City Season Tickets

[oafc0000]

There would be no need for overnight stays for the teams therefore reducing expense and more derby matches which should bring in bigger crowds producing more revenue.

 

I dont think Latics stay over night anywhere these days... Its all same day travelling is it not ?

 

The cost savings would be too small to counteract the boredom of playing less games / same teams over and over again...

[longtimeblue]

I dont think Latics stay over night anywhere these days... Its all same day travelling is it not ?

 

The cost savings would be too small to counteract the boredom of playing less games / same teams over and over again...

 

That is a step closer to the non-professional set up that you predicted in the future..

 

 

[oafc0000]

That is a step closer to the non-professional set up that you predicted in the future..

 

True...

[wozz_oafc]

simple question..

just what can TTA do about a change of plan?

my answer..nothing.

 

TTA needs its regular 4000 punters arriving every fortnight to ease the burden of their fortune being wiped out quicker...

 

the FA / FL won't get involved,so what can be done?

 

I am not sure its just down to TTA to change their plan.

 

The fans have to look at what they expect as well. If we expect success without a sugar daddy then we have to be happy to fork out more money for season tickets to keep the budget up.

 

If we expect success but dont want to fork out for it maybe we need to reassess who we want in charge of the club and get TTA out and try and get someone with limitless funds in.

 

If we want a well run club and dont want to pay more to keep the budget up then maybe we have to finally accept that we no longer deserve to be or competing to get into the upper two tiers of the football league because we just dont have the support.

 

If we want prices to go down in line with Premier league reductions, maybe we will have to sacrifice our position in the third tier and be happy with being a little lower.

 

Personally, I would like to think TTA are running a tight ship but are willing to splash out every so often when we can get a bit of quality in, and in the long run this will put us in good stead when the bubble bursts and other clubs are hit hard. We can hopefully push on from then.

 

[oafc0000]

I am not sure its just down to TTA to change their plan.

 

The fans have to look at what they expect as well. If we expect success without a sugar daddy then we have to be happy to fork out more money for season tickets to keep the budget up.

 

If we expect success but dont want to fork out for it maybe we need to reassess who we want in charge of the club and get TTA out and try and get someone with limitless funds in.

 

If we want a well run club and dont want to pay more to keep the budget up then maybe we have to finally accept that we no longer deserve to be or competing to get into the upper two tiers of the football league because we just dont have the support.

 

If we want prices to go down in line with Premier league reductions, maybe we will have to sacrifice our position in the third tier and be happy with being a little lower.

 

Personally, I would like to think TTA are running a tight ship but are willing to splash out every so often when we can get a bit of quality in, and in the long run this will put us in good stead when the bubble bursts and other clubs are hit hard. We can hopefully push on from then.

 

You talk a lot of sense... Refreshing to read something based in reality....

 

[Stitch_KTF]

Looking at a wider view, not just Latics, maybe it is time for the lower league clubs to revert back to regional leagues(as pre 1960 Third Divisions North & South). There would be no need for overnight stays for the teams therefore reducing expense and more derby matches which should bring in bigger crowds producing more revenue.

 

I know all the die hard fans who go to every away game will not see many new grounds but the survival of all lower league clubs is more important.

 

Just a thought, what do others think?

 

I agree for the bigger away crowds point. Anyway, I'd sooner play the likes of Tranmere, Huddersfield, Leeds, Leicester, Stockport, Walsall, Hartlepool etc four times than Orient, Millwall, Peterborough, MK Dons, Yeovil, Cheltenham, Swindon etc twice.

 

Or rather than playing four fixtures they could combine Leagues 1 and 2 then split them into north and south which have the added benefit of small clubs being closer to the top (and the money). Imagine how many derby games we would have!! Being in an area with many pro clubs would no longer be such a disadvantage!

 

I could only imagine Midlands clubs who would often be changing leagues and having the furthest to travel objecting....but then they have always had the least distance to travel anyway!!

[longtimeblue]

I am not sure its just down to TTA to change their plan.

 

The fans have to look at what they expect as well. If we expect success without a sugar daddy then we have to be happy to fork out more money for season tickets to keep the budget up.

 

If we expect success but dont want to fork out for it maybe we need to reassess who we want in charge of the club and get TTA out and try and get someone with limitless funds in.

 

If we want a well run club and dont want to pay more to keep the budget up then maybe we have to finally accept that we no longer deserve to be or competing to get into the upper two tiers of the football league because we just dont have the support.

 

If we want prices to go down in line with Premier league reductions, maybe we will have to sacrifice our position in the third tier and be happy with being a little lower.

 

Personally, I would like to think TTA are running a tight ship but are willing to splash out every so often when we can get a bit of quality in, and in the long run this will put us in good stead when the bubble bursts and other clubs are hit hard. We can hopefully push on from then.

 

I understand what your saying but it is up to the TTA to look at options, look at the possibility of discounts and look at the benefits long term, not suggesting they should give us season tickets fo 50 quid but discounted season tickets may be viable with little loss and long term benefits.

