£48 smackers for Leeds? 😱

[hogesar 9,820]

1 hour ago, Dr Greenthumb said:

Do you pay £48 for a match?

No, I'm a season ticket holder.

[Dr Greenthumb 753]

1 hour ago, hogesar said:

No, I'm a season ticket holder.

I bet your average ticket is £25-£30 a game which is fair enough. To stump a price up to £48 is a bit steep

[Midlands Yellow 4,118]

12 minutes ago, Dr Greenthumb said:

I bet your average ticket is £25-£30 a game which is fair enough. To stump a price up to £48 is a bit steep

And greedy. 

[nutty nigel 7,669]

29 minutes ago, Dr Greenthumb said:

I bet your average ticket is £25-£30 a game which is fair enough. To stump a price up to £48 is a bit steep

It's not just a bit steep its way too much compared to the cost of watching the game on TV. The  PL and CL is now a sport for TV so the £48 gets you an inferior product.

However it's not greedy if you consider how much the sky and BT subscribers give to our competitors.

[Dr Greenthumb 753]

22 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

It's not just a bit steep its way too much compared to the cost of watching the game on TV. The  PL and CL is now a sport for TV so the £48 gets you an inferior product.

However it's not greedy if you consider how much the sky and BT subscribers give to our competitors.

I was being polite. £48 is not good value for any football game. Especially  for what we are currently being served up.

The only benefit these TV channels are to us, is the money the club gets.

From a football fans perspective, it’s absolute trash and the money is stupid.
 

I didn’t realise until today German football had the ownership scheme it has and I would absolutely love this to happen here. Sadly it won’t and to keep with the times, the club are having to treat fans as customers.

[nutty nigel 7,669]

2 minutes ago, Dr Greenthumb said:

I was being polite. £48 is not good value for any football game. Especially  for what we are currently being served up.

The only benefit these TV channels are to us, is the money the club gets.

From a football fans perspective, it’s absolute trash and the money is stupid.
 

I didn’t realise until today German football had the ownership scheme it has and I would absolutely love this to happen here. Sadly it won’t and to keep with the times, the club are having to treat fans as customers.

It doesn't benefit us. It widens the gap.

People who gladly pay these subscriptions and tell themselves they are helping our club are living in cloud cuckoo land.

[Dr Greenthumb 753]

27 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

It doesn't benefit us. It widens the gap.

People who gladly pay these subscriptions and tell themselves they are helping our club are living in cloud cuckoo land.

The gap would be even wider if we weren’t at premiership level.

I don’t pay for any of the subscriptions. I’d happily pay the iFollow fees each week (like last season)

[nutty nigel 7,669]

4 minutes ago, Dr Greenthumb said:

The gap would be even wider if we weren’t at premiership level.

I don’t pay for any of the subscriptions. I’d happily pay the iFollow fees each week (like last season)

The gap would be wider but the product would be better.

I don't pay them either. And if I didn't have a season ticket I'd be happily pay ifollow too.

 

[essex canary 516]

3 hours ago, Dr Greenthumb said:

Yes I’ll go and talk to a badger, good plan

Duncan Edwards is another option as by implication he is sharp.

[essex canary 516]

4 hours ago, nutty nigel said:

So how much of your subscriptions do you imagine benefit.our beloved club and how much benefit our far richer competitors?

I came up with a scheme for King's Lynn last year which I contributed too. Does that help. 

[nutty nigel 7,669]

Just now, essex canary said:

I came up with a scheme for King's Lynn last year which I contributed too. Does that help. 

No.

Why won't you answer the question.

[Duncan Edwards 2,274]

10 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Duncan Edwards is another option as by implication he is sharp.

Thanks for the referral. To reciprocate, if I come across anyone with insomnia, I’ll send them your way. 🥱😴😴😴

[essex canary 516]

2 hours ago, nutty nigel said:

No.

Why won't you answer the question.

I think we are both quite clear that TV contracts benefit some clubs more than other clubs depending on which league the Club is in now, has been in recently or which position is attained in the Premier League etc.

