quiet_riot
Well-Known Member
Yeh I've read your argument with him,
It wasn't an argument, it was a discussion. Despite @SWP's back's condescending tone ;)
Yeh I've read your argument with him,
It wasn't an argument, it was a discussion. Despite @SWP's back's condescending tone ;)
Think he meant the argument with the fella that didn't understand his graph. Or how inflation worked.It wasn't an argument, it was a discussion. Despite @SWP's back's condescending tone ;)
Think he meant the argument with the fella that didn't understand his graph. Or how inflation worked.
:-)
Totally agree. Match day income is no longer a major point. It would make better sense to lower prices and get bums on seats (rather than sell outs with a few thousand not attending)
I would of course prefer to see lower prices too but the problem is though, if people aren't attending after paying high prices for tickets, why would more of them attend after paying lower prices? It should theoretically be that people would be more likely to attend after paying more for the ticket.
If we were failing to sell out, I could understand why they would reduce prices but I don't see that reducing them would necessarily mean more bums on seats.
Yeah. I said similar a year or two ago and got lynched on here.I would of course prefer to see lower prices too but the problem is though, if people aren't attending after paying high prices for tickets, why would more of them attend after paying lower prices? It should theoretically be that people would be more likely to attend after paying more for the ticket.
If we were failing to sell out, I could understand why they would reduce prices but I don't see that reducing them would necessarily mean more bums on seats.