Twenty Is Plenty Protest.

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="Brighton Yellow"]Simple question; do you

consider football is too expensive for fans? Answer yes; then do no belittle the

campaign. Answer no; then there is something wrong with you.[/quote]But the question isn''t "is football too expensive for fans" because we all agree it is. Let''s be clear, the protest is about cheaper tickets for away fans....."The Football Supporters Federation launched Twenty’s Plenty for Away Tickets in January 2013.The Football Supporters'' Federation needs your support to help bring

down the price of tickets, with our Twenty''s Plenty for Away Tickets

Petition – http://www.fsf.org.uk/20plenty

We''re calling upon football clubs at all levels of the game to recognise

and reward the amazing contribution of away fans by getting together to

agree an across the board price cap on away match tickets of £20 (£15

for concessions)."So all the wriggling and jiffling in the world about "having to start somewhere" and "we really mean all tickets" can''t hide the fact that this protest is aimed solely at AWAY ticket prices.

[lappinitup 629]

I should have added........http://fsf.org.uk/campaigns/away-fans/twentys-plenty/

[Brighton Yellow 0]

You shouldn’t take it so

literally. I know we’re an insular bunch with a fear of travelling more than 40

miles, every fan can be an away fan at some point.

 

Therefore the campaign is for

the benefit of every fan.

 

Support the cause, or

continue to find issues when there really shouldn’t be any.

[As my login causes problems [ :o) ] 0]

"We''re calling upon football clubs at all levels of the game to recognise and reward the amazing contribution of away fans"

So no it isn''t recognising the amazing contribution of any fans other than those who travel away from when it is brought in and those that go to expensive other grounds.

Believe it or not lower league games can often cost less than £20 already so there is no gain for those supporters.

As I said earlier it is to subsidise people going to Old Trafford and Stamford Bridge the most. Not very socialist is it?

[nutty nigel 7,506]

[quote user="Brighton Yellow"]

My point re discussing the

merits of this particular campaign is that it aims to lower the cost of

football for fans. It is limited in its reach yes, but it acts to raise awareness

of the bigger issue – that football is too expensive. If you agree, then

support the cause, not pick holes in it based on whether you benefit in the

short term. As you say, you can’t focus on one group and neglect another,

therefore the campaign is only good! The campaign, as others will and do should

open up debates on the issue in forums where decisions are eventually be made.

 

There is a definite belittling

of the campaign within this thread by a group of people who clearly don’t

consider the campaigners to be of any intellectual / moral worth. It’s sad

really…

 

Simple question; do you

consider football is too expensive for fans? Answer yes; then do no belittle the

campaign. Answer no; then there is something wrong with you.  

[/quote]

 

But I think we all do agree football is too expensive. And I can only speak for myself but all this belittling of my view comes from you and Ivor. Why am I a chump Brighton? What have I done to attract all the personal stuff Ivor?

 

Away tickets are already cheaper than home tickets so surely home fans are being priced out more than away fans. Despite this the campaign is to reduce away tickets still further. I disagree with that. Even though I agree football is too expensive. I have quoited other reasons not least that this would put our club at a further disadvantage when competing with the Man Utds of this league. There are far more reasons to target all tickets. Or even just home tickets because away tickets would then automatically come down with them. I can''t think of any good reason for targetting away tickets.

 

You and Ivor have already made it plain you have no respect for this messageboard. Neither of you want to comment and address the points I made. Both of you seem to want to attack me on a personal level for holding my views which I believe are well founded.

[TIL 1010 4,717]

[quote user="Molly Windley"]Im struggling to find out information on  "The Barclay End Projekt",  having looked on the website information is sparse.Can anyone answer these questions?Who are they? -  A vague collective of supporters is claimed.How many are they? - No information givenWhat their mandate is for claiming to represent supporters? - No evidence of a mandate or a majority of fans support baseWhere do they meet? - No reference to any meetingsHow do you join? - You cannot join, only become "involved"How do they elect and un elect those in positions such as Spokesperson or Chairman?.- No information on thisWho is their spokesperson? - No information on thisHow decisions are made and aims decided? - These appear to be pre made by the "collective"Have you any minutes of meetings? - No evidence of meetings or minutesWho`s Traditions and Culture ? - An unknown number or  "collective" of supporters called the BEP, claim these all belong to them.What is the validity in claiming the Barclay End belonging to the BEP? - No validation of this claim.

