Attandences idea for the FA

[pukka]

In my opinion the FA need to look at setting ticket prices. Lower league teams need people through the gates. But how can people argue that they are getting value for money? I am going to watch wigan warriors vs wakefield in a few weeks. For £15 - thats cheaper than at every latics game this season. Ok I know the sport isn't the same, but its top level Rugby for £15. I went to the Super league grand final for £26. Thats the Champions league final of rugby for £26, you can't knock it. It was £24 this year at leeds. Ok, the result was worth it, but that is an absolute joke for Third tier football.

 

I understand that people will say its restrictive practice, but - can it be argued that you get what you pay for so can't be ripped off? If it was set by the FA then you would be paying for a produt rather than for the team. You are paying for league 1 football - £15. That means its not restrictive. How can one team charge £26 and one team £17 if you are watching the same standard?

 

 

For example I'd set it at:

 

League 2 - £11 / £8 juniors

League 1- £15 / 10 juniors

Championship - £20 / £12 juniors

 

Lower league sides need people through the gates, thats the only way they'll survive.

 

EDIT: I know this wont happen, (short term gain is all people look at) - but it should.

Edited March 19, 2008 by pukka

[philliggi]

In my opinion the FA need to look at setting ticket prices. Lower league teams need people through the gates. But how can people argue that they are getting value for money? I am going to watch wigan warriors vs wakefield in a few weeks. For £15 - thats cheaper than at every latics game this season. Ok I know the sport isn't the same, but its top level Rugby for £15. I went to the Super league grand final for £26. Thats the Champions league final of rugby for £26, you can't knock it. It was £24 this year at leeds. Ok, the result was worth it, but that is an absolute joke for Third tier football.

 

I understand that people will say its restrictive practice, but - can it be argued that you get what you pay for so can't be ripped off? If it was set by the FA then you would be paying for a produt rather than for the team. You are paying for league 1 football - £15. That means its not restrictive. How can one team charge £26 and one team £17 if you are watching the same standard?

For example I'd set it at:

 

League 2 - £11 / £8 juniors

League 1- £15 / 10 juniors

Championship - £20 / £12 juniors

 

Lower league sides need people through the gates, thats the only way they'll survive.

 

i see where you are coming from but i doubt it would work. colchester filled there ground week in week out in our league (not hard with a six thousand gate or lower) so they would be very unlikely to drop prices. there are other teams as well, but i cant be bothered thinking.

 

football is a strange world, you cant really complare. but i do agree something needs sorting. however it is the clubs themselves that need to act

[Macca]

I disagree, players and agents need to lower their demands for wages and bonuses for lower league clubs to survive, unfortunately that is very unlikely to happen.

 

The way things are now clubs can't survive on just the fans turning up each week paying to attend the games, they have to diversify in anything they can, things like corporate activites, concerts etc anything to bring extra money in.

[Tommy_Fent]

In my opinion the FA need to look at setting ticket prices. Lower league teams need people through the gates. But how can people argue that they are getting value for money? I am going to watch wigan warriors vs wakefield in a few weeks. For £15 - thats cheaper than at every latics game this season. Ok I know the sport isn't the same, but its top level Rugby for £15. I went to the Super league grand final for £26. Thats the Champions league final of rugby for £26, you can't knock it. It was £24 this year at leeds. Ok, the result was worth it, but that is an absolute joke for Third tier football.

 

 

When England used to play at Old Trafford it used to be 25 for the cheapest tickets, and at the time it was 5 quid less to watch Latics, so thats 5 quid more and your watching the national team, England vs Northern Ireland or Latics vs Torquay?

[davegtt]

I agree with what you are saying but even if Latics were charging £15 a game do you really think we'd get more people through the gate week in week out? Personally dont think it'd make much difference unless we are charging about £10 a game but the club need to make some money at the same time. Players wage demands have had the knock on effect in the lower leagues, Prem teams can afford to pay big wages and its spiralled for the minnows.

