TOP FANS OR TOP MARKETING?

[Rudolph Hucker 0]

So, Norwich have the best fans do they?

Or do they simply have too small a ground for their fan base?

I wonder what the critical point would be for Norwich where the fear of failing to secure admission meets the desire to pick and choose matches based on criteria such as form.

Yes, I know, unlike me many of you on here are loyal supporters and would go to watch 11 City shirts on a rotary drier in the centre circle; but all that means is there are, say, 16,000 absolute renewals/attendees.

As for the other few thousand there are many who renew because of fear of capacity limitation exclusion although it has to be said the attendance of season ticket holders is in itself remarkable.

For this reason I believe 28,000 capacity would see the maintenance of this situation whereas 30,000 could see season ticket renewals at a much lower figure, casual sales at a much higher and periods such as the last weeks of Worthington''s reign seeing crowds of 20,000 in a 30,000 stadia.

The other questions for the Club might be: should prices increase if the capacity can be filled or if greater capacity is created should incentive family and concessions be increased to maintain a future fan base?

The latter is a major issue for fotball Clubs. If you look at many of the top Clubs (like Chelsea) they are too reliant on individual male supporters aged 40+ and have to wonder where their replacements will come from. This should be a govenment issue too as football must be accesible to all age groups and incomes so perhaps some stadia size increase tax concessions should apply.

In answer to my own question I do believe Norwich support punches above it''s weight because of the attendence percentages but, an increase in capacity is vital to maintain progress to a natural level. The missed trick was in not building an 8,000 capacity Jarrold Stand. We should have been at 28,000 by now.

[jetstream 0]

Interesting points.

I note Blackburn reduced their tickets for last night''s Carling Cup game against Chelsea to "just" £18 and the att was still only 14,732. It was a miserable night but it wasn''t on the television. Surely they''d be better off making it, say, £10 and getting another 5 or 6,000 in so that the atmosphere is better (and they would sell more pies/drinks as well).

Now, did B''burn fans not turn up because they don''t have that many fans, didn''t fancy seeing them lose to Chelski, didn''t bother as it was too expensive, or because it''s a pretty uninspiring Cup competition where the final will be inevitably be Liverpool vs Man Utd/Chelsea?

A few of the mid-table Premiership sides exist despite less-than-full grounds, even in league games. Two, three or five years in the premiership have given them such a comfortable source of revenue from Sky TV that the fans are - in a way - irrelevant because the gate receipts will probably only cover 25%-30% of the running costs of the Club anyway.

I wonder whether we''d fill a 28,000 seater every home game now but in the Premiership I''m pretty sure we would. And unlike Blackburn, Bolton etc, I think we would continue to do so.

[Who killed the Croutons 0]

RH, we did build 8000 seat Jarrold Stand! It was the 12000 option that was rejected (at the time). 6000 was the other option (roughly the same capacity as SS before). I think the club pitched it right with the Jarrold particlarly that it evened up three stands leaving just my old bug bear ''conference'' stand to be sorted next. Your general point though is interesting I guess as ever its all about supply and demand and indeed the ''fear factor'' of being left out in the cold re. season tickets has a bearing. I really dont think a two thousand capacity difference at the top end would have much downward impact as many factors would determine future attendance performance, pricing, league status (see performance), potential, entertainment, even pies and corporate goddamit!

To summarise I dont think the trick was missed I think the right option was choosen at the time i.e. the middle ground with reduced risk but still an increase nonetheless. We are approaching the need for a further stage of expansion to meet demand & sort that thing of a stand opposite the Jarrold and get the snakepit increased from adder to boa-constrictor! As Ive advocated in a previous recent thread my view is to treat ground expansion as separate investment stream from say player budget and cleverly fund expansion via property/investment/sponsorship deals etc...  

Agree with the concessions point but I doubt the govt would [sorry] play ball and if so unlikely that footy clubs would act beyond existing concessions unilateraly

 

 

[Hartsons Gut 0]

So, Norwich have the best fans do they?

Or do they simply have too small a ground for their fan base?

 

I think that the ground should be at least 30,000. It is easy to see that the ground just isnt big enough.