I am all for supporters groups however on a personal level and speaking only for myself, I need more information than they offer and a much higher level of democracy and openness displayed by them than they presently offer.Now Im not saying Im against some or all of their aims, Im just very uncomfortable with the set up and operation of the "Projekt".

[/quote]As Wiz would say ''Huzzah''.

[morty 0]

Without getting into the whys and wherefores of who benefits and who doesn''t, ultimately Norwich City, and clubs without sugar daddies, will lose out. Say we half ticket prices for visiting fans, thats a loss of £760,000 of income ( based on 19 games, halving ticket price from 40 to 20, and 2000 fans).This won''t bother big clubs in the slightest, but to us, thats a fair amount.

[nutty nigel 7,506]

Halelujah Morty!!

 

This was my point about us being at a disadvantage. We have 10% away supporters from 27,000? Man Utd have 3,000 from 76,000. Thanks for actually addressing it and not throwing insults Morty.

 

 

[Ivor Know 0]

Morty - the point you make is absolutely valid from a financial perspective.

All clubs are different and all are capable of generating different income levels. That''s surely never going to change whether Twenty is Plenty happens or not?

Also, in the current Premier League, I think it''s correct to say that NCFC are unique in terms of not having external funding. We have to be self funding.

This tends to lead to one conclusion, if you follow the "we''re financially disadvantaged" argument, and that''s that NCFC should never partake in such campaigns.

Which is logical to a point, but, then, what happens when we go away. Do our fans suddenly become excluded?

Whatever route you chose, this isn''t an easy argument as they''re pros and cons on both sides.

[Ivor Know 0]

Trying to move this having regards to the issues raised by the "be fair to home supporters" line of reasoning.

First, if you''re talking about casual prices only, a consequence of that line of thinking would be that you''re actually seeking to end the policy of grading games. That may find favour with the fans from the top six or seven clubs who whinge about always being charged Grade A prices, but would that necessarily find favour with the other thirteen or fourteen clubs? I suspect not.

Second, concessions. At the moment the club has four grades in standard seats (with adults prices only in premium seats) adults, 65+, under 17 and under 12.

Whilst you would probably be able to have this flexible approach maintaied in the family areas, within standard areas you''d have to go with £15 for all, as you can''t charge away fans more than the equivalent home area.

From a fan perspective, there would be winners and losers with this approach.

65+ tickets currently range from £20 - £40. All winners.

Under 17''s - prices range from £15 to £30 currently. Again, all winners.

Under 12''s - prices range from £10 to £20. Probably more winners than losers, simply because there are more grade A & B games than C & D.

So, if there are more winners, from a fan perspective, the club is a loser, as it''s been income is reduced.

And then the argument about the club being financially disadvantaged if the Twenty is Plenty is accepted is intensified two fold in the basis that there''s as many home causal ticket fans as there are away fans.

So, what options would the club have, bearing in mind that they would almost certainly seek to recoup some of the lost income?

Charge more for the casual prices for premium seats is clearly one option. Not sure how much additional income that would actually generate?

Another option would be to increase the prices of season tickets within standard and premium areas.

Ah, don''t you all want to be charged the same as the away fans? Yes, OK, let''s do it.

Hang on one minute, if the argument goes that we''re financially disadvantaged by giving concessions to away fans then we sure as hell are significantly more disadvantaged by extending it to home season ticket holders.

So, that would just leave increasing prices to premium season ticket holders? Not sure that would find much favour either.

And that''s why, in my opinion, a focussed campaign, as unpopular as it will be with some home fans, at least has a partial chance of succeeding. Widening it to all fans will never work because the clubs simply won''t allow it.

Discuss.

[Brighton Yellow 0]

Sounds alright to me.

I think we need to remember that we are all football fans and stop with the division into seperate groups. One change can and will hopefully lead to further which benefit fans.

