£48

Post a reply

Smilies
:goodpost: :lol: :rofl: :goal: :scarf: :keepie: :clap: :bow: :engflag: :-P :) :-D :nod: ;-) :-/ :( :'( :Z :@ :| :oops: :yellow: :red: :O :whistle: (*) (8) (D)

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is OFF
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: £48

Re: £48

by Mav » 22 Dec 2010, 08:03

Ref Boxing day and the prices, considering it's a public holiday and that potentially families wish to be together. I think £48 is a little steep, If the club had been a little switched on perhaps a special offer on a family ticket (say 2 adults and 2 children) at a cost of say £33 may well have encouraged more people to turn up than those who stay away. It would not overly effect the overall revenue as the cost is still equivelent to 2 adults, but by in effect letting kids in free you could encourage families to turn up as against sitting in front of the tv wishing they hadn't eaten so much!

Re: £48

by PlainmoorRoar » 22 Dec 2010, 00:34

i liked the Rotherham idea of a Season ticket holder can bring 2 'friends' along for £5 each

Re: £48

by SuperNickyWroe » 21 Dec 2010, 22:48

happytorq wrote: That game will probably be of equal quality to the Torquay game. Have you seen West Ham this season? *shudder*

£30.50 for sky sports is a bargain - i pay about $150 a month for my DirecTV here in Connecticut, although I pay extra for Fox Soccer and Fox Soccer Plus (formerly setanta), and i have Showtime, although I'll probably cancel that now Dexter has finished.

Best value has to be the BBC, surely? I know people complain about the license fee, but I think it does a pretty good job on the whole.
dont think it will even be that good.

and i do feel guilty about giving sky £60 odd a month and knowing that money for footie goes to the prem. :Oops:

i suppose we are that way in great britain where we pay and dont kick up a fuss.

has anyone asked sky for a reduction??

i know many of us did that to setanta!! :lol: and looked what happened there!! :lol: :Oops:

i think £48 aint that bad, its about £75 to watch the "legends" :lol: of barnsley at oakwell for us 4 in the SNW household.........

somebody on the bbc footie forum who was a stockport fan (poor s*d!) suggested that they should let fans pay what they think the teams performance merited.

interesting idea, but i do feel that there would be one or two bankrupt clubs out there!

Re: £48

by happytorq » 21 Dec 2010, 21:40

Oh, and another poor value must be the $80 that Umbro is charging for a New York Cosmos shirt.

The NY Cosmos, the team that closed down in the mid-80s. They don't even have a team, and they're selling shirts. If I see anybody wearing one, I shall give them a slap from each of you, have no fear.

Re: £48

by happytorq » 21 Dec 2010, 21:39

UpminsterGull wrote:By way of comparison, Fulham v West Ham is £49 for the cheapest seats.
That game will probably be of equal quality to the Torquay game. Have you seen West Ham this season? *shudder*

£30.50 for sky sports is a bargain - i pay about $150 a month for my DirecTV here in Connecticut, although I pay extra for Fox Soccer and Fox Soccer Plus (formerly setanta), and i have Showtime, although I'll probably cancel that now Dexter has finished.

Best value has to be the BBC, surely? I know people complain about the license fee, but I think it does a pretty good job on the whole.

Re: £48

by UpminsterGull » 21 Dec 2010, 21:29

By way of comparison, Fulham v West Ham is £49 for the cheapest seats.

Re: £48

by Scott Brehaut » 21 Dec 2010, 19:14

ferrarilover wrote:Nope.

To save time, nor is it Life, Liberty and the Persuit of Happiness.

Matt.
What about life, liberty and fruit of the loom? :scarf:

Re: £48

by ferrarilover » 21 Dec 2010, 17:09

Nope.

To save time, nor is it Life, Liberty and the Persuit of Happiness.

Matt.

Re: £48

by Trojan 67 » 21 Dec 2010, 17:05

ferrarilover wrote:
That said, the three greatest value products in the world?

I'm offering a prize to anyone who can tell me all three, in no particular order.

Matt.

Health, happiness and love.