I brought this up a while ago about the need for a new stadium soon.

[nutty nigel 7,506]

[quote user="jetstream"]

Interesting points.

I note Blackburn reduced their tickets for last night''s Carling Cup game against Chelsea to "just" £18 and the att was still only 14,732. It was a miserable night but it wasn''t on the television. Surely they''d be better off making it, say, £10 and getting another 5 or 6,000 in so that the atmosphere is better (and they would sell more pies/drinks as well).

Now, did B''burn fans not turn up because they don''t have that many fans, didn''t fancy seeing them lose to Chelski, didn''t bother as it was too expensive, or because it''s a pretty uninspiring Cup competition where the final will be inevitably be Liverpool vs Man Utd/Chelsea?

A few of the mid-table Premiership sides exist despite less-than-full grounds, even in league games. Two, three or five years in the premiership have given them such a comfortable source of revenue from Sky TV that the fans are - in a way - irrelevant because the gate receipts will probably only cover 25%-30% of the running costs of the Club anyway.

I wonder whether we''d fill a 28,000 seater every home game now but in the Premiership I''m pretty sure we would. And unlike Blackburn, Bolton etc, I think we would continue to do so.

[/quote]

If we are in the Championship "challenging for promotion" to the Premiership (the boards apparent target)consistently I think we would fill a 28,000 seater every game. If we were struggling in the bottom six of the Premiership consistently then I fear we may not. The season we had up there was a great adventure and we sold out every game but if we stayed there and kept struggling many casual fans would get fed up with watching a struggling side. uninspiring home games against the likes of Wigan on a cold damp day could see only the 16,000 rotary drier fans left.

 

 

[Cluck 0]

I bought my ticket because I felt there might be a shortfall in the event of a successful season......

It provides a false impression of things because in the ''old standing'' days......gates by now would be 16,000 at best.....maybe less. Then after a string of bad results or poor management, the ''swingers'' would stay away in protest. I was one of those who would vote with my feet to show my dissent.

It''s a form of blackmail by the club in my view and a very cynical way to ensure good crowds no matter what happens on the pitch. Another reason to be unimpressed with the Boards manipulation of the fans.

[blahblahblah 2]

I don''t see how the improvement in attendances, which has occured mainly in the last 5 seasons, causes a manipulation of the fans.  Nobody forces or manipulates 20,000 people to buy a season ticket - they choose to do this.

The simple facts are that there are more people in the area than there used to be, and that football has a higher profile than ever.  You can''t blame the board for not trying to raise the capacity, surely they''ve done what they could with the current money at their disposal ?

 

[mbncfc 1]

It is an understandable reaction to be cynical about this. Credit where it is due, we have the 15th-ish highest average attendance in the country. That is a great achievement and something you cannot singularly put down to the board manipulating fans. With that said though, they have been astutue marketing wise.

They have added seats and the capacity is bigger than they could have made it. The board can tell any prospetive client wishing to invest, be it advertising, shirt sponsors, new players, that there will be a crowd of 25,000 people at almost every match seeing their product, advert, logo, skills...

Football is very different to how it was even 15 years ago. Gate receipts matter less and less the higher up the ladder you go. Just as if we became ludicrously successful you wouldn''t get 40,000 into CR, it works the other way too.

If we were to spend the next 10 years in the championship without a hope of going up, attendances would drop. At the moment, there is enough interest and optimism to drive demand. But that won''t last forever without some suitable results.

[Rudolph Hucker 0]

Thanks for all the responses and thank you Croutons for your information on the South Stand.

I was particularly interested in your point Nutty about being a glass ceilinged Premiership side and have said before that I believe the Prem to be doomed in its present format. You can just see it: promotion, large stand investment, 32,000 capacity, same old same old results/league position, less games, silly kick off times/days and less crowd than we have now.

It makes an interesting conundrum doesn''t it?