[lappinitup 629]

A well reasoned post by Ivor to continue a discussion which by PinkUn standards has been excellent, showing both sides of the debate. I was therefore somewhat shocked reading a post on a similar thread on Norwich Talk by Mr Robin Sainty, chairman of The Canaries Trust, and Archant columnist which read as follows......."That''s the point. I read the thread on the Pink''un about this subject and found it to have been totally sidelined by the usual triumvirate who see themselves as better fans than anyone else. It has been shunted into an argument about benefitting away fans rather than home fans when the real issue is rising costs for EVERYONE.  Nothing will change while clubs fill grounds but there has to be a tipping point when more people are priced out than can (or are prepared to ) afford to go.Rather than carp about minutiae I think its important that fans get the message across that watching prices rise continuously while  Premier League players and their agents soak up even more TV money isn''t particularly enjoyable. Saturday will, in itself, change nothing, but if nothing happens to highlight fan disquiet we will just have more of the same.Edited 38 minutes ago by Beauseant "

I find it extremely sad that the chairman of an organisation who claims they want to give fans a voice, should treat some of those fans with such disdain and contempt and be unwilling to hear some of those voices even resorting to insults, simply because they hold different views to him. He clearly only wants to give those fans that agree with him a voice. The fact that he has read this thread and disagreed with a lot of it should have been a good enough reason for him to join in and set the record straight rather than slope off and complain elsewhere. Where''s the leadership there? In his second sentence he says "It has been shunted into an argument about benefitting away fans rather

than home fans when the real issue is rising costs for EVERYONE.".  Er, isn''t the campaign about "Twenty''s Plenty for AWAY tickets"? Surely if it''s about ALL ticket prices it should have been called just that. Who''s doing the shunting Mr Sainty?Finally, who is this ''triumvirate'' you allude to? Clearly I am one of them but as you''ve put it out there, I think you should name the other two.

[Ivor Know 0]

Lappin - I only post on this site and if you think we''re one and the same, trust me, you''re completely wrong.

To cross posting from one MB to another is usually frowned upon.

So, no, i can''t answer your question and, as i see you also post on there, perhaps you should ask him on that forum?

And, a polite request, just in case your thinking about it, please don''t post my comments on there.

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="Ivor Know"]Lappin - I only post on this site and if you think we''re one and the same, trust me, you''re completely wrong.

To cross posting from one MB to another is usually frowned upon.

So, no, i can''t answer your question and, as i see you also post on there, perhaps you should ask him on that forum?

And, a polite request, just in case your thinking about it, please don''t post my comments on there.[/quote]Don''t worry Ivor, I don''t think for one moment you''re one and the same. I have a fairly good idea of who you are but it really doesn''t matter.I agree cross posting is normally frowned on and I''ve always been a strong advocate of that but cross posting was exactly what I was referring to. The post was a direct reference to this site, this thread and some of the posters on it so I felt it right to point it out on here.

[Indy 3,283]

The one area no one has addressed is why clubs need such high cost for what they see as customers not Fans, it''s about filling grounds for as much as they can demand.

Yet not many have looked at the player wages and bonus costs, surely if the players started to demand sensible living wages then clubs could start to bring down costs on seats.

Does anyone on here really believe a player should be on more than a doctor or senior manager in any other sector? I know people will go on to defend players wages but it''s not really right!

[nutty nigel 7,506]

Our club see us as fans Indy.

 

But the problem as I see it is as you say.

 

nutty nigel wrote:

The driving force behind all financial decisions is having a competitive playing squad. This is the prime market force that controls ticket prices and all other revenue. Every time the TV deal increases it just puts the players in stronger positions and the extra money goes to them. I think 95% of all football fans would agree with my view that it''s far too much money. But if our club unilaterally cut the player budget to bring tickets down to a more realistic level 95% of Norwich fans would be up in arms about us not being able to attract the right quality of player for the PL. In fact we get that now so how much worse would it be if we had less money!

 

There''s been some great points made on this thread (and I don''t mean by me).

 

Ivor, you''re invitation to "discuss" is a bit rich being as that''s what we were doing when you started trying to be all clever. The discussion is already posted. Why don''t you take part properly?