[Inspiral_Carpet]

I agree with what you are saying but even if Latics were charging £15 a game do you really think we'd get more people through the gate week in week out? Personally dont think it'd make much difference unless we are charging about £10 a game but the club need to make some money at the same time. Players wage demands have had the knock on effect in the lower leagues, Prem teams can afford to pay big wages and its spiralled for the minnows.

 

Exactly.

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again, if it were all down to money, why is it that the two areas that only cost £14 per match for adults are never full?

 

Even when we had a near sell-out against Huddersfield in the Cup, the only two areas where there was decent ticket availability (ie two seats together) was in the £14 Paddocks.

 

If it were all about cost, then you wouldn't be able to get a Paddock ticket for normal games as it would be sold out to Season Ticket Holders.

[leeslover]

I disagree, players and agents need to lower their demands for wages and bonuses for lower league clubs to survive, unfortunately that is very unlikely to happen.

 

The way things are now clubs can't survive on just the fans turning up each week paying to attend the games, they have to diversify in anything they can, things like corporate activites, concerts etc anything to bring extra money in.

It’s never going to happen – players are the main cost of running a football team, and they are the main way that the different clubs (different businesses) can compete with their rivals. That’s why feeding more money into the game (extra money down from the Premiership for example) never makes the lower clubs secure, most of the cash just flows through them into the pockets of the players (and agents). If one player lowers his demands, another will happily take up the slack in the wage bill. The only safe way is for clubs to spend what they can afford according to their business plan and accept whatever division that leads them to – something that we all accepted back in 2004, but some don’t today.

[pukka]

maybe my idea isn't right, but something needs to be done to get people in.

 

Lees- I think you are right, as long as you dont spend beyond your means, you'll survive, but - fewer and fewer people are comming through the doors of Boundary park each season. It cant carry on.

[Stitch_KTF]

I disagree, players and agents need to lower their demands for wages and bonuses for lower league clubs to survive, unfortunately that is very unlikely to happen.

 

The way things are now clubs can't survive on just the fans turning up each week paying to attend the games, they have to diversify in anything they can, things like corporate activites, concerts etc anything to bring extra money in.

 

Players will never lower their demands until supply and demand dictates so. This never can change because the 92 clubs will always demand the X amount of best footballers, whatever their standard.

 

What WE need to do is get promoted through stability. Regardless of local big clubs this club can, and will, attract support in The Championship because it is a good league almost representative of the top flight 15/20 years ago.

 

 

 

If the F.A wanted to sort things out they would have to spread the prems tv money equally throughout ALL 92 football league clubs. If they had any balls they would and it would be so much more interesting. Imagine the exodus of players as prem clubs without billionaire owners slashed their budgets.....others budgets would rise dramatically. As a result all the top players would spread out and the competition would be extensive. Players would become loyal to clubs again, foreigners would leave chasing money elsewhere. Good riddance! The England team may improve, it may decline.

In time though chances are the quality would drop so Sky would pay less for the rights so it would go full circle back to tickets being the major source of revenue. Or the probable regular rotation of the top teams might keep people interested and paying Sky Sports subsciptions.

 

Basically the prem clubs get all the money because they are the ones shown on sky but the view taken should be that the prem is representative of the entire league (I think it is seperate?!?) and so all the clubs share all the money!

 

 

How much better would that be for everybody? Except of course the big four and their hopes of european cup (sorry, 'champions league') glory!

 

 

Football is crap im fast getting bored of anything not latics.

 

 

 

Am I wrong??

[paulgard]

Players will never lower their demands until supply and demand dictates so. This never can change because the 92 clubs will always demand the X amount of best footballers, whatever their standard.

 

What WE need to do is get promoted through stability. Regardless of local big clubs this club can, and will, attract support in The Championship because it is a good league almost representative of the top flight 15/20 years ago.

