OT ticket price hikes for rest of season

moses said:
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.
Click to expand...

Agree the organising of a meaningful boycott is almost impossible. It won't happen.

But it would work.

But we see here people find the idea of not paying for an extremely overpriced product to be very difficult.
 
Superunknown said:
I do worry about what it means for the next generation coming through. There has been a definite shift over the last 10/15 years. Lots of young people's exposure to football tends to be related to YouTube clips or Ultimate Team. I work in education and I'm coming across fewer and fewer younger people who actually go to games. It's too expensive anyway and the price is only going in one direction. The money that would have been spent on tickets is now going on something else instead. All moves like this is going to do is alienate fans. It's putting up barriers to younger fans, whilst also pissing off fans who have been loyal but just can't afford it anymore.

There's also the factor of the way this was handled. It just comes across as very cold. Fans have an emotional connection to their clubs and that should always be respected.
Click to expand...

I do get the feeling that the PL are sleep walking into destruction. Pricing young people out of games is bad enough but they have also priced out average people being able to watch live football on TV, from what i can recall you can only watch a handful of live FA cup games without a subscription. This wouldn't be a problem if the subscription was a reasonable price but you are looking at shelling out almost a £100 a month for all the packages which will enable you to watch all your team's games. This is also compounded by the fact that modern football has become more tactical and robotic where athletic ability dominates over skill and flair. Most games are tactical bore fests and the game lacks skillful and creative players across the board. It doesn't capture the imagination of young people anymore.

And it is having an impact on the ground, whenever i speak to my kids or nieces & nephews on what they are into football is rarely mentioned anymore.
 
Last edited:


GddPOwNXkAAu444
 
Mr Anderson said:
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.
Click to expand...
The options were indeed grim but i don't see how moving from one hyper capitalist to another was preferable, ethically they are pretty awful too.
 
2mufc0 said:
The options were indeed grim but i don't see how moving from one hyper capitalist to another was preferable, ethically they are pretty awful too.
Click to expand...
I think the foreign state ownership thing just didn't sit well for a few reasons. But at the end of the day, none of us had any say anyway. There were just opinions.
 
2mufc0 said:
The options were indeed grim but i don't see how moving from one hyper capitalist to another was preferable, ethically they are pretty awful too.
Click to expand...

Because that wasn’t the choice. The club was up for sale. And it looked like a two horse race between Ineos and being owned (to all intents and purposes) by a gulf state. So I don’t think feeling preference for private ownership who can at least claim to be local was strange at all.

The partial sale was a curve ball. Stuck with the Glazers and this new guy. Nobody saw that coming though.
 
Judas said:
It's not even like we're any good. Charging so much for what is essentially a midtable side is rancid. Same goes for the likes of West Ham etc. Footballs a business, but the disdain these companies have for their customers is horrific.
Click to expand...
Ultimately, they don't care who's in the ground.

Clubs have figured out that there's a market for Premier League matches for people who don't really care about anything going on, they just want the experience.
noodlehair said:
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...
You're over complicating even if I do agree with the general point.

Being owned by a state line was a red line for people. They would have generally preferred the Glazers to Qatar/Jassim. The current model of the Glazers having less control with Ratcliffe running the football side isn't ideal but ultimately (marginally anyway) better than what we had.

I have been boycotting for years. I joined MUST (who were useless). I became a member of FC. I was involved in pretty much protest group formed from when I had the money and spare time to do.

The issue we've had as a support is the lack of a unified pressure group. Post 2005, Fergie's success fooled a lot of people about the running of the club. It was hard to start a rebellion when we were regularly getting the later stages of the Champions League and winning the league. By the time, things started to get really shit post 2014, the same people who were protesting a few years later had moved on. The younger lads who would have taken up the mantle had been outpriced once they hit 21 or got fed up of overzealous stewards telling them to sit down.

There's an expression about a boiling frog that comes to mind.
 
moses said:
I think the foreign state ownership thing just didn't sit well for a few reasons. But at the end of the day, none of us had any say anyway. There were just opinions.
Click to expand...
True. Personally i have felt until the Glazers are completely removed we won't make any meaningful progress on the pitch. Now we have a Frankenstein of the Glazers combined with INEOS.
 
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...

So is it fair to conclude from this that you were unhappy with every potential new owner and with status quo under the Glazers?
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Because that wasn’t the choice. The club was up for sale. And it looked like a two horse race between Ineos and being owned (to all intents and purposes) by a gulf state. So I don’t think feeling preference for private ownership who can at least claim to be local was strange at all.