[charlies dad 0]

Interesting read. With regard to chelsea, i''m always struck by the number of females and kids in the crowd on match of the day. Usually flashing cameras off and avoiding shevchenko as he dives into the crowd. I dont think that their demographic varies too much from ours. In my younger days, regular football specials to west brom, leicester, brighton, nottingham, to name but a few, were chock full of 18 to 26 year old lads, almost exclusively. away support always looks a lot tamer by comparison nowadays.But I take your point about the renewal situation. Financial considerations in renewing at the earliest convenience, (i.e. cheaper tickets) and pressure from Norwich City Mad kids, meant that my continued custom could be taken for granted. A situation which made me very frustrated, as our misery went on and on and on.   

[YankeeCanary 0]

Interesting thread and some good points by all. Obviously, a challenge for all football clubs relative to capacity is whether to "pull" or "push". Clearly, our club is of the "pull" mentality.

The aspect that is of interest to me is the elasticity of attendance relative to "sunk costs" of anything below full attendance taken into consideration with the timeframe of the ambition level of the club. Let me elaborate. 

If a club deems that there is a high probability of increasing their attendance by 35% should they a) increase their capacity and b) get promoted to the Premiership and stay there for at least a couple of seasons, then how would the financials play out given future fluctuations in attendance beyond this point. Of course a lot of assumptions need to go into any scenario, but let''s ASSUME, for the sake of debate, that if NCFC knew that it was willing to take the necessary steps to ensure a high probability of promotion during the next three years and, during that time, they also had the financial leverage to increase the capacity by 35% to 35,000. Let''s also assume that the club believed this would be the number they would attract when it became clear that the product on the pitch was fully capable of achieving promotion, and that the plan was to ensure that capacity was available at least for the promotion year as well as the first two seasons in the Premiership. As with all things in life, the farther one projects out into the future the more the uncertainty.

So, lets ASSUME that the choice facing the Norwich Board in the scenario I outlined was whether to a) increase the capacity to 30,000 at a cost of 6 million pounds with a projected attendance elasticity of 18,000 to 30,000 in out years or b) increase the capacity to 35,000 at a cost of 10 million pounds with an attendance elasticity of 18,000 to 35,000 in the out years. Of course my cost numbers may be totally out to lunch, but the more informed among you can insert more approriate cost numbers.

Conservatively, I would guess the 3 years that we would achieve maximum capacity of 35,000 ( versus 30,000) would generate an additional revenue of 2 million pounds+ per season. A total of 6 million pounds we otherwise would not have received. This, of course, would have to be weighed against the overall cost of financing the additional capital of 4 million pounds to go with the greater capacity. The sunk cost question is particularly relevant in the years that it takes us to pay off any loans to finance the higher capacity number, particularly so if we underperform on the pitch and in attendance figures. 

If we attach more realistic cost figures than the ones I have provided here then it would be interesting to discuss whether our respective attitudes would be to "push" or "pull"  

[Rudolph Hucker 0]

I thought this thread would get your juices flowing, Yankee.

Your posts are never going to earn the plain english crystal mark are they?

You talk about ''elasticity of attendence relative to "sunk costs" then offer to ELABORATE!!!!

My eyes glazed over not long afterwards, you are clearly a superior being with a complex advanced mind. My poor little brain couldn''t keep up.

How about putting it in simpler terms for us plebs on this side of the Atlantic. You surely have some valid points, please make them more.................accesible.

[YankeeCanary 0]

Rudolph, you really disappoint me sometimes. In your short response you manage to mess up the spelling of things I have already laid out for you ( attendance ), compounded by shorting an s in "accessible". No wonder you think I have a complex mind. I don''t happen to share that view. However, speaking about "eyes glazing over", I must confess some of your recent efforts had me doing precisely that. I was quite surprised to see your long-winded musings on at least three fronts, with the content, in some cases, rambling on without paragraphs. The very thing you abhor and are happy to cast criticism towards others on. Is it possible you are being overly influenced by me. If so, please feel free to take a well deserved rest.

[Rudolph Hucker 0]

It''s not me, Yankee. It''s my keyboard. I complained about it on another threaD.

However, while keyboards can make spelings seem bad they have very little affect on gramer: so what is your excuse?

Even with the spelling mistakes I think my posts still have a clarity lacking in yours. Were you at some time, like many of your countrymen, abducted by aliens with probes who perhaps took things out and never put them back?

Jesting aside...............