 

They are running a tight ship and it's hard to be critical of that but on the other hand they must've have also realised that it was not a money making business as things stand, They didn't buy us because they love the club or the the town, they bought us primerily as a business opportunity - hence the new stand(s), It is possible that a re-structuring of pricing is beneficial to all parties, keep day admission the same and look at options of discounted books. The club loses money every week, this is a business to the TTA and crowds aren't going to get better unless there is some changes - The TTA aren't going to be happy unless crowds improve. They are not going to fund this club with no forseeable return. they will be looking at changes - guaranteed

 

[rudemedic]

City selling tickets at such and such a price compared with ours is one of the annoying things about football at the moment. They are not the first club in the area to bring prices down to a level very similar to ours but they are the nearest. There is nothing much TTA/whoever can do about it though. The Premier League is taking advantage of the money they get from TV deals/bottom less pits of owners and bringing down prices to a level similar to that of teams two leagues below. If your somone just looking to watch a game of football or watch some games of football in a season then most people will pay that slightly bit more (and in some cases less) to watch a game of premiership quality than league 1 quality (and some of our games have struggled to be that good recently). Those who have chosen their club and will support their club through thick and thin will decide can I afford this? If the answers yes, they'll buy a ticket; if the answers no, they won't. I can't see myself buying a season ticket for a good few years simply because I don't go to enough games for it to be worthwhile. It wouldn't matter to me that Newcastle/sunderland/boro are selling their tickets for tuppance hapeny I still wouldn't go- I'm an Oldham fan first, a football fan second (I'm not saying I wouldn't watch another team just not one in the professional leagues).

 

The FA needs to do something about this now, not in 5 years time, now and my first thought would be for the good of english football is to stop taking ridiculous sums of money from Sky to show the games. I don't see this is coincidence that just as a new sky deal is announced City drop their prices. The players are overpaid (for the most part) but that's the market we live in and unless FIFA (it would have to be them to make it stick) wants to introduce a salary cap then we aren't going to change that. The only other way for those teams in a higher league to charge more than those teams in a lower league is to introduce some rule (which would probably go against fair trade laws) to say just that.

 

TTA are the guys that have made their money and been successful in business, they are the ones with the accurate figures (not just fairly accurate best guesses) and its them who stand to loose the most money. If they think Oldham can run at an appropriate level charging less than they do now I think they might do it, if they think we need to charge more (if £20 over a year makes that much difference to your finances then maybe you shouldn't be going now) they will do. I can't see the club loosing too many ticket buying customers if they put the price up- those that want to go watch City/whoever else will do- as almost all of our fans will stay watching the team unless we go down (which is highly unlikely now). The ticket pricing situation and best ways to maximise profits (or more appropriately eliminate losses) is one that gets talked about on here fairly reguarly and I don't have anything more to add at this time. I can see the positives and negatives in reducing ticket prices, keeping ticket prices the same and putting them up (I would probably choose the last one if I was forced to). This move by City might have one positive effect though- if City sell out their games then it doesn't matter how much they charge, there will be some City fans unable to go (and with prices being cheaper this would happen easier). One city fan going to watch Oldham because he can't go to watch City is an extra bit of money for us. He could be a big die hard City fan but if he can't get a ticket he can't get a ticket then maybe he might go watch Oldham instead of watching Jeff and his friends on a saturday.

[opinions4u]

Lots of good points raised in this thread.

 

Player's wages are the key to it all.

 

When we're talking about paying some £4k a week, we're not really living in the real world are we? - not on attendances that end up falling below 4,000 a week if times get significantly tougher.

 

Regionalised football might knock £100 a fortnight off the cost of a coach, or even £500 off an overnight stay for the team sharing rooms in a Yeovil Travelodge, but you are talking about the equivalent of 25 fans at the next home game to recoup that money. It will never be a genuine financial saviour for the game even with marginally bigger crowds.

 

The arguments around lower league football's long term survival were the same in the 80s recession. Most clubs did survive for the long term. Then they jacked up their prices significantly ahead of inflation and handed all that extra income to the players.

 

If revenue drops for all teams, well managed clubs will manage down the costs of players' contract renewals. Most (not all) of the players at BP would still earn above national average wage (£30kish) if their incomes were halved. There would still be professional football in towns like Oldham - and for the players a contract renewal offering a living wage is still better than no contract at all.

 

There are dangers of income falling dramatically faster than costs can be cut, but most clubs will have backers who can cushion them through this.

Edited February 11, 2009 by opinions4u

[Corporal_Jones]

Lots of good points raised in this thread.

 

Player's wages are the key to it all.

 

When we're talking about paying some £4k a week, we're not really living in the real world are we? - not on attendances that end up falling below 4,000 a week if times get significantly tougher.

 

Regionalised football might knock £100 a fortnight off the cost of a coach, or even £500 off an overnight stay for the team sharing rooms in a Yeovil Travelodge, but you are talking about the equivalent of 25 fans at the next home game to recoup that money. It will never be a genuine financial saviour for the game even with marginally bigger crowds.

