Arsenal home November sold out

Discussion in 'Bluemoon forum' started by xgorton, 7 Aug 2017.

  1. Prestwich_Blue


    26 Jan 2006
    Wherever I lay my hat that's my home
    In one sense you're absolutely right of course but CB's point was that we should accept these things on the basis that they're for the good of the club and the impact on the individual shouldn't be a factor but that depends on the context.

    If United Airlines were in a desperate financial situation and Munoz gave CB and his fellow pilots a choice of losing 25% of their jobs or suffering no staff losses but losing 25% of their income then they might well be grateful to accept the latter offer.

    But if UA was increasing profits and the samr thing happened then they'd probably feel hard done by.

    If City want the ground to be full and the crowd to generate a great atmosphere then it has to recognise that isn't going to happen with more and more premium seats and shunting the cheaper seats to the extremities of the stadium.
  2. SWP's back

    SWP's back

    29 Jun 2009
    by the pool
    Can't disagree with you on those things no.
  3. SWP's back

    SWP's back

    29 Jun 2009
    by the pool
    You're absolutely right on that part of course.
  4. UUJblue


    29 Mar 2011
    Confirmed 2.15pm Kick off on Sunday 5th Nov
  5. Marvin


    9 Jan 2006
    Seems very evident that City are pursuing a strategy of maximising revenue whilst maintaining a full stadium. It's what most commercial organisations will do.

    I don't see why anyone would object to wealthy people paying a lot of money for comfort. it's the bulk of the season ticket offering that affects most fans. 85% of City's home fans watch League games with a season ticket. If you wanted to analyse whether there's gentrification going on then you need to find out how the weighted income from the different pricing categories has changed. The whole of the South Stand which is about 10,000 seats accounting for away fans has good value season tickets. I sit in the first 3 rows in the East Stand, and I have a great seat which is a bargain. Less than I paid from the South Stand in the 2nd tier before the extension.

    Prices have gone up. But I am watching fantastic football, and I don't feel ripped off. I know that the fans who sit near me think the same, but we are in discounted seats. I paid £485 for my season ticket.
  6. aka blue jambo

    aka blue jambo

    2 Nov 2008
  7. Shaelumstash


    30 Apr 2009
    You seem to be applying free market economics to football club support, which doesn't really make sense. It's not like doing the weekly shop - if you can't afford Waitrose you can make the decision to go to Aldi. You pay your money, you take your choice. But if someone can not afford to go to watch City any more, they are not going to go and support Bolton instead because it's what they can afford.

    There are thousands of City fans who have supported the club for decades who supported us when we were shite - down to the 3rd division, right up to being champions. It makes no difference if we are absolutely shite, or the best team in the country, their loyalty and dedication remains exactly the same. Now you're saying if their wages haven't increased in line with City's ticket price inflation, fuck them, they should have made different education / career choices. I think you're being a bit heartless.

    Not everyone follows the dogma that the only purpose in life is to make as much money as you possibly can. Some choose paths that are based around caring for their own family, or wider society. Carers, nurses, teachers etc. None of those professions have had pay increases in line with City's ticket increases. And you're saying fuck them people, they should have gone to work for the bank instead. A very shallow view of the world.

    Of course football tickets shouldn't be looked at as a right like health care or education. But to compare it to other "leisure pursuits" like going to festivals or the ballet is just absolutely ridiculous. You stick with your football club for life, it's part of who you are. It's more like a religion than a leisure pursuit.

    I appreciate all tickets can't be subsidised, the club have to make money, there should be choice and different options for different budgets. But if someone has to pay £85 for membership / ticket for the lowest priced option for the Everton game, while their wage hasn't increased in real terms since the same ticket was £30, then something is wrong there. And for you to dismiss those people with a wave of your hand and a suggestion they should have made different life choices is not what I'd expect from a City fan, and certainly not one from Manchester (assuming you originally are).
  8. blueparrot


    7 Jun 2012
    Lowest option for Everton is for a non Cityzen and is £45. or they can go to the Palace game for £35, no Cityzen membership required.
  9. ChicagoBlue


    10 Jan 2009
    Maybe you forgot, but a recent CEO cut my pay by FIFTY (50) PERCENT, CUT MY BENEFITS AND TOOK AWAY MY PENSION, and then got $40M for doing it?!

    And, who would be OK with that?

    However, the other 7 Billion people on earth just got on with their lives, and City didn't send me a condolences letter and a free ticket, so I got on with mine, changed my life accordingly, kept on working hard, and here we are....
    Last edited: 11 Aug 2017
  10. ChicagoBlue


    10 Jan 2009
    What I am saying is that life changes, life around our lives changes, we adjust. Because City is so important to some, I assume they make adjustments to allow themselves to go to games, until they can't. What to do? Do we subsidize ticket costs? Make some tickets cheaper? You know, like £300 for a season ticket....that's a ticket to every home game for £15.79! And, with the ability to sell a few of those to offset costs if £8/wk is too much.

    I'm all for City making season tickets cheaper, but I'm realistic enough to know that I should probably not going to happen on a widespread basis, especially given the levels of investment at the club.

    When City were shit, was itrelatively cheaper to watch them? Sure! Why were they shit? Maybe because they didn't have the investment needed to buy the players the likes of United, Liverpool and the rest were buying?! Circular argument, isn't it?!

    I think City do a good job of keeping a portion of season tickets as inexpensive as any around. They don't allow you to sit with your mates, they don't throw in a beer or a pie or a shirt, but they make it about as cheap as a packet of fags every week. Is that cheap enough? I'm not the one to say.

    As for my applying the free market to tickets, I'm not, nor is City. If either of us were, then there wouldn't be £299 season tickets and there would be an auction for tickets. However, I would note that the club is running a global business and they DO have to live in a world where free market principles apply. In fact, we hear about them being applied to City by fans all the why City don't make £750M from their short sponsor, for example.

    Everyone understands the concept, but some people don't like it applied to their slice of the pie. I don't make the rules. City don't listen to me when they set ticket prices, and they don't ask me how they should price anything. I'm simply an observer of what they do, and am trying to explain why.

    I have no dog in the hunt, so fire away.....

Share This Page