I am flying into JFK in early January. Unfortunately I am flying out again 6 hours later otherwise I would see you for a beer, old friend.

[Mello Yello 2,273]

I just can''t be botherd to spell proply............

What is it with folk? Do they believe everything that the NCFC Delia plc proper- ganda pump out? I don''t give a minky what headlines or simplistic sound of bites is emblazoned across the local rags, radio, TV and Official Club Massage (the troof) board. I really don''t wish to attend ''Psycho-fan-tic'' symposiums of self congratulatin'' "success is down to us and us only.......so remain servile or we will pour scorn on you - for havin'' the sheer audacity to question the supreme beings controlling the Carra coffers!"

 Luvverly loyal ickle club  fanatics that we are............some less gullible and more cynical than others....ahem.......I personally, just don''t think that the board are givin'' it the whole nine yards. I am fed up to the back teeth of " middle class/crass poverty stricken'' club, wallows in its own self-centered supposed/proposed skintness"......Doomcaster retorts: "Alas, we are unable to repair the ''morse-code'' scoreboard - and if we are to meet the costs of its rectification, (and as those blown bulbs are a unobtainable rarity), we will have to sell all the club''s assets; including our leading goalscorer and wingers to fund it." "Then unfortunately, we will be down to the bare-bones of the restyrunts an'' corporate congeniality...."Oh Dear!" sez Delilah, "I hope we can keep the cookin'' ranges and wine coolers functioning, and what if the red isn''t at room temperature on Toosday an'' next Satday?" Oh deary, oh deary me....Michael, I''m stressed.....give me a ciggy......come on, let''s be ''avin it!"......oh, and tell them to turn that sprinkler off..........and those bleedin'' floodlights - or we won''t be able to afford to have the tablecloths laundered!"..............

Top marketing..........yup! It certainly is! ;~( 

 

[Dicky 0]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"]Rudolph, you really disappoint me sometimes. In your short response you manage to mess up the spelling of things I have already laid out for you ( attendance ), compounded by shorting an s in "accessible". No wonder you think I have a complex mind. I don''t happen to share that view. However, speaking about "eyes glazing over", I must confess some of your recent efforts had me doing precisely that. I was quite surprised to see your long-winded musings on at least three fronts, with the content, in some cases, rambling on without paragraphs. The very thing you abhor and are happy to cast criticism towards others on. Is it possible you are being overly influenced by me. If so, please feel free to take a well deserved rest.[/quote]

Good to see that pomposity is still thriving over the water!

[YankeeCanary 0]

Dicky, I''d need to multiply myself several times over to scale the heights of pomposity you reached by labelling yourself a "true supporter" while putting down others who were of a different opinion to yourself on the "Nigel Worthington" saga. I suggest you practise humility training on your long hours between Brighton and Norwich. If you need help, call Rudolph. He''s much better than he used to be. On a positive note, I hope you begin to debate in the many areas of interest open to all of us on matters relating to NCFC. 

[Bobert 0]

I believe the next capital priority of the Board is to build a second tier on top of the South Stand and with this in mind the Board are in negotiations with the City to buy the road at the back of the Stand. This, I believe is a mistake. Its time the Club moved out of Carrow and built a brand new ground at the back of Tesco''s on the Ipswich Road where there is is access to a rail link and the Southern Ring Road. Capacity would then be 30,000 plus. The Club can sell Carrow for building and help Norwich expand southwards with new homes and facilities along the river.

[Dicky 0]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"]Dicky, I''d need to multiply myself several times over to scale the heights of pomposity you reached by labelling yourself a "true supporter" while putting down others who were of a different opinion to yourself on the "Nigel Worthington" saga. I suggest you practise humility training on your long hours between Brighton and Norwich. If you need help, call Rudolph. He''s much better than he used to be. On a positive note, I hope you begin to debate in the many areas of interest open to all of us on matters relating to NCFC. [/quote]

As if to prove my point.

[ca 1]

Bobert,

No they''re buliding on the City stand, the Jarrold stand wasn''t built to take another tier.

[Bobert 0]

Yes my mistake....sorry.

Why can''t I book a flight out of Norwich and onwards into Europe via KLM on the Net. Anyone know the reason? I thought we were all one big nanny state these days!

