sarcastic and aggressive shite for trying to make this very very obvious point at the time, I'm still quite annoyed about it. Why is it now suddenly something to be so outraged about?

If you go into a restuarant in a foreign country, and try to order something you don't like because you were too lazy to learn how to read the menu, and then someone there tries to tell you what it is and warn you that you wont like it, and you rudely tell them to piss off and order it anyway, its pretty pointless being shocked and appauled when it is served up to you and you don't like it. Your options at that point are eat it or go hungry.

I don't buy that most people in this thread even care that much about ticket prices rather than just pretend to. If you care. Join MUST, go to a protest, boycott the games, etc. Actually try and do something about it...but you also then have to open your eyes to who the club's owners are and be realistic about what to expect from them...which will bring you back to the conclusion that they're a bunch of utter twats that you probably shouldn't have ever wanted near the club at all.
 
noodlehair said:
Just gonna reply to these two responses since I've had about 20 and these are the first two I've found that aren't dumb, so apologies if I waffle off tangent completely.

To address the first point. We don't know if its INEOS or the Glazers...but we knew part of the INEOS deal was keeping the Glazers...and we also know who Sir Jim Radcliffe is, and actually, screwing over working fans and his own employees is very much more Radcliffe than it is Glazer. You only have to spend 15 minutes reading up about him to know that, and it annoys me that so many fans on here were too lazy to do that at the time and now seem shocked that keeping the Glazers and bringing in an even more greedy man to co own the club with them has resulted in the club becoming even more greedy and penny pinching. It was extremely obvious that this would happen. It is also already clear INEOS are not just responsible for "footballing decisions" because we know it was Radcliffe who decided to lay off half the club's employees to save himself some pennies. So that boat is no longer in the water.

I also, at the time, pointed this eventuality out on here, posted links to news articles of Radcliffe's past behaviour towards people under his employment and his lack of caring about anything other than his money, and what I got back was a load of condescending remarks and abuse. Enough to stop me posting for a while. Hence "you lot". Which might be unfair but it was very much a dumb herd mentality at the time. A flock of sheep is a flock of sheep.

On the second point - it was not an election. You didn't have to like one just because you didn't like the other, and even if it was, the lesser of three evils would actually have been to not have Radcliffe or the nation state option. Where as the best option for success on the pitch would much more likely have been the nation state option. I don't see the scenario where INEOS were the most favourable choice, but that's what everyone on here seemed to go all in on. Presumably because they wanted to pretend to care about what the most "right" choise was, but actually only care about the team winning games, and bought into Radcliffe's substanceless drivle about putting the club back on its perch.

It was the way people were so keen on INEOS at the time that flabberghasted me, because we have spent years battling and moaning about the Glazers, and the only guaranteed thing that came with INEOS was the club continuing to be owned by people who care more about their money than they ever will about morals, the team, fans, etc. Which is EXACTLY what we have hated about the Glazers. It also meant the fans (i.e. all of us) would continue to be treated like shite. and now that is what is going to happen, is happening, and will continue to happen. Since I got so much sarcastic and aggressive shite for trying to make this very very obvious point at the time, I'm still quite annoyed about it. Why is it now suddenly something to be so outraged about?

If you go into a restuarant in a foreign country, and try to order something you don't like because you were too lazy to learn how to read the menu, and then someone there tries to tell you what it is and warn you that you wont like it, and you rudely tell them to piss off and order it anyway, its pretty pointless being shocked and appauled when it is served up to you and you don't like it. Your options at that point are eat it or go hungry.

I don't buy that most people in this thread even care that much about ticket prices rather than just pretend to. If you care. Join MUST, go to a protest, boycott the games, etc. Actually try and do something about it...but you also then have to open your eyes to who the club's owners are and be realistic about what to expect from them...which will bring you back to the conclusion that they're a bunch of utter twats that you probably shouldn't have ever wanted near the club at all.
Click to expand...

In summary - Noodle told you all Jim was a tit. He agrees it is shit. Matchgoers should protest it.

Things 90% of people in here agree with anyway. All friends now.
 
Utd heap said:
Ok, so I don’t go and a fella over from the US goes instead - great.
Click to expand...

Well yeah if just you stop going it won't work. But I'm talking about a collective mindset amongst football fans. Sort of saying enough, this is out of hand.

moses said:
You don't really. I don't think this is a situation where a boycott will work.
Click to expand...
Course it would. Thousands of empty seats and a drop in merch sales is in fact the best way to get anything done.

LittleP14 said:
There lies the problem - it's not as easy as "just stop going".

The club know that if a supporter of x amount of years decides to stop going in protest, they know full well that seat will be filled by someone else.
Click to expand...

Only to a point. They can't just fly in tens of thousands of US fans in.
 
Surely the bigger surprise is how long prices were frozen for whilst every other ticketed event shot up in price
 
Garethw said:
Anybody thinking that Ratcliffe was in this for the love of the club was delusional.
Click to expand...

Correct. Same goes for Qatar's state bid. It was all about using our club for sportswashing purposes.

Both terrible options in it for themselves.
 
Marwood said:
Course it would. Thousands of empty seats and a drop in merch sales is in fact the best way to get anything done.
Click to expand...

Your problems with a boycott are two-fold. I know from personal experience that organisation on that level will be tricky to initiate and even trickier to sustain. Secondly for a boycott to work there has to be long term financial pain and losing ST holders doesn't hold that threat. Your point about the megastore here is pertinent, non ST holders are the megastore customers. It's grim but a solution is not glaringly apparent to me.
 
We as fans, need to start thinking about pulling together and taking some decent action. Similar to what happened with the whole super league rubbish. This to me is the start of a slippery slope and maybe the clowns at INEOS need reminding just how powerful and disruptive us fans can be on a matchday.
 
£66 a ticket is shocking in any terms (unless we're talking halfway line premium seats) , but to charge kids and OAPs £66 a ticket for any seat is disgusting. A slap in the face to the everyday working Joe. And its not like we are watching top tier enjoyable football.

Awful and short sighted decision by the club. INEOS prob have realised the reality of the financial sh*tshow the club is in. The debt is always going to catch up with us, but to make the fans pay for it is disgusting.

Im dreading what the price increase will be for next season.
 
moses said:
About 4 people thought that. It was the lesser of two evils for most people.
Click to expand...
Bingo. I was for Ineos over the options available to the club (Qatar, that mental fella from Scandinavia, or the hedge fund angles proposed). I could kind of understand the initial staff culling, awful to see people lose their jobs but again the soundings also suggest the bloating of staff and neglect from director level attributed to the bloat).

But it is getting more and more penny pinching now, doing their best to save tiny amounts no matter the cost.

Also losing faith in the structure above the manager working. None of the signings in the summer have worked out seamlessly either.

It just feels like a cleanup job, strip it back as bare as possible where we can just about function, charge as much as possible. Then use that savings to pay for poorly identified signings....well pay for their first weeks wages anyway. If anything there is more of a disconnect with the fanbase now.

I also don't believe for 1 second the majority in a survey voted for a new stadium over refurbing Old Trafford. We will be made pay for that aswell yet. All this on the books and still no real plan to tackle the debt we are under from Glazer original purchase.
 
For sake of argument let’s say that 66 quid becomes the normal price and they do away with the concept of season ticket holders.

They build a 100k capacity stadium charging 66 a ticket. They’ll be printing money

Or they could be sitting with a half empty stadium
 
You must log in or register to reply here.