The partial sale was a curve ball. Stuck with the Glazers and this new guy. Nobody saw that coming though.
Click to expand...

There was never any evidence that there was any state bid on the table, people just jumped to conclusions about Jassim's bid because of his nationality and used it as a reason to back a bid that kept the Glazers in.
 
RedRocket9908 said:
There was never any evidence that there was any state bid on the table, people just jumped to conclusions about Jassim's bid because of his nationality and used it as a reason to back a bid that kept the Glazers in.
Click to expand...

There was loads of evidence that he was extremely tight with the people that run that state. So tight that it was completely reasonable to assume we would essentially be state owned.

This is all moot though because he failed in his first big task as a potential owner, buying the club.
 
MancunianAngels said:
Ultimately, they don't care who's in the ground.

Clubs have figured out that there's a market for Premier League matches for people who don't really care about anything going on, they just want the experience.
Click to expand...
Exactly, attendance at top level football is now firmly in the 'entertainment business, with 'ticket master' soon to be the ultimate dispenser. Even now you can book a 'football weekend,' includes overnight stay in a 'football hotel', tour of the ground, drinks in the bar/lunch in one of OT's restaurants with club ambassadors (ex players) and firstclass tickets/or box accommodation for a PL home game.

This is the way its going 'Super-duper' league style....can't wait for the dancing elephants at half time!!
 
golden_blunder said:
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
Click to expand...
They couldn't sell out Brentford in the PL a few weeks ago.
 
RedRocket9908 said:
There was never any evidence that there was any state bid on the table, people just jumped to conclusions about Jassim's bid because of his nationality and used it as a reason to back a bid that kept the Glazers in.
Click to expand...
Got some magic beans you can buy, if you want. DM me.
 
noodlehair said:
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.
Click to expand...

Just to point out that a majority of this forum preferred the Qatari option - it's just the loud minority who shout more and make you think the opposite:
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/qat...ers-would-you-prefer-vote-now-private.475744/

I agree with you though that it was bizarre to see Brexit Jim and greenwashing petrochemical giant INEOS presented as some kind of morally preferable option - it certainly wasn't to me!
And that's before we even get into a discussion about whether it was even a state bid or not - as far as I'm concerned it was not.

Getting back to the subject of this thread - would we be seeing this kind of underhand ticket price manipulation under the Qataris? Obviously it's all hypothetical but I doubt it because they were planning to clear all the Glazer debt so we wouldn't have all the PSR pressures that are leading to this kind of mid season desperate cash grab
 
golden_blunder said:
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
Click to expand...
I'm sure they've modelled for this. If fans voted with their wallets, ticket prices will reflect that. No point in kicking up a fuss, if you're still going to attend the matches.
 
Devil_forever said:
I'm sure they've modelled for this. If fans voted with their wallets, ticket prices will reflect that. No point in kicking up a fuss, if you're still going to attend the matches.
Click to expand...

Ah so its our fault! How embarrassing. Will bin it off from tonight.
 
2mufc0 said:
The options were indeed grim but i don't see how moving from one hyper capitalist to another was preferable, ethically they are pretty awful too.
Click to expand...
Best of the worst bunch, it was either keep sinking with Glazers or try at least stay some bit afloat with a new owner/partial/invester. There was no real right answer here. I dont see any 'pure clean' owner coming in to save are take ownership of any club at this level. What ethical approach would work here then out of everyone willing to take us on???

This is like a fella I work with, moans about environment colapse, argues with people not putting stuff in the bins right. Yet flies up from one airport to another on the island of Ireland for a 5 minute meeting that could be done over a phonecall (if zoom takes in too much on datacentres....).
 
RedRocket9908 said:
There was never any evidence that there was any state bid on the table, people just jumped to conclusions about Jassim's bid because of his nationality and used it as a reason to back a bid that kept the Glazers in.
Click to expand...
Tosh
 
moses said:
G0od news if true.

Said it a long time ago regarding ownership etc, fans need to put rivalry aside for the bigger fight.
Click to expand...

It is true but it's quite a low key protest that was organised prior to this announcement and unlikely to get major traction.

But no harm and hopefully leads to bigger coordinated ones in the future.
 
Rood said:
Just to point out that a majority of this forum preferred the Qatari option - it's just the loud minority who shout more and make you think the opposite:
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/qat...ers-would-you-prefer-vote-now-private.475744/

I agree with you though that it was bizarre to see Brexit Jim and greenwashing petrochemical giant INEOS presented as some kind of morally preferable option - it certainly wasn't to me!
And that's before we even get into a discussion about whether it was even a state bid or not - as far as I'm concerned it was not.

