While SWP's Back's example was a bit extreme I have indeed said on a number of occasions that I believe the suits would rather see us sell fewer tickets at a higher price than fill the ground at a lower price. So I'd say they'd rather see us sell 40,000 @ £50 than 54,000 @ £35Nothing wrong with the maths at all, @Prestwich_Blue has been pointing this out for a long time, hence my flippant response. You do have a point though, in that it may force the higher-ups to actually consider this.
Unless you sit in the third tier with your family, friends and fans you've sat around and chatted with for several years in which case it's a bit crap.No offence but when we can't fill the ground like on Wednesday the third tier should be closed. No point in spreading the fans out as it only worsens the atmosphere.
No doubt that is the case, otherwise prices would be lower. I don't get the logic. Lower ticket prices to attract 54,000 would probably makes less money, but throw in lower food and drink prices and people would probably make up the shortfall. I bet there are plenty who would have several pints at reasonable prices who won't even have one just on principle. Yes, it probably doesn't improve the bottom line in the short term, though it is possible they might increase profits a bit. I'm sure, though, that creating 54,000 people who regularly spend significantly attracts more people to do the same. More fans buying the cheaper tickets, more attendees buying the cheaper food and drinks. As far as I can see the Amazon rule applies in that, for a given profit level, the more customers the better. Sometimes increasing customers is more beneficial in the long run than increasing profits is.While SWP's Back's example was a bit extreme I have indeed said on a number of occasions that I believe the suits would rather see us sell fewer tickets at a higher price than fill the ground at a lower price. So I'd say they'd rather see us sell 40,000 @ £50 than 54,000 @ £35
Add to that - Habit.No doubt that is the case, otherwise prices would be lower. I don't get the logic. Lower ticket prices to attract 54,000 would probably makes less money, but throw in lower food and drink prices and people would probably make up the shortfall. I bet there are plenty who would have several pints at reasonable prices who won't even have one just on principle. Yes, it probably doesn't improve the bottom line in the short term, though it is possible they might increase profits a bit. I'm sure, though, that creating 54,000 people who regularly spend significantly attracts more people to do the same. More fans buying the cheaper tickets, more attendees buying the cheaper food and drinks. As far as I can see the Amazon rule applies in that, for a given profit level, the more customers the better. Sometimes increasing customers is more beneficial in the long run than increasing profits is.
Yes, absolutely no doubt. Get everyone into the habit of attending games and they will get the bug. The whole thing is a cycle. Premier League clubs have the wrong idea as far as I can see. So many of them could probably sustain much larger stadia if they got pricing right. You can then add concert revenue and the like on top if you've added 20,000 seats.Add to that - Habit.
Going to live games becomes a habit. You go to a few affordable ones and want to go to more.
Decisions around football getting ridiculous these days.
Still annoying me they changed the rule of kick off where you can have 1 player now - just make the game look more like land hockey or something. Might seem trivial but that's a traditional aesthetic of the game they did away with.
Seems to be a trend at the moment that everyone's got to find something to change to justify their wage packet.
ThisWhen teams donn't take all 3 tiers, we shouldn't sell thier 3rd tier until the rest of the ground had sold out