I nevertheless believe that as effectively the owner of 40 seats at Carrow Road, my investment at NCFC exceeds any I make in any other Club.

Regarding your previous argument you could just as easily make a case for saying that if there are as many Sky subscribers in Cambridge as in Norwich, Cambridge United should get the same TV contract receipt as Norwich City.

On the subject of the £48 casual charge, NCFC justified it by comparison with West Ham. Whilst the basic assertion they made is correct they omitted to mention that West Ham are a London based Club in Europe, offer concessions in all parts of their ground, in all probability place less matches in Category A and have a range of lower prices for Category B and C matches. Therefore in many ways not a fair and objective comparison.

Of course NCFC may fairly point out that Carrow Road hasn't attracted taxpayer subsidies in the same way as the Olympic Stadium. Nonetheless does that justify the treatment of Casual fans or some of those whose funds are still underpinning the provision of 40 seats at Carrow Road?

[Dr Greenthumb 753]

4 hours ago, essex canary said:

Duncan Edwards is another option as by implication he is sharp.

I feel I’d have more chance of meeting a badger

[Dr Greenthumb 753]

4 hours ago, nutty nigel said:

The gap would be wider but the product would be better.

I don't pay them either. And if I didn't have a season ticket I'd be happily pay ifollow too.

 

Well the product wouldn’t be better, we wouldn’t get top notch prices for our players without having the parachute payments comfort blanket we get. The money would literally be used for wages and cheaper signings. It would certainly keep the championship at a level playing field. But we could get stuck in there for a very long time.

The youth team would literally be our biggest hope and without as much financial clout, the vultures would circle quicker and we may not be able to tie down younger players as quick. Saw an example with Ruben Shakpope in the summer. 

Im not dancing the owners dance on this thread though, so I’ll leave it at that

[nutty nigel 7,669]

50 minutes ago, Dr Greenthumb said:

Well the product wouldn’t be better, we wouldn’t get top notch prices for our players without having the parachute payments comfort blanket we get. The money would literally be used for wages and cheaper signings. It would certainly keep the championship at a level playing field. But we could get stuck in there for a very long time.

The youth team would literally be our biggest hope and without as much financial clout, the vultures would circle quicker and we may not be able to tie down younger players as quick. Saw an example with Ruben Shakpope in the summer. 

Im not dancing the owners dance on this thread though, so I’ll leave it at that

Perhaps the product would be better for me and not for you then Doc. At least we agree that £48 to be a TV extra is not worth it.

I don't know what this conversation had to do with the owners so in confusion I'll leave it there too.

[nutty nigel 7,669]

2 hours ago, essex canary said:

I think we are both quite clear that TV contracts benefit some clubs more than other clubs depending on which league the Club is in now, has been in recently or which position is attained in the Premier League etc.

I nevertheless believe that as effectively the owner of 40 seats at Carrow Road, my investment at NCFC exceeds any I make in any other Club.

Regarding your previous argument you could just as easily make a case for saying that if there are as many Sky subscribers in Cambridge as in Norwich, Cambridge United should get the same TV contract receipt as Norwich City.

On the subject of the £48 casual charge, NCFC justified it by comparison with West Ham. Whilst the basic assertion they made is correct they omitted to mention that West Ham are a London based Club in Europe, offer concessions in all parts of their ground, in all probability place less matches in Category A and have a range of lower prices for Category B and C matches. Therefore in many ways not a fair and objective comparison.

Of course NCFC may fairly point out that Carrow Road hasn't attracted taxpayer subsidies in the same way as the Olympic Stadium. Nonetheless does that justify the treatment of Casual fans or some of those whose funds are still underpinning the provision of 40 seats at Carrow Road?

I don't know about these 40 seats you own but I know you have one because you're an associate director. It's equivalent to a 2% dividend on your shareholding. I've had my shares for 40 years and never had a dividend. Anyway, you'd probably be best to deduct those benefits before working out how many seats you reckon to own.

As for your Sky/BT subs. They are funding our opponenents to a far greater extent than us. But I suppose you can afford to because you get your season ticket as a dividend.

