There's a difference between being priced out of something and not being happy to pay the amount. I would think at a push your average fan could afford to spend £80 on a pair of gloves, they probably wouldn't bother though because there would almost certainly always be something they'd be happier to spend £80 on than a pair of Manchester City gloves, unless they're a fucking maniac.It certainly doesn't bother me in the least ..... Just wondering if the average income fan is priced out of £80 for a pair of gloves etc or happy to pay such.
Well said.FWIW cost price estimates of these Polo shirt circa £8-12 Coat £25-35 White shirt £15-25
Spent 15 years working buying selling tat like this, nicely packaged so add a couple of quid to each
Why does it bother some people what others spend their money on
Many blues?If you take a look in off topic, there is a thread there about expensive watches where many, many blue confess to owning watches worth a several thousand pounds. Not all blues are living in cardboard boxes raiding bins for their next meal. Lots of folk spend silly money on clothes/footwear with certain logos on them.
Many blues?
A number of them yes on a internet forum.
Not everyone has access to the internet.
Not every city supporter is even aware of this message forum.
I speak with City/Football fans regularly (its part of my job) and many don't attend matches with one of their reasons being due to cost.
They could be lying yes but when it seems a significant proportion of people in the area I'm talking to who say they support city as their team yet don't attend games due to the cost....
One does wonder about the financial gap between fans who are on the internet, have the disposable income to buy tickets, buy nice clothing and a decent watch.
And then the city fan who hasn't been to a game for many years, doesn't own a decent watch, doesn't have internet access and so on.
The change in the fan demographic has been gradually occurring with measures such as membership schemes, different types of seating areas and so on.
Fair enough to city as they have introduced pay per month interest free facilities for season tickets and also have offered the £299 Deals but overall I feel the club has gone for a specific demographic which has an higher disposable income and thus would increase profit at the club... In favour of a more traditional fan who wouldn't spend the same amounts of money.
Are the club wrong to do this?
They are a business so no.
Their goal is to make money.
But the downside is the stadium will ever increasingly have more smartly dressed families who will eat hospitality food, won't create atmosphere and remain all happy clappy.
Amongst this demographic being the tourists.
This isn't my idea of attending a football match.
I actually pay to go because I want the atmosphere.
That shit I can do without and I'd rather just sit at home and watch the match rather than be sat amongst daytrippers.
I'm sure the club will be happy to read this however as then a new seat is created to place a tourist in who would pay double than I do.
Nope... I wouldn't be seen dead in those chavvy brands.No aqua, stone island, Henry Lloyd etc etc for you then
You sound like you view folk who are happy to spend money and thus support the club financially as less worthy of being City fans than the people you mention here.Many blues?
A number of them yes on a internet forum.
Not everyone has access to the internet.
Not every city supporter is even aware of this message forum.
I speak with City/Football fans regularly (its part of my job) and many don't attend matches with one of their reasons being due to cost.
They could be lying yes but when it seems a significant proportion of people in the area I'm talking to who say they support city as their team yet don't attend games due to the cost....
One does wonder about the financial gap between fans who are on the internet, have the disposable income to buy tickets, buy nice clothing and a decent watch.
And then the city fan who hasn't been to a game for many years, doesn't own a decent watch, doesn't have internet access and so on.
The change in the fan demographic has been gradually occurring with measures such as membership schemes, different types of seating areas and so on.
Fair enough to city as they have introduced pay per month interest free facilities for season tickets and also have offered the £299 Deals but overall I feel the club has gone for a specific demographic which has an higher disposable income and thus would increase profit at the club... In favour of a more traditional fan who wouldn't spend the same amounts of money.
Are the club wrong to do this?
They are a business so no.
Their goal is to make money.
But the downside is the stadium will ever increasingly have more smartly dressed families who will eat hospitality food, won't create atmosphere and remain all happy clappy.
Amongst this demographic being the tourists.
This isn't my idea of attending a football match.
I actually pay to go because I want the atmosphere.
That shit I can do without and I'd rather just sit at home and watch the match rather than be sat amongst daytrippers.
I'm sure the club will be happy to read this however as then a new seat is created to place a tourist in who would pay double than I do.