Getting back to the subject of this thread - would we be seeing this kind of underhand ticket price manipulation under the Qataris? Obviously it's all hypothetical but I doubt it because they were planning to clear all the Glazer debt so we wouldn't have all the PSR pressures that are leading to this kind of mid season desperate cash grab
Click to expand...

I don't think it was ever morally preferable once INEOS was explored at all, most people were just scared shitless of the club being subsumed into the structure of a nation-state. It seems quite final.

Also the hypothetical greener grass under the Qataris is not the point of the thread. The point of the thread is to express opinion s on this new announcement and how to deal with it, not a told-you-so or hypothetical what could-have-been.
 
Working class & even middle class people have been effectively priced out from regularly attending Premier League matches for some time now. It’s okay if you have a season ticket, or only go to 2/3 matches a season like I do currently, but beyond that it is basically unaffordable.
Raising tickets to £66 is beyond a joke for what you actually get, football matches are 90 minutes long and should be an excuse to go out with your mates and support your club, but now visiting Old Trafford is being sold as an experience, with a greater push on Hospitality tickets. They’re dining out on the great history of our club, and the fierce loyalty of our fanbase. Despicable ownership and sadly all too common in top flight football.
 
Dec9003 said:
Working class & even middle class people have been effectively priced out from regularly attending Premier League matches for some time now. It’s okay if you have a season ticket, or only go to 2/3 matches a season like I do currently, but beyond that it is basically unaffordable.
Raising tickets to £66 is beyond a joke for what you actually get, football matches are 90 minutes long and should be an excuse to go out with your mates and support your club, but now visiting Old Trafford is being sold as an experience, with a greater push on Hospitality tickets. They’re dining out on the great history of our club, and the fierce loyalty of our fanbase. Despicable ownership and sadly all too common in top flight football.
Click to expand...

I don't have a ST and go every week at £33 a ticket. It's still good - need to fight to keep it that way.
 
moses said:
I don't think it was ever morally preferable once INEOS was explored at all, most people were just scared shitless of the club being subsumed into the structure of a nation-state. It seems quite final.

Also the hypothetical greener grass under the Qataris is not the point of the thread. The point of the thread is to express opinion s on this new announcement and how to deal with it, not a told-you-so or hypothetical what could-have-been.
Click to expand...

I actually tried to move away from rehashing last year's ownership debate yesterday but seems others can't let it go!

Discussion over the reasons behind this price rise are surely valid though - essentially Sir Jim's minority investment deal means we are still stuck with the Glazers and their debts which leaves us with a PSR problem, and therefore INEOS resorting to desperate measures to try and balance the books before the January transfer window.

I doubt this price rise is going to bring in that much money though since it's only a small % of tickets so really doesn't seem worth the negative sentiment.
 
Great Post! Please stay on topic. New
The whole Ratcliffe vs Qatar bid debate is completely pointless now. Fans and caf posters had no influence on the takeover talks. The Glazers weren't comfortable cashing in yet due to the share price and decided to sell a stake to Ratcliffe and have given him the keys to the castle to improve the club. Debating on who wanted what does nothing for the discussion about ticket prices.
 
moses said:
Good news if true.

Said it a long time ago regarding ownership etc, fans need to put rivalry aside for the bigger fight.
Click to expand...
These are the details for Sunday's protest - I'm not a big fan of The 1958 but at least they are making an effort

 
Rood said:
I doubt this price rise is going to bring in that much money though since it's only a small % of tickets so really doesn't seem worth the negative sentiment.
Click to expand...

Yeah these things are usually just incremental. Slice by slice. The pricks.
 
Rood said:
These are the details for Sunday's protest - I'm not a big fan of The 1958 but at least they are making an effort

Click to expand...

Great. I really think solidarity between the groups of supporters gives a much better chance of having a proper voice.
 
RedRocket9908 said:
INEOS have around $2bn worth of investment agreements with the Saudi Royal Commision
Click to expand...
INEOS don't own us for one and having financial dealings with a country is nothing compared to being owned by a state. The Glazers had dealings with Saudi, it would be hard to find a realistic owner with no connections to Saudi, Qatar etc these days.
 
Quick. Someone give Sheikh Jassim a call to see if he's still interested :lol:

Shite thing for the club to do mid season. I think that makes us among the priciest tickets in the entire league.

Still a far cry from North American sports though I might add.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.