 

The arguments around lower league football's long term survival were the same in the 80s recession. Most clubs did survive for the long term. Then they jacked up their prices significantly ahead of inflation and handed all that extra income to the players.

 

If revenue drops for all teams, well managed clubs will manage down the costs of players' contract renewals. Most (not all) of the players at BP would still earn above national average wage (£30kish) if their incomes were halved. There would still be professional football in towns like Oldham - and for the players a contract renewal offering a living wage is still better than no contract at all.

 

There are dangers of income falling dramatically faster than costs can be cut, but most clubs will have backers who can cushion them through this.

 

 

 

It would be interesting to see what happens in the kind of situation you describe. Those players who have been used to earning thousands a week at this level but are not quite good enough to play at the level above will be forced to either accept what's on offer or else try to make themselves attractive to the handful of bigger clubs in this division who will be able to continue to pay daft wages. This could result in a situation where those bigger clubs who come down almost automatically go straight back up, with the rest hardly getting a look in.

 

[edhunteruk]

Lots of good points raised in this thread.

 

Player's wages are the key to it all.

 

When we're talking about paying some £4k a week, we're not really living in the real world are we? - not on attendances that end up falling below 4,000 a week if times get significantly tougher.

 

Regionalised football might knock £100 a fortnight off the cost of a coach, or even £500 off an overnight stay for the team sharing rooms in a Yeovil Travelodge, but you are talking about the equivalent of 25 fans at the next home game to recoup that money. It will never be a genuine financial saviour for the game even with marginally bigger crowds.

 

The arguments around lower league football's long term survival were the same in the 80s recession. Most clubs did survive for the long term. Then they jacked up their prices significantly ahead of inflation and handed all that extra income to the players.

 

If revenue drops for all teams, well managed clubs will manage down the costs of players' contract renewals. Most (not all) of the players at BP would still earn above national average wage (£30kish) if their incomes were halved. There would still be professional football in towns like Oldham - and for the players a contract renewal offering a living wage is still better than no contract at all.

 

There are dangers of income falling dramatically faster than costs can be cut, but most clubs will have backers who can cushion them through this.

 

 

dont know if its feasable or not,but i think all clubs concerned outside of the premiership,should get together and try and sort some sort of deal out for tv revenue or something similar....a lot of people watched our game on saturday and said how refreshing it was to watch an honest game of football without all the pretences of the greedy league and the supposedly better players.

 

the greedy league,like it or not need the lower leagues,for the league cup and the fa cup,so surely the clubs could try to sort something out.

 

a lot of premier league clubs will reduce season tickets,would they still reduce them if they wasnt getting tv money???

 

the trouble with city is it could affect our attendance,in as much as any floater or floaters kids would much rather see robhinio,ronaldo and other top stars playing rather than chris taylor or mark allott,thats a fact.

 

promotion is a must this season for so many reasons...if we go up the club can justify putting prices up,better product on the pitch bigger away followings and hopefully a few more stay aways comming back etc etc,,maybe even sign scholes and put a few extra on the gate...

 

dont go up,and we will have to sell players,we will lose the likes of hughes and windass,we will have to reduce the playing budget wich in turns reflects on the kind of players we will be able to attract,and a heavy relience on youth,meaning a sustainable push for promotion would be out the question.

 

every year we get this debate over ticket prices etc etc....this year i really feel the club,should conduct market research in and across the town regarding what people think is an acceptable amount to pay for season ticket and match day prices,this way they would get a good picture of what the people of oldham really think.

instead they may just talk amongst themself and decide a 5% increase is needed and hope that the hardcore season ticket holders will accept it.

 

i dont think they can justify raising the pay on the day to £22,think they would see a sharp fall in those fans deciding not to bother.

 

i think if they knew they could guarentee 8 to 9k they may be tempted to do some sort of deal.

 

incidently,all those that got cheap season tickets in the rre,i doubt that will be the case next season,it was only done as to not displace fans too much whilst demolition of a rotting stand took place,think they will be more in line with other stands next season,that also could have an effect.

[spadam]

Looking at a wider view, not just Latics, maybe it is time for the lower league clubs to revert back to regional leagues(as pre 1960 Third Divisions North & South). There would be no need for overnight stays for the teams therefore reducing expense and more derby matches which should bring in bigger crowds producing more revenue.

 

I know all the die hard fans who go to every away game will not see many new grounds but the survival of all lower league clubs is more important.

 

Just a thought, what do others think?

Not sure about that. Were getting more non-league doing that. I don't think there is many if any clubs who will go under.

[Corporal_Jones]

I don't think there is many if any clubs who will go under.

 

 

 

Not immediately, but the long-term view for permanently loss-making lower league clubs is bleak indeed.

 

It's like the fall of the West or nuclear warfare and so on-just because it's been predicted for decades and hasn't happened, it doesn't matter that it won't one day.