General Wolves News

[Squeak]

Do you think that's comparable?

Approximately 2 hrs of entertainment.

 

[jd1981]

I'm in Orlando at the moment. The Lion King has just started playing. I quite fancied going along. Matinee performance at 1pm tomorrow... cheapest ticket $140.00 for a seat in the God's. #perspective

Yes but you won’t be seeing it 19 times a year will you it’s kind of a one off type thing.
If you’re a tourist fan who can’t go every other week or it’s a one off thing you’ll pay a high price for it.
Bit like me paying £120 for the family to go to Alton Towers I’m going at most twice a year not 2 times a month.

 

[jd1981]

A few melts saying “dont like the price don’t go”
My example is probably shared by a lot of people, I could afford to go but doing so would border on being irresponsible towards more important things like my daughters hobbies, family meals out and time out with my wife. It’s a one or the other scenario and I’ll always choose my family every time.

 

[Squeak]

Yes but you won’t be seeing it 19 times a year will you it’s kind of a one off type thing.
If you’re a tourist fan who can’t go every other week or it’s a one off thing you’ll pay a high price for it.
Bit like me paying £120 for the family to go to Alton Towers I’m going at most twice a year not 2 times a month.

All relative isn't it? DW is talking about spending £50 on a one off game... but I do get his point that it is obscene. However, given what some of these players are on, you need 2,000 fans paying £50 to cover a £100,000 a week player. Given our capacity, you can kind of see why they charge what they do to see these players... although some of them are rank shite.

And yes, absolutely I 100% agree with your point about being responsible for your family first. I'm very sorry that you don't get to do what you love so much, next to them, more often.

 

[jd1981]

All relative isn't it? DW is talking about spending £50 on a one off game... but I do get his point that it is obscene. However, given what some of these players are on, you need 2,000 fans paying £50 to cover a £100,000 a week player. Given our capacity, you can kind of see why they charge what they do to see these players... although some of them are rank shite.

And yes, absolutely I 100% agree with your point about being responsible for your family first. I'm very sorry that you don't get to do what you love so much, next to them, more often.

It gives me the chance to do other things I love doing which is why they’ll probably never get me back paying regularly. It’s huge misconception that our owners and other owners have that fans only have football as a hobby. The moment you make it a choice of one or the other then most will turn their back on attending games and choose a far more cheaper option. ie I pay national trust £13 a month which allows the whole family to visit some great places and go on long walks with the dog which we all enjoy.
Retrieving lost fans is very hard, yes they’ll do the odd game but putting money back in on regular basis isn’t going to happen.
To add I think the £100million minimum in tv money covers the wages.
If you’ve got say 20k STH paying an average of £650 a season works out at £13million.
Reduce it to £450 a year works out at £9million. Is it worth £4million a year to push more people away? Nothing more than a money grab.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

If ticket money were that much of a factor in paying the bills then Bournemouth would have to charge about £190 a game to be competitive.

They don't of course because it isn't that much of a factor.

We charge what we do because we know enough people (for now, just about, in demographics that are worrying long-term) will pay it, and the supine local media won't do anything about it.

In fact the Rioja swilling wanker in charge of the local paper's sport output actively applauds them for it.

 

[Squeak]

It gives me the chance to do other things I love doing which is why they’ll probably never get me back paying regularly. It’s huge misconception that our owners and other owners have that fans only have football as a hobby. The moment you make it a choice of one or the other then most will turn their back on attending games and choose a far more cheaper option. ie I pay national trust £13 a month which allows the whole family to visit some great places and go on long walks with the dog which we all enjoy.
Retrieving lost fans is very hard, yes they’ll do the odd game but putting money back in on regular basis isn’t going to happen.
To add I think the £100million minimum in tv money covers the wages.
If you’ve got say 20k STH paying an average of £650 a season works out at £13million.
Reduce it to £450 a year works out at £9million. Is it worth £4million a year to push more people away? Nothing more than a money grab.

Totally understand and get it.

As regards the £4million, the obvious answer is yes if the stadium is full to capacity most games. There's actually an argument to say you are underpricing if demand outstrips supply in a significant way.

 

[Squeak]

If ticket money were that much of a factor in paying the bills then Bournemouth would have to charge about £190 a game to be competitive.

They don't of course because it isn't that much of a factor.

We charge what we do because we know enough people (for now, just about, in demographics that are worrying long-term) will pay it, and the supine local media won't do anything about it.

In fact the Rioja swilling wanker in charge of the local paper's sport output actively applauds them for it.

Yeah but we've had this argument before. The club has received negative vibes because commercial income hasn't really improved yet when match day ticket income improves, everyone is up in arms because it directly affects them. Sure, TV money probably does cover the wages / salaries but clubs need a variety of income streams and I simply don't get the argument that they don't need the extra revenue they raise by putting ticket prices up. There is a balance and given the supply and demand for this season, Shi is probably satisfied with his decision. I know you won't like that but that's very likely the reality.

 

[Alan]

And would you believe it? Almost all of our revenue comes from being in the PL broadcasts.

 

[KiwiWolf61]

It's still 64% (minimum) more expensive than it was in 2018.