[essex canary 516]

10 hours ago, nutty nigel said:

I don't know about these 40 seats you own but I know you have one because you're an associate director. It's equivalent to a 2% dividend on your shareholding. I've had my shares for 40 years and never had a dividend. Anyway, you'd probably be best to deduct those benefits before working out how many seats you reckon to own.

 

1/640 part of the Club x 27,000 seats = 40 seats or thereabouts.

An inheritor owner of 20 shares can claim a free membership worth £25  thereby yielding a return in kind of 5% plus bond holders had 3% vouchers so everyone else should be entitled to similar.

[Midlands Yellow 4,118]

Quite a few tickets left for anyone interested. 

[TIL 1010 4,826]

11 hours ago, nutty nigel said:

I don't know about these 40 seats you own but I know you have one because you're an associate director. It's equivalent to a 2% dividend on your shareholding. I've had my shares for 40 years and never had a dividend. Anyway, you'd probably be best to deduct those benefits before working out how many seats you reckon to own.

As for your Sky/BT subs. They are funding our opponenents to a far greater extent than us. But I suppose you can afford to because you get your season ticket as a dividend.

I reckon i rent my seat at Carrow Road from the Club by paying for it every year. I do hope mine is not one of those owned by essex and the club are sub letting to me.

[Greavsy 2,475]

30 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

I reckon i rent my seat at Carrow Road from the Club by paying for it every year. I do hope mine is not one of those owned by essex and the club are sub letting to me.

Surely it would have a blue heritage plaque on it...... 

[lk94ncfc 0]

The ticket is actually £49.50 for most people because of fees applied for buying online, closing the shop at the ground was a way to save money and make some more from ticket sales. 

[Greavsy 2,475]

4 minutes ago, lk94ncfc said:

The ticket is actually £49.50 for most people because of fees applied for buying online, closing the shop at the ground was a way to save money and make some more from ticket sales. 

There is still a shop, in the city, with no online fees. Which is easier for some. Not all I accept. 

[lk94ncfc 0]

Just now, Greavsy said:

There is still a shop, in the city, with no online fees. Which is easier for some. Not all I accept. 

True, but my point stands for a lot of people.

[Greavsy 2,475]

2 minutes ago, lk94ncfc said:

True, but my point stands for a lot of people.

It's nothing new though 

If you couldn't get to the ground you still paid the £1.50 fee. That would be applicable for all non local based fans wherever the shop / ticket office is located. 

[lk94ncfc 0]

3 minutes ago, Greavsy said:

It's nothing new though 

If you couldn't get to the ground you still paid the £1.50 fee. That would be applicable for all non local based fans wherever the shop / ticket office is located. 

To go to the game Sunday for most people will cost £49.50. That’s what will be taken from your bank regardless of the reasons.

[Greavsy 2,475]

1 minute ago, lk94ncfc said:

To go to the game Sunday for most people will cost £49.50. That’s what will be taken from your bank regardless of the reasons.

Most people will have a season ticket if you want to get pedantic. 

It's not a new charge, ii disagree with it, but it's not new, so Im struggling to see why you've made an issue for this match and not before. 

[lk94ncfc 0]

1 minute ago, Greavsy said:

Most people will have a season ticket if you want to get pedantic. 

It's not a new charge, ii disagree with it, but it's not new, so Im struggling to see why you've made an issue for this match and not before. 

Not a good look is it.

[Greavsy 2,475]

5 minutes ago, lk94ncfc said:

Not a good look is it.

Just for this game, you mean? 

Sorry I'm still struggling to see your specific point. 

[TIL 1010 4,826]

3 hours ago, lk94ncfc said:

The ticket is actually £49.50 for most people because of fees applied for buying online, closing the shop at the ground was a way to save money and make some more from ticket sales. 

You do know we have 22,000 season ticket holders i take it so unless you have a Premium seat with access to a lounge that is wrong. £49.50p for around 2000 casual tickets yes maybe and i agree that is OTT.