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="Mello Yello"]

I just can''t be botherd to spell proply............

What is it with folk? Do they believe everything that the NCFC Delia plc proper- ganda pump out? I don''t give a minky what headlines or simplistic sound of bites is emblazoned across the local rags, radio, TV and Official Club Massage (the troof) board. I really don''t wish to attend ''Psycho-fan-tic'' symposiums of self congratulatin'' "success is down to us and us only.......so remain servile or we will pour scorn on you - for havin'' the sheer audacity to question the supreme beings controlling the Carra coffers!"

 Luvverly loyal ickle club  fanatics that we are............some less gullible and more cynical than others....ahem.......I personally, just don''t think that the board are givin'' it the whole nine yards. I am fed up to the back teeth of " middle class/crass poverty stricken'' club, wallows in its own self-centered supposed/proposed skintness"......Doomcaster retorts: "Alas, we are unable to repair the ''morse-code'' scoreboard - and if we are to meet the costs of its rectification, (and as those blown bulbs are a unobtainable rarity), we will have to sell all the club''s assets; including our leading goalscorer and wingers to fund it." "Then unfortunately, we will be down to the bare-bones of the restyrunts an'' corporate congeniality...."Oh Dear!" sez Delilah, "I hope we can keep the cookin'' ranges and wine coolers functioning, and what if the red isn''t at room temperature on Toosday an'' next Satday?" Oh deary, oh deary me....Michael, I''m stressed.....give me a ciggy......come on, let''s be ''avin it!"......oh, and tell them to turn that sprinkler off..........and those bleedin'' floodlights - or we won''t be able to afford to have the tablecloths laundered!"..............

Top marketing..........yup! It certainly is! ;~( 

 

[/quote]

Mello, that''s the problem, they do believe it.  For some reason they adore Delia and think she can do no wrong.  Delia can do no wrong, Worthy can do no right, it''s that simple as far as they''re concerned.  Straight out of Grimm''s Fairytales.  It''s bad enough being treated like village idiots, without behaving like it . . . we even had someone on here the other day who said, in effect, that if the board can''t afford to give Hucks another contract, they must know best . . . wake up, we can''t afford NOT to give him another contract.

I no longer care whether what I say insults some of our fans.  This attitude is dangerous, you''re letting them get away with murder.  Where were you in 1996?  What did you learn from the Chase debacle?  Oh yes of course, Chase was a nasty nasty man and now he''s gone it couldn''t possibly happen again . . .

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote user="Mello Yello"]I just can''t be botherd to spell proply............

What is it with folk? Do they believe everything that the NCFC Delia plc proper- ganda pump out? I don''t give a minky what headlines or simplistic sound of bites is emblazoned across the local rags, radio, TV and Official Club Massage (the troof) board. I really don''t wish to attend ''Psycho-fan-tic'' symposiums of self congratulatin'' "success is down to us and us only.......so remain servile or we will pour scorn on you - for havin'' the sheer audacity to question the supreme beings controlling the Carra coffers!"

[/quote]

So you object to people like Neil Doncaster trying to give as much information as they can to keep people informed because you believe that they aren''t being straight with you.  Fair enough, each to their own, personally i don''t believe that there is enough time in the day for them to concoct the press releases they make. 

Assuming your Psycho-fantic symposium is the NCISA (and I hope lucky gets well soon) it''s a bit of a harsh comment on them, as they set up meetings so that the board can be questioned.  It''s hardly their fault that the only people who turn up for these things are back-slappers and brahn-nosers.  Maybe you, Hucker and Ramrod could go to the next one and give them all a piece of the same mind ?