Re: £48

by ferrarilover » 21 Dec 2010, 16:40

Nothing is cheap these days, I can accept that. I don't like it, but I can just about live with it. We live in the most expensive country on earth and we bend over and take it for the glory of being English (although it is a bloody tough job sometimes). What really gripes me is that nothing is good value for money anymore. It used to be (all of 10 or 12 years ago) that stuff was still more expensive in England than anywhere else, but at least it still represented reasonable value. £4 for a cinema ticket was still double what it cost in The States, but at least, for a 120 minute movie, it was decent enough value. Now, at £8 for a 120 minute movie, its appalling value.
I was looking up airline tickets to Florida this mornflake (for no good reason) and I was utterly apoplectic to find that US Airlines were happy to fly me from LHR to MCO (Heathrow to Orlando International) for £151 return. That's staggering value. Call it 6000 miles, that's a penny and a half per mile, in a 747, with a homosexual to feed me free champagne and offer me a warm, soothing towel. However, not content with the idea that I might like a good value holiday, That Nice Mr Cameron is demanding a further £252 per ticket in bloody tax. Suddenly, my reasonably priced holiday in the sun has gone from £151 to £403 in air fares alone. Now extrapilate this. I have a friend who I might like to take on this holiday to Florida. She has a house out there, so, our fortnight (at the tax free price) could be had for £700 all in, for two of us, over Christmas, lovely, excellent value. Now add on That Nice Mr Cameron's pound of flesh and suddenly the frigging flights alone come to £106 more then the whole fecking holiday.

GRRRRRRRRRRRR.

That said, the three greatest value products in the world?

I'm offering a prize to anyone who can tell me all three, in no particular order.

Matt.

Re: £48

by westbaygull » 21 Dec 2010, 13:00

It is dear to get into a game, but like numpte says, it costs a lot to do most things these days. If I were looking to do something with a family on Boxing Day, I wouldn't expect to get away with spending less than £50. The trouble is if it's a crap game and freezing cold, it seems like a waste of money compared to sitting in a cinema or pub. However, if we play well and it's an exciting game, it's worth every penny...

Re: £48

by numpte » 21 Dec 2010, 11:08

£48 - you could go to the cinema and have not much change out of £30 therefore i wouldn't say its a complete joke. Would rather go to a live event than sit in front of a slightly larger screen than that at home.

2 coffees a couple of kids hot chocs and a round of buns at Costa (packet) set me back £15 the other day, now that is a joke, or perhaps a bigger joke, what is the price to go up and down that baloon thing on the sea front for 10 mins.

Re: £48

by Trojan 67 » 21 Dec 2010, 10:52

Reducing prices starts a downward spiral that leads to adminstration/liquidation, especially when the offer brings in less net income.

The best any of us can do is to keep attending and to bring with us a lapsed supporter or two who for whatever reason has lost the habit of attending.

Yes, some are not attending because of financial pressures ; yes, some are not attending because of work/lifestyle changes. There is a multitude of other reasons. :rofl:

In my case I'd lost the habit of attending. It's frighting how quick that can happen. I'll admit it took a while to get used to watching again, especially winless runs. When I factored in other things that make up a matchday, attending games is now more than just the 90 minutes plus added time for stoppages that happens on the pitch. I see my bruv more regularly, there's a good craic with fellow fans around us on the Popside and I take the win, lose or draw in the stride for an enjoyable night on the Strand/Harbourside. (D)

Re: £48

by Gulliball » 21 Dec 2010, 09:57

If we halved our prices then we wouldn't double our gates. I won't go into the intricacies of price elasticity, but it's not as simple as you're suggesting to fill Plainmoor and maintain our income.

From looking at history as well as the board's initiatives this season, a drop in price doesn't increase the gate enough to make up the cost.

So filling the ground isn't really an option for us at the moment, as to do it we'd have to lose a lot of money - which we just don't have.

Re: £48

by Fletch » 21 Dec 2010, 09:47

MidDevon wrote:Assuming Torquay's capacity is 5,904 (now we have lost 200 capacity in the main stand)

3,567 was the biggest crowd of the season (Northampton) - Plainmoor was 60% full
2,167 was the lowest crowd of the season (Aldershot) - Plainmoor was 37% full

It is unlikely that any of the 3 rearranged games (Crewe, Burton, Rotherham) are going to make the ground more than half full, so that to me would be an ideal opportunity to attract new business

Your point about Blackburn is well made, no doubt people through the turnstiles are less important to them than a 4th division club, but the average man in the street does not care about that
Presumably that would be the same average man in the street that wanders around in his ManUre/Chelski/Gooners/TheivingScousers replica shirt and professes loyalty to his team cos he watches them every time they're on Sky?
Not sure what Sky rip you off for footie now but it cant be far off 2 matches a month (edit: its £30.50 a month if you get it in HD).
Personally speaking, I cancelled my Sky Sports during the summer and havnt missed it one bit!! For the limited times we're on it, I would sooner go watch it in the club and at least the club gets some cash off me over the bar :mrgreen:

Oh and dont Blackburn have a "flexible" pricing policy. Games against "crap" clubs are cheap to get in to watch. Games against the "big" clubs cost a lot more though.

Top