If the F.A wanted to sort things out they would have to spread the prems tv money equally throughout ALL 92 football league clubs. If they had any balls they would and it would be so much more interesting. Imagine the exodus of players as prem clubs without billionaire owners slashed their budgets.....others budgets would rise dramatically. As a result all the top players would spread out and the competition would be extensive. Players would become loyal to clubs again, foreigners would leave chasing money elsewhere. Good riddance! The England team may improve, it may decline.

In time though chances are the quality would drop so Sky would pay less for the rights so it would go full circle back to tickets being the major source of revenue. Or the probable regular rotation of the top teams might keep people interested and paying Sky Sports subsciptions.

 

Basically the prem clubs get all the money because they are the ones shown on sky but the view taken should be that the prem is representative of the entire league (I think it is seperate?!?) and so all the clubs share all the money!

How much better would that be for everybody? Except of course the big four and their hopes of european cup (sorry, 'champions league') glory!

Football is crap im fast getting bored of anything not latics.

Am I wrong??

not wrong at all,can't fault you on any of it.ktf.

[philliggi]

there is one big flaw in that tho. all the big clubs would have to do is ban sky from showing them on TV, and then sky subscriptions would dramatically fall, leading to sky going grovelling back to them, with even more money probably, widening the gap

[edhunteruk]

there is one big flaw in that tho. all the big clubs would have to do is ban sky from showing them on TV, and then sky subscriptions would dramatically fall, leading to sky going grovelling back to them, with even more money probably, widening the gap

the money given to the greedy lerague should be spread out equally throughout the whole league system.the clubs in the top flight in the main earn enough money in there own rights.

 

the fa should of stepped in years ago with transfer and wage cappings. i dont care what footballer it is,but nobody is worth 50million pounds,or gives full value for 130k a week.

 

they should of tiered it down by something like a premier league player can only earn 100k a year,then down to the next level and so on.

if the player wants more money thats down to his commercialism

 

same with prices,they should of set a precedent and said top flight footy can only charge £20 a game,then tier it down as it goes down the leagues.

 

football today is all about money and greed,lampard is after 30 million for 4 years of kicking a bag of wind around,7.5 million pounds a year......scandalous

[beag_teeets]

Never gonna happen.

 

The FA are toothless since they sold themselves down the river with the formation of the Premier League. There had been conflict between the Football League and the Football Association for years and when the large clubs approached the FA to support them in their plans for the Prem the FA saw it as their chance to finally assert themselves over the FL. The FA did not request any power, in fact they ceded power to the Premier League in return for thirty pieces of silver - (Well it is Easter after all!)

 

Plus these days with employment regulations and laws, freedom of movement, non-restraint of trade laws..etc.. the Fa, the FL, the govt, clubs or anyone hasn't got a leg to stand on beyond self-regulation but this is as likely as turkeys voting for Christmas to continue the biblical theme.

[beag_teeets]

More proof of the ineffectiveness of the FA:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/t...sea/7306478.stm - FA unable to act over Cole tackle.

 

Blunkett on Denman would be more use.

[GlossopLatic]

Never gonna happen.

 

The FA are toothless since they sold themselves down the river with the formation of the Premier League. There had been conflict between the Football League and the Football Association for years and when the large clubs approached the FA to support them in their plans for the Prem the FA saw it as their chance to finally assert themselves over the FL. The FA did not request any power, in fact they ceded power to the Premier League in return for thirty pieces of silver - (Well it is Easter after all!)

 

Plus these days with employment regulations and laws, freedom of movement, non-restraint of trade laws..etc.. the Fa, the FL, the govt, clubs or anyone hasn't got a leg to stand on beyond self-regulation but this is as likely as turkeys voting for Christmas to continue the biblical theme.

 

Spot on its a nice idea of the premier league sharing out right across the board but it would never happen. The whole reason why the premier league was formed was because the big 5 which at the time was Arsenal Man Utd, Liverpool Tottenham and Everton wanted a larger share of the tv revenue which was at the time shared right through all 4 divisions despite the fact that only a handful of games were shown on tv and these involved the bigger teams. The only way that this could happen was to breakaway from the Football League so they did along with 22 other clubs we were one of them.