[quote] Luvverly loyal ickle club  fanatics that we are............some less gullible and more cynical than others....ahem.......I personally, just don''t think that the board are givin'' it the whole nine yards. I am fed up to the back teeth of " middle class/crass poverty stricken'' club, wallows in its own self-centered supposed/proposed skintness"......Doomcaster retorts: "Alas, we are unable to repair the ''morse-code'' scoreboard - and if we are to meet the costs of its rectification, (and as those blown bulbs are a unobtainable rarity), we will have to sell all the club''s assets; including our leading goalscorer and wingers to fund it." "Then unfortunately, we will be down to the bare-bones of the restyrunts an'' corporate congeniality...."Oh Dear!" sez Delilah, "I hope we can keep the cookin'' ranges and wine coolers functioning, and what if the red isn''t at room temperature on Toosday an'' next Satday?" Oh deary, oh deary me....Michael, I''m stressed.....give me a ciggy......come on, let''s be ''avin it!"......oh, and tell them to turn that sprinkler off..........and those bleedin'' floodlights - or we won''t be able to afford to have the tablecloths laundered!"..............

Top marketing..........yup! It certainly is! ;~([/quote]

So on that basis Mello, you didn''t renew your season ticket early to save money because you disapproved of being proper-gandized and marketed to ?  Of course you did.  Because that money can be used for beer an'' fags an'' luvverly cake an'' Luckys'' anti-biotics.  How dare they discount at you.  It must be a conspiracy.

 

[Mr.Carrow 376]

    Good stuff Mello Yellow and Mystic Megson. Blahblahblah, i dont think anyone objects to the club trying to give as much information as they can, however it does not neccessarily follow that that information is 100% accurate or that it sheds a good light on events. As i stated on another thread Doncaster was praised for his honesty on the Mckenzie/Cotteril debacle, however in my view his account was simply an honest admission of complacency and ineptitude (how handy would one of those players be in replacing Earnshaw at the moment?).

     A good example of the boards tendency for economy with the truth is that they still have the front to state that all incoming transfer fees are reinvested in the team-despite being 8 million in profit on transfer dealings since relegation. Of course they are not lieing. Its just that EVERY part of an incoming transfer is paid out of an incoming transfer fee including the entire contract of the incoming player. Therefore to replace say Mckenzie with the 600,000 fee received, the club will probably only spend 200,000 on the transfer fee and the rest will pay other fees and, say, a 3 year contract for the new player. Thats despite the fact we have `lost` Mckenzies wage! And then Doncaster has the nerve to state earlier in the season that the board have "sanctioned a wage bill significantly higher than that budgeted for",when most of these wages have already been covered by incoming transfer fees! Any thoughts Blahblahblah?

     

[nutty nigel 7,506]

[quote user="Rudolph Hucker"]Thanks for all the responses and thank you Croutons for your information on the South Stand. I was particularly interested in your point Nutty about being a glass ceilinged Premiership side and have said before that I believe the Prem to be doomed in its present format. You can just see it: promotion, large stand investment, 32,000 capacity, same old same old results/league position, less games, silly kick off times/days and less crowd than we have now. It makes an interesting conundrum doesn''t it?[/quote]

I agree with your view about the Premier League being doomed in its present format. On another post I have been singing the praises of modern day football, but for me the Premiership is very much the downside. It''s run by the big clubs for the big clubs. It''s the pinnacle of our league system and we all dream of being there, but when we get there we feel a bit let down. It''s better on TV than in the grounds. I call it ''The Football Armchair Premier League''.

When this was posted before I mentioned about the G14 (18) Clubs of Europe and how they could breakaway and form a European Super League. It’s already been rumoured that they would like to have guaranteed Champions League places for their Member Clubs. I notice that David Dein is now president of G14 which should set off a few alarm bells!

However I for one would be happy if they did break away. I would love to see the Football League back in control of all top four divisions. The Football League is more competitive and much more transparent, insisting on things such as publicising agents fees and also talk about restricting salaries to a percentage of the clubs income. However it’s very difficult to implement these changes in the Championship as a lot of clubs have one eye on the Premiership where the rules would be different.

All this makes life difficult for a club like Norwich City. We will never be able to compete with the bigger clubs in a league where the same bigger clubs make all the rules. Yet we have to strive to get there and try because to have no ambition would make the whole thing pointless. I believe the boards target of challenging for promotion from the Championship is about right. Of course achieving promotion is fine too except that after the initial adventure being a ‘glass ceiling club’ becomes stale.

I think our best bet is to gradually increase capacity while there is a demand and invest enough in the team so that we are there or thereabouts to take advantage when the ‘Premiership Gravy Train’ dries up and all clubs compete on an equal footing.