There's no congratulating them on prices, they're a disgrace. They were a disgrace in July and they're a disgrace now. I've just paid £48.50 to watch a nothing end-of-season game tomorrow, now that's on me, that's my choice, I can afford it, it is ridiculous money though.

Christ that's ridiculous - that's over $100AUD or $110NZ for one game.

I know it's not apples for apples but an AFL general admin adult price at the MCG is $27.

 

[leedswolf]

Christ that's ridiculous - that's over $100AUD or $110NZ for one game.

I know it's not apples for apples but an AFL general admin adult price at the MCG is $27.

$27 to see guys with mullets running around and bumping into each other whilst wearing singlets and their sisters' shorts is an absolute bargain

The 'big boof' is out. What data reveals about football's hair trends

The ABC analyses the headshots and hairstyles of all AFL players in the 2024 season to definitively answer: is the mullet back?

www.abc.net.au

 

[jd1981]

And would you believe it? Almost all of our revenue comes from being in the PL broadcasts.

And would you believe it? Almost all of our revenue comes from being in the PL broadcasts.

The graph just shows having lower tickets cost wouldn’t really affect the yearly income significantly.
As we all know the biggest problem for clubs outside the super 6 is generating commercial income.
Coming a 4-5 places higher in the league is just as beneficial to us income wise compared to match day income.
It also tells you if the sky super 6 organise themselves better it wouldn’t be hard form them to retain their top order again.
Just wish they’d been this much of a mess around 2018 to 2020.

 

[Alan]

The graph just shows having lower tickets cost wouldn’t really affect the yearly income significantly.

Yes, that was my point.

Well, that, and that matchday revenue is nigh on a rounding error in the face of the broadcast distributions, which are just going to go up.

 

[AndyWolves]

It also shows the gulf between the top 6 and the rest across the board in terms of income.

Considering man united get the second most in terms of revenue they've been spectacularly shit. Unfortunately their resources mean they have a shit floor (as opposed to a glass ceiling) which means it's unlikely they'll ever drop out the PL. Even if they employed Bruno Lage and GoN in a job share

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

Yeah but we've had this argument before. The club has received negative vibes because commercial income hasn't really improved yet when match day ticket income improves, everyone is up in arms because it directly affects them. Sure, TV money probably does cover the wages / salaries but clubs need a variety of income streams and I simply don't get the argument that they don't need the extra revenue they raise by putting ticket prices up. There is a balance and given the supply and demand for this season, Shi is probably satisfied with his decision. I know you won't like that but that's very likely the reality.

It's not that I don't like it, it's that it isn't rooted in reality and as a long term strategy it's damaging.

The money we received as a result of Leicester and Southampton going back up and not receiving parachute payments this year (money we couldn't possibly have budgeted for as it's out of our control) is more than last year's ST hike will have brought in.

They didn't need to do it, they chose to do it. If you're bothered about balancing the books then don't spend £10m on a 31 year old goalkeeper who dives like a Subbuteo man.

 

[Squeak]

It's not that I don't like it, it's that it isn't rooted in reality and as a long term strategy it's damaging.

The money we received as a result of Leicester and Southampton going back up and not receiving parachute payments this year (money we couldn't possibly have budgeted for as it's out of our control) is more than last year's ST hike will have brought in.

They didn't need to do it, they chose to do it. If you're bothered about balancing the books then don't spend £10m on a 31 year old goalkeeper who dives like a Subbuteo man.

I totally get what you are saying but that's not how business works. I understand that they didn't need to do it but the fact is, they could do it because they had a customer base ready, willing and able to pay it. The club is not a charity.

Shi has a duty to his paymasters to maximise revenue from every revenue stream possible. Of course, that makes him deeply unpopular with the fan base affected by the increase.

As for long term and being damaging. Very arguable. If they don't bring in the revenue when there is a demand that outstrips supply, when do they do it? The issue, for me, isn't about increasing the prices but how do they still keep those people involved who simply cannot afford it? But how do you cater for those less well off when you have a stadium full of fans paying the higher price?

One answer is to expand the stadium so you are able to offer more price points for less desirable seats. It happens at a lot of stadia in the US. I don't see us doing that with Fosun in charge as they seem to be satisfied with their lot at the moment and have realised that to compete at the top of the game simply costs too much and is a big risk.

 

[jd1981]

Facebook full of Fosun defenders this morning. Bloke on there who is an ACA apparently saying the ticket prices are needed for essential income. Showed him the graph that Alan pulled up and he said I’d not included ground running costs in that. Pointed out that every club has that,

 

[Alan]

Facebook full of Fosun defenders this morning. Bloke on there who is an ACA apparently saying the ticket prices are needed for essential income. Showed him the graph that Alan pulled up and he said I’d not included ground running costs in that. Pointed out that every club has that,

The PL also pays out “Facilities” money to help cover that. I don’t know how that number is determined (it’s not an equal payout for each club), but last season we got £15.2m from the PL under that category.

 

[jd1981]

The PL also pays out “Facilities” money to help cover that. I don’t know how that number is determined (it’s not an equal payout for each club), but last season we got £15.2m from the PL under that category.

Probably covers VAR costs and certain regs we need to comply with to be PL standard ground.

 

[Alan]

Yeah, that feels logical.

Regardless, seems pretty clear that the idea of matchday revenue being significant to the club’s bottom line is a fantasy.