 

 

[Legend Iwan 30]

Doctors and senior managers normally get to do their job for a lot longer than 15 years, Indy, which is the average for most footballers. Don''t blame them for trying to maximise their earning in that period, but that''s a different argument to the ridiculous amounts of dosh flowing through certain parts of the game.

[Indy 3,283]

That''s pretty much that our club sees us as much fans as any club could, but let''s not beat round the bush we are still a customer in the mind of MacNally, to buy new shirts, etc.

But point taken that our club is far better than most in that respect.

I don''t see how any club cam justify 50 million a season on wages for around 200 employees, where 20% of that wage budget if not more goes on players. That''s roughly our club, not looking at those really stupid club wages which push 330k per week for one player!

Fans should really turn their attention on this as a united front to try and make changes at the cost level for each club, but lots of fans just happy to see their club pay these stupid sums on players.

[Indy 3,283]

[quote user="Legend Iwan"]Doctors and senior managers normally get to do their job for a lot longer than 15 years, Indy, which is the average for most footballers. Don''t blame them for trying to maximise their earning in that period, but that''s a different argument to the ridiculous amounts of dosh flowing through certain parts of the game.[/quote]

What so earning a couple million in 15 years which most working men will never see in 40 years of work isn''t enough?

They can do another jod after football most people will change careers in their lifetime!

Funny how one thread was all about how we should be looking after refugees and on here some try to justify 300 k a week for a player!

[nutty nigel 7,506]

Totally in agreement Indy. But as I said earlier in the thread if we start messing about with the free market then players and ultimately Sky TV may end up elsewhere. I also have to say that happening would make little difference to my enjoyment as a fan.

 

 

[Legend Iwan 30]

Not sure why you''re bringing refugees into a discussion about football finance, Indy, so I''ll leave that be.

But in relation to your other points, not all ex-footballers can easily adjust, or have the knowledge, to change careers, being that most have dedicated their youth to learning to play football and not education, although this is changing.

In terms of the working men point, of which I''m guessing your previously mentioned doctors and senior managers are discounted from, and is concerning only a select few players at the top of the game who are capable of earning millions, it''s not nice to see such disparity. Neither is a chief exec getting a 500k bonus. But whether it''s enough you''d have to ask them.

As I said, there''s a ridiculous amount of money sloshing about in certain parts of the game. If the FSF are able to start a chain reaction that will see prices reduced across the board and allow those who can''t experience sport first hand due to the costs then great.

[Duncan Edwards 2,216]

If anyone is interested, I''ve just had my say on MyFootballWriter.

http://norwichcity.myfootballwriter.com/2015/10/01/we-all-agree-that-twentys-plenty-but-what-next-how-do-we-ensure-it-benefits-fans-across-the-board/

[Ivor Know 0]

Nutty - there''s so much irony in your final paragraph to me me, it beggars belief.

I''ve posted numerous replies to this thread before I responded to your comment, "you might know old two dots but you don''t know me." This from one of the most publicly known peeps on this site., was, in itself laughable.

OK, the way I responded with the names was a tad childish, I admit. But let''s not forget that "permissions" in social media are actually set individually by the user themselves. If they chose to be totally open, or their friends let it be known through association, who they are, that''s their choice.

And in the context of what else has gone on in this thread, it''s hardly crime of the century.

The "discuss" comment was preceded by 17 paragraphs, in case you missed them, setting out exactly why I believe that a wider price reduction will never happen. The clubs will never allow it.

And, to answer your specifics, yet again, no, the prime driving force isnt a competitive playing squad, it''s the combination of mega rich owners who don''t operate their teams on a sustainable basis - maybe Arsenal excepted - they spend considerably more than they earn.

This, combined with a completely opaque transfer market, with the virtual non disclosure on transfer fees just means it''s not a level playing field. Never has been, never will, irrespective of whether Twenty is plenty procedes or not.

Yes, NCFC are unique, however, unless we significantly increase our capacity - 35,000 being the previously stated requirement, the price of casual and season tickets alike is only going one way, up.

Now, please drop your lectures about all this "personal" stuff, it''s getting very tedious, and let''s focus on the discussion.

[nutty nigel 7,506]

Sad I know but I just reread this thread and could see no reason for you to have reacted the way you did to my posts. Can you point out which ones were unreasonable or could be included in "context of what else has gone on in this thread". Maybe you could point me towards it. There''s been no belittling. No "Im a better fan" comments. I still stand by everything I said and can''t see why anybody would have a problem with it. And to be fair Thommo didn''t have a problem with it. Having just gone and taken a look at the thread in the other place I the same views as mine posted on there too. Seemingly without causing a problem or offence to anyone.

As for setting the permissions - I''m quite happy to be public. I don''t have views on here that I wouldn''t repeat in any company. This is a great community and within it great friendships have been formed. I don''t expect everyone to be like me. That would be daft. But it does frustrate me a little when people use my real identity to hide behind a username and play silly games. Many posters know my name''s eddie and use that on here or use my nutty one. It''s all fine by me.

Still got that one question though. How did you know Lapps name? That''s never been public on here.

[......and Smith must score. 1,331]

[quote user="morty"]Without getting into the whys and wherefores of who benefits and who doesn''t, ultimately Norwich City, and clubs without sugar daddies, will lose out. Say we half ticket prices for visiting fans, thats a loss of £760,000 of income ( based on 19 games, halving ticket price from 40 to 20, and 2000 fans).This won''t bother big clubs in the slightest, but to us, thats a fair amount.[/quote]Morty, £760,000 sounds a lot but in context it isn''t. In financial terms every club in the Premier League is a big club. If every one of the 20 clubs is trousering around £100m in TV money then £760,000 is like small change lost in the fluff at the bottom of the pocket.( On second thoughts if we''re using it to pay RVW''s wages for a few weeks perhaps it might come in handy after all..... [;)] )

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="Ivor Know"]Yes, NCFC are unique, however, unless we significantly increase our capacity - 35,000 being the previously stated requirement, the price of casual and season tickets alike is only going one way, up.[/quote]But you must see the problem with that Ivor. Fans are wanting a bigger capacity which means a huge spend  - and yet they also want the club to reduce ticket prices. I don''t think even our much lamented Fag Packet Accountants could solve that one. [:''(]

[morty 0]

Thing is though, Smithy, if the Man utd or Chelsea manager finds his transfer budget short as a result, their owners would take up the slack. Ours can''t.

[PurpleCanary 5,553]

[quote user="Indy"]That''s pretty much that our club sees us as much fans as any club could, but let''s not beat round the bush we are still a customer in the mind of MacNally, to buy new shirts, etc.

But point taken that our club is far better than most in that respect.

I don''t see how any club cam justify 50 million a season on wages for around 200 employees, where 20% of that wage budget if not more goes on players. That''s roughly our club, not looking at those really stupid club wages which push 330k per week for one player!

Fans should really turn their attention on this as a united front to try and make changes at the cost level for each club, but lots of fans just happy to see their club pay these stupid sums on players.[/quote]It is more like 70 per cent of our wage budget going on player wages.

[As my login causes problems [ :o) ] 0]

[quote user="Ivor Know"]Trying to move this having regards to the issues raised by the "be fair to home supporters" line of reasoning.

First, if you''re talking about casual prices only, a consequence of that line of thinking would be that you''re actually seeking to end the policy of grading games. That may find favour with the fans from the top six or seven clubs who whinge about always being charged Grade A prices, but would that necessarily find favour with the other thirteen or fourteen clubs? I suspect not.

Second, concessions. At the moment the club has four grades in standard seats (with adults prices only in premium seats) adults, 65+, under 17 and under 12.

So, what options would the club have, bearing in mind that they would almost certainly seek to recoup some of the lost income?

Charge more for the casual prices for premium seats is clearly one option. Not sure how much additional income that would actually generate?

Another option would be to increase the prices of season tickets within standard and premium areas.

Widening it to all fans will never work because the clubs simply won''t allow it.

Discuss.[/quote]

Firstly Mr Know I apologise for the editing of your post above but as I am a page late in responding I thought it was as well to remind everyone what I am responding to with the meat out of your rather watery stew.

There is a big assumption that the wider fan base actually feel football to be overpriced. Yes there are many examples of people who cannot afford to attend games of a PARTICULAR club. Well get used to it you cut your cloth to suit your means I can''t afford to eat at Jamies Kitchen so I choose to go to Pizza Hut, my mate can''t afford Pizza Hut so chooses McDonalds. If you can''t afford to attend Chelsea go to QPR, if you can''t afford league football attend the excellent non-league variety. Believe me I have watched some of my best games at the Walks or Aldis Park.

Once we attend clearly we have a choice over the expense of the ticket and whether we want free biscuits, programmes, meals or just dodgy toilets in the River End. We can also choose whether to sit low or high or at the end of the pitch or on the side. Ahh there is a theme developing here over choice.

So ticket prices are influenced by the level of the club, what other clubs are around it and where we sit.

Now one we cannot choose and that is our age, but does anyone see a fault with charging less for "new" younger supporters to encourage them to commit their loyalties and future earnings to that club, no. It may not be kids for a quid these days but we know we are still reaping the larger attendances built by that policy of years gone by.

As for older fans getting concessions it seems reasonable to me that those who endured the years gone by should get a discount now.

So hey what am I saying is you pays your money and takes your choice if you are a home fan, and if you prefer you have good old Chris Goreham at a very reasonable outlay or a local hostelry showing a snowy picture or on those awful timed kick offs maybe one in Sky/BT HD surround sound. Alas for us oldies you could go down memory lane and read a Pink Un report that evening and imagine the game in your head.

BUT whatever we think of ticket pricing be it football, theatre, cinema or just Wiz''s bus to the bingo it reflects an economic model for the provider, so stop bleating make your choice and pay or don''t pay.

So when I go to my next away game I will pay my petrol, buy my overpriced meals, a few drinks that are probably cheaper than where I drink on home games, buy my ticket and go and have a great day out. Oh and as I have a large family I will probably subsidise some of my offspring and live on baked beans for a month afterwards because what you all forget is that away games are bloody good fun whatever the cost!

[As my login causes problems [ :o) ] 0]

[quote user="lappinitup"]A well reasoned post by Ivor to continue a discussion which by PinkUn standards has been excellent, showing both sides of the debate. I was therefore somewhat shocked reading a post on a similar thread on Norwich Talk by Mr Robin Sainty, chairman of The Canaries Trust, and Archant columnist which read as follows......."That''s the point. I read the thread on the Pink''un about this subject and found it to have been totally sidelined by the usual triumvirate who see themselves as better fans than anyone else. It has been shunted into an argument about benefitting away fans rather than home fans when the real issue is rising costs for EVERYONE.  Nothing will change while clubs fill grounds but there has to be a tipping point when more people are priced out than can (or are prepared to ) afford to go.Rather than carp about minutiae I think its important that fans get the message across that watching prices rise continuously while  Premier League players and their agents soak up even more TV money isn''t particularly enjoyable. Saturday will, in itself, change nothing, but if nothing happens to highlight fan disquiet we will just have more of the same.Edited 38 minutes ago by Beauseant "

I find it extremely sad that the chairman of an organisation who claims they want to give fans a voice, should treat some of those fans with such disdain and contempt and be unwilling to hear some of those voices even resorting to insults, simply because they hold different views to him. He clearly only wants to give those fans that agree with him a voice. The fact that he has read this thread and disagreed with a lot of it should have been a good enough reason for him to join in and set the record straight rather than slope off and complain elsewhere. Where''s the leadership there? In his second sentence he says "It has been shunted into an argument about benefitting away fans rather

than home fans when the real issue is rising costs for EVERYONE.".  Er, isn''t the campaign about "Twenty''s Plenty for AWAY tickets"? Surely if it''s about ALL ticket prices it should have been called just that. Who''s doing the shunting Mr Sainty?Finally, who is this ''triumvirate'' you allude to? Clearly I am one of them but as you''ve put it out there, I think you should name the other two.[/quote]

Wow I am missing out on this other message board where we apparently comment on threads over here, an interesting concept and I feel compelled to dash off somewhere else and post a response, well maybe not.

So the challenge appears to have been thrown down to enter the debate on this message board and clarify some of those remarks, at least who are the Triumverate that rule the Pink Un message board is it really Caesar, Pompey and Crassus?