 

[In Dubious Battle 0]

[quote user="cluck"]

I bought my ticket because I felt there might be a shortfall in the event of a successful season......

It provides a false impression of things because in the ''old standing'' days......gates by now would be 16,000 at best.....maybe less. Then after a string of bad results or poor management, the ''swingers'' would stay away in protest. I was one of those who would vote with my feet to show my dissent.

It''s a form of blackmail by the club in my view and a very cynical way to ensure good crowds no matter what happens on the pitch. Another reason to be unimpressed with the Boards manipulation of the fans.

[/quote]

are you seriously suggesting this is all a big conspiracy by the board to ensure good attendances? maybe they had a hand in the kennedy assasination too?

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote user="Mr Carrow"]  A good example of the boards tendency for economy with the truth is that they still have the front to state that all incoming transfer fees are reinvested in the team-despite being 8 million in profit on transfer dealings since relegation. Of course they are not lieing. Its just that EVERY part of an incoming transfer is paid out of an incoming transfer fee including the entire contract of the incoming player. Therefore to replace say Mckenzie with the 600,000 fee received, the club will probably only spend 200,000 on the transfer fee and the rest will pay other fees and, say, a 3 year contract for the new player. Thats despite the fact we have `lost` Mckenzies wage! And then Doncaster has the nerve to state earlier in the season that the board have "sanctioned a wage bill significantly higher than that budgeted for",when most of these wages have already been covered by incoming transfer fees! Any thoughts Blahblahblah?[/quote]

Does your "headline" figure of 8 million include the "4 million profit" on Ashton ?  Are you removing Crewes'' sell-on clauses ?  How about Ashtons'' agents fees for the transfer, or indeed the 380k his agent made for re-negotiating his contract ?  Or indeed hidden costs in any other transfer in ?  Every transfer has hidden costs that aren''t covered in the headline figure.

My main thought regarding this is that the club can''t win in this situation.  Transfers don''t happen in isolation to all other financial transactions, they occur within the context of everything else the club has to pay for.  To give out every piece of financial info on current transfers would be to give away our hand in negotiations.  To say nothing is to hide and obscure information from fans.  Either way neither of us can prove that what you say is happening, is actually happening.  "Headline" transfer fees are usually variable to the truth anyway, so to build an argument upon them is like building a house out of sand.  People will either choose to believe that the club creates off-field ventures to help to fund the club during times of low tv revenue, or as an end in themselves that transfer fees help to bolster.  I choose to believe that most things the board have put in place are done in order to ensure the long term success of the club.  Only time will prove you right / me wrong, or vice versa.

[Fat Barman 0]

I have to agree with Cluck''s assessment - I suggested something similar on another thread - if capacity weren''t an issue for fans, more would choose the casual option. The season ticket base would likely fall as people wouldn''t be scared that tickets would be unavailable. Doubtless there are people who wouldn''t attend some low profile games, but do so at present because they felt obliged to buy a season ticket to guarantee their seat for matches they did want to see.Building the new tier on the City stand would be to the long term benefit of the club and it would ease pressure on fans to buy season tickets, allowing more casual fans to attend on a semi-regular basis. Some might say that such fans are fickle, or fair-weather, but all kinds of constraints lead to this pattern of attending - shift-work, low wages etc. Build the thing, or we stagnate.

[Rudolph Hucker 0]

The question is FB, if a new stand was built and the capacity raised to, say, 30,000 would we have as many season ticket holders as we have now? What do you think, is there a cut off point?

[Cluck 0]

 

"Building the new tier on the City stand would be to the long term benefit of the club and it would ease pressure on fans to buy season tickets, allowing more casual fans to attend on a semi-regular basis. Some might say that such fans are fickle, or fair-weather, but all kinds of constraints lead to this pattern of attending - shift-work, low wages etc". (Fat Barman).....

Perfectly put.

My income has recently crashed due to ill health. I''m self employed so that means problems in the short term at least.

Next year a season ticket for me and my sons will probably be beyond my pocket........so I will miss out. It''s a fine system if you can afford it.....but